House 5D Finale first 2 minutes posted online

[Lammy]

I'd only watched it on a download on 720p but caught on it TV (Pal SD) and thought it looked fantastic. I bet 99% of people wouldn't think anything of it. In that sense, perfect tool for the job and a fine job it did.

Yup, looks amazing on SD too.

Also I've been a House fan since the very 1st episode. And the way the 5D was used here is so much better than the very 1st episode, which was shot on 35mm film, which looked really muted and soft in comparison to the later look imo!

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Yep, so far it looks fantastic.

I'll be the first naysayer and say it looks rather soft on my 1080p TV. It also apparently cost a fortune in post to fix, and they had to throw away a lot of shots.

I am not any more convinced than a was before - 5D = mediocre video cam embraced by non-pros with lowish standards who want to believe that 2K can buy you a pro tools because that's how much they have to spend - and a few oddballs with unusual needs like those of this episode (cramped small spaces)

I would also like to point out that this is the first piece of network TV with full-frame 5D video (24 has none, in fact, not one frame of anything other than blurred backgrounds) and that people still get turned down by even PBS when submitting 5D video because it looks low-res and aliased.

 

[Robert Ruffo]

Yup, looks amazing on SD too.

Also I've been a House fan since the very 1st episode. And the way the 5D was used here is so much better than the very 1st episode, which was shot on 35mm film, which looked really muted and soft in comparison to the later look imo!

We have moved on to HD - it does not look much better in HD - as such we have here a step backward in technology, away from actual HD to something that looks just like SD

 

[Revsta]

I'll be the first naysayer and say it looks rather soft on my 1080p TV. It also apparently cost a fortune in post to fix, and they had to throw away a lot of shots.

I am not any more convinced than a was before - 5D = mediocre video cam embraced by non-pros with lowish standards who want to believe that 2K can buy you a pro tools because that's how much they have to spend - and a few oddballs with unusual needs like those of this episode (cramped small spaces)

I would also like to point out that this is the first piece of network TV with full-frame 5D video (24 has none, in fact, not one frame of anything other than blurred backgrounds) and that people still get turned down by even PBS when submitting 5D video because it looks low-res and aliased.

Is this a joke? 1080p it looks brilliant. If you read the interviews with the Dp/Director they said they didn't throw away hardly any shots and I never saw any mention of costing a ton to fix in post. They had nothing but great things to say about the whole thing.

 

[Finnegan]

I just finished watching the House MD finale and I was pretty impressed with how well the Canon 5D held up against the rest of the series. However, I could definitely tell it was a different camera. Whether it was set design or production design I guess I'll never know, but the finale seemed quite a bit more colorful and saturated than the rest of the episodes particularly in this season. I've seen every single episode there is of House MD (it's one of my favorite shows) and this clearly stands out aesthetically from the rest - and I'm not sure that's a good thing or a bad thing in and of itself, it's just different.

To me, the footage seemed quite a bit more colorful. In addition, there were one or two shots where I was convinced I saw some artifacting, but it was SO mild it would have been impossible to spot to the average viewer and it very well could have been Hulu's compression/codec. Like all digital cameras, it did not handle hot spots and other highlights particularly well, and that was really noticeable since this much of this episode was underground. And is it just me, or was the depth of field TOO shallow at points? There are a couple shots in particular where the depth of field was RAZOR thin and it was totally distracting to me. The one I'll point out is where Thirteen and Taub are running some test in the lab, and Taub asks Thirteen about why she lied earlier on and she basically states that she's okay when she's not - there's a closeup of Taub where it seems like his eyeballs are in focus and his eye lashes are soft. And as you scan back towards his ears, it becomes increasingly soft to the point where I was literally totally distracted by it. It ALMOST felt like a psychological shot that is implied by focus manipulation. I really didn't like it.

However, overall I was REALLY impressed. I don't think that any cinematographer would flat out say it was BETTER in terms of image quality than the other digital cameras that are prevalent in television today, but its strengths were more than adequately displayed in this episode. Namely, there's no way you could get a RED into small, cramped spaces like that, or any other high end digital camera for that matter. And furthermore, the image quality is actually pretty good. Again, I wouldn't say it's better, or the best, but it certainly is usable and by and large untraceable to the general public. And in the end if film and television is about making profits, then cost reduction on the production end is greatly valued - and that's something the 5D offers.

