House 5D Finale first 2 minutes posted online

Yeah....but tell that to the millions of fans who watched and enjoyed it. Like Rodney Charters suggested.....it does not look like video. I can accept "different" and move on with my life.

By the way...I don't think the Red One looks like film either.

Maybe we should all just embrace..."different" for all digital cams. Like different film stocks.
 
Everyone who I show DLSR footage too simply says "Wow".

They never go "that looks plastic" or anything close to that. Most people are still used to SD and so even though the DLSR right now resolve "only" 720p it still looks fantastic to most people.
 
Revsta said:
You know what? This is the kind of shi* that destroys this forum. Sure it may be a waste of time, but yo know what else is? 90% of what's coming out of Hollywood these days. Movies cost 50 million to make because of this type of mentality. Hire 9,000 people to sit around and do nothing. I've worked on indie films that just pissed away 100 thousand dollars on nothing. Dollies for no reason--25 angles of coverage because the director didn't know what he was doing. Cans and cans of film that will never be printed. This elitist mentality is absurd.

Talent is talent, and hacks are hacks, no matter how much money or connections you have. People piss away hundreds of millions of dollars a year on horrific movies that have some of the best technicians on them in the business, and some damn good actors too. Ever heard the Kevin Smith story about not shooting a day on Die Hard and blowing 200,000 dollars on not shooting a single frame? Not rolling one camera?

Kevin Smith shot Clerks for 26 or whatever thousand dollars on film. You think he wouldn't shoot that now on a GH1 or a DVX if he was doing it again? You think The Following couldn't have been made on a DSLR? You're telling me that if Spielberg/Kubrick/Welles were kids now they wouldn't be shooting 5 man crew movies with DSLRS? Talent is talent. Genius is genius. GOOD film makers will use whatever they can to make a movie, and that's the end of it.

Equipment doesn't make a movie. Talent and people make a movie, and if you can make a film with practical lighting that engages and audience and means you have a crew that's a camera man/1st/sound people, then go do it, the problem is, most people don't write/make engaging films ANYWAY, no matter what the budget, but if you think the DSLR movement hasn't opened up a world that wasn't there before then you're just insane.
Click to expand...

Revsta said:
This is the point we're making. WHO CARES if you have been there and done that and want to tell people nothing but the difficulties they will run into along the way. That's all 'you pros' talk about is the difficulties. Never do I read inspirational speeches to people about go out there and do it. So many people on this board make it their job to tell people off, to discourage and to tell people the horrors of the industry as though it's some sort of horrific glamor. Sure most of these people aren't going to amount to much, but I don't see any huge film makers around here anyway, so the last thing I'd like to hear making my first film is a bunch of discouragement. Some artists are horrifically insecure and don't have the balls to dream, or the balls to face their dreams, and just reading some of the stuff you guys say to people on this boards will be enough to turn some people off, and that's horrible. You're not saving anybody's lives by telling them what CAN'T be done.
Click to expand...

Well, Barry_G. As noble as it is to try and "help" others, I have to agree with Revsta: We're all telling people how bad this is, that is, what you can't do or can't be done.

Why bother? They're not asking for help, or anything that resembles it. They already know that milions are wasted on paying people day rates so that they can sustain a life and more movies can be made. Thus creating the opportunity for the one GOOD movie a year to be made. No, Let them go out and build award winning sand castles three feet from the tide. It doesn't really matter that we said "Well, in ten minutes your castle is gonna be washed away"... it's all about learning on your own.

So, this is Revsta's first Sand Castle and he's revved up to build it three feet from the rising tide... hell, let him. Next time he'll build it where a Tsunami has to destroy all of his, and his casts and (scant) crew's hard work.

The truth is that filmmakers don't want to hear the truth: it's much better to frolic in a lottery-ticket-based fantasy than ever attempt to walk what's already