 

[Kellar42]

I'll be the first naysayer and say it looks rather soft on my 1080p TV. It also apparently cost a fortune in post to fix, and they had to throw away a lot of shots.

I am not any more convinced than a was before - 5D = mediocre video cam embraced by non-pros with lowish standards who want to believe that 2K can buy you a pro tools because that's how much they have to spend - and a few oddballs with unusual needs like those of this episode (cramped small spaces)

I would also like to point out that this is the first piece of network TV with full-frame 5D video (24 has none, in fact, not one frame of anything other than blurred backgrounds) and that people still get turned down by even PBS when submitting 5D video because it looks low-res and aliased.

I'll agree that it seemed a bit soft in places, although I think this might have had to do with the extra-shallow depth of field. Also, it was better in iTunes HD on my full HD laptop screen than my 73" DLP on cable.

I'd like to see you cite sources before you talk about what it cost in post and everything you think they had to throw away. There has been no mention of any of this, aside from speculation on Red User. There was mention of this episode costing more than normal, but the thought is the big set they had to build likely contributed to this...

 

[BradM]

I'll be the first naysayer and say it looks rather soft on my 1080p TV. It also apparently cost a fortune in post to fix, and they had to throw away a lot of shots.

I am not any more convinced than a was before - 5D = mediocre video cam embraced by non-pros with lowish standards who want to believe that 2K can buy you a pro tools because that's how much they have to spend - and a few oddballs with unusual needs like those of this episode (cramped small spaces)

I would also like to point out that this is the first piece of network TV with full-frame 5D video (24 has none, in fact, not one frame of anything other than blurred backgrounds) and that people still get turned down by even PBS when submitting 5D video because it looks low-res and aliased.

Finally an unbiased review!!! :laugh:

 

[Barry_Green]

And is it just me, or was the depth of field TOO shallow at points? There are a couple shots in particular where the depth of field was RAZOR thin and it was totally distracting to me. The one I'll point out is where Thirteen and Taub are running some test in the lab, and Taub asks Thirteen about why she lied earlier on and she basically states that she's okay when she's not - there's a closeup of Taub where it seems like his eyeballs are in focus and his eye lashes are soft. And as you scan back towards his ears, it becomes increasingly soft to the point where I was literally totally distracted by it. It ALMOST felt like a psychological shot that is implied by focus manipulation. I really didn't like it.

But if you listen to the audio interview with Charters, he pretty much says that what you observed is exactly what he wanted. He wanted the incredibly super-shallow DOF, and he wanted it specifically to, I don't remember, but he said something like he wanted it to add a feeling of unreality and to heighten the psychological tension of the claustrophobic environment. or something. But the point is, he was doing it on purpose and the paper-thin DOF was an artistic choice.

So after listening to the interview, I can pretty well assure you that it was entirely intentional and was meant to serve the purpose of the story somehow. Whether a particular viewer feels that it was successful in doing so is, of course, a matter of personal interpretation. But part and parcel of why he wanted to use the 5D was to get that super-shallow DOF that he just couldn't get from normal 35mm film.

 

[Finnegan]

So after listening to the interview, I can pretty well assure you that it was entirely intentional and was meant to serve the purpose of the story somehow. Whether a particular viewer feels that it was successful in doing so is, of course, a matter of personal interpretation. But part and parcel of why he wanted to use the 5D was to get that super-shallow DOF that he just couldn't get from normal 35mm film.

Yeah, and I totally get that - and I could see given the story of the episode how that would have helped give that sort of claustrophobic, psychologically trapped sense. However, it still felt like it was a little out of place at times - with House as he's squeezing through those tight holes under mountains of destroyed building, yeah for sure, but in a common single MCU of a secondary character? I don't know, it felt a little out of place just for me personally. And as you pointed out Barry, totally a matter of artistic interpretation and I commend him for making that choice. I think if it were me, I might have added a half stop of light to the scene and stopped down the lens just a bit to compensate. But that's me.

 

[Jay Birch]

I asked my wife if she noticed any difference in the way the episode looked (without mentioning cameras) and she said something along the lines of... it seemed like a movie.

Personally, i thought it looked good... the underground scenes were really claustrophobic and I can fully understand there choice of camera and DOF... really drew me into the scene.

 

[Richard J. Johnson]

I thought it looked great. There were a few shots that were a tad soft but all in all it looked fine to me.

 

[morgan_moore]

You need to watch wives

My lady I did a blind Ex1 v 5d test

That set me off on the road of wasting $1000s on pimping the 5d rather than using my perfectly servicable video camera

 

[Lammy]

I asked my wife if she noticed any difference in the way the episode looked (without mentioning cameras) and she said something along the lines of... it seemed like a movie.
.

Well no movie really looks like that, in terms of camera/lens. She was probably more impressioned by the the more epic scale of the story, the dark lighting, and that House was mostly set at this new location than the usual hospital set.

We have moved on to HD - it does not look much better in HD - as such we have here a step backward in technology, away from actual HD to something that looks just like SD

It just shows that "actual HD", isn't really important in any way.

If you mean an F35, a Genesis, a Red, 35mm film, then all this were in the House team's disposal. It would have been a backwards step to use those options given their time and set constraints - right?

I wonder what happens if the new DSLR makers actually do release a 1080p no-alising raw footage. Then they'd be no complaints from pixel peepers... no reason to have such big crews and setups... and perhaps the end for many Grips and assistant's jobs? :crybaby:

 

[daveswan]

. Then they'd be no complaints from pixel peepers... no reason to have such big crews and setups... and perhaps the end for many Grips and assistant's jobs? :crybaby:

There'll always be complaints from pixel peepers! :laugh:
Dave

 

[Kholi]

I wonder what happens if the new DSLR makers actually do release a 1080p no-alising raw footage. Then they'd be no complaints from pixel peepers... no reason to have such big crews and setups... and perhaps the end for many Grips and assistant's jobs? :crybaby:

There will always be a need for a sizeable crew on any production that seeks top tier results. The entire point behind having separate departments is to get things done more efficiently.

The less micromanaging one person has to do, the better that one person's results will be.

 

[Kellar42]

There will always be a need for a sizeable crew on any production that seeks top tier results. The entire point behind having separate departments is to get things done more efficiently.

The less micromanaging one person has to do, the better that one person's results will be.

In 99% percent of the cases, right? I mean apparently Kubrick micromanaged every department and used small crews...

 

[Kholi]

In 99% percent of the cases, right? I mean apparently Kubrick micromanaged every department and used small crews...

Can you define what small crews means? As a Director, you sort of micromanage, sometimes you operate, but there are people there to make sure that each and every job gets done.

Not just Kubric, but everyone. When I say micromanaging, I say that a Camera Operator generally does not want to have to pull focus and tilt at the same time. That's what an AC is for. So that the focus pull is just as smooth as the tilt.

Just because you can, doesn't mean that you should.

I think it's just a disconnect between theorists and hobbyist here and people who actually work for a living, though.

 

[Isaac_Brody]

I think it's just a disconnect between theorists and hobbyist here and people who actually work for a living, though.

I'd agree with that. And the examples that are always posted in support of DSLR's are top notch pieces produced with a full crew. Where are the pieces shot by one person supporting the theorists? :lipsrseal

 

[Lammy]

There will always be a need for a sizeable crew on any production that seeks top tier results. The entire point behind having separate departments is to get things done more efficiently.

The less micromanaging one person has to do, the better that one person's results will be.

Don't be silly. Everything should be under the iron fist of the Director and DP only.

But in all seriousness there'd be less need to have as many grips transporting gear around with an SLR, they'd be no need to have guys checking the gate loading film, DIT, etc...

Although the image of a clapper loader carefully backing up a few CF cards, and removing a new CF card from its packaging and crying tears of sadness over the golden old days of film amuses me...

 

[Kholi]

Don't be silly. Everything should be under the iron fist of the Director and DP only.

But in all seriousness there'd be less need to have as many grips transporting gear around with an SLR, they'd be no need to have guys checking the gate loading film, DIT, etc...

Although the image of a clapper loader carefully backing up a few CF cards, and removing a new CF card from its packaging and crying tears of sadness over the golden old days of film amuses me...

Sorry, my response was aimed at an even sillier and naive response.

And, maybe not guys checking gate, loading film... but to even think DIT is going away...

Sigh...

This forum's toast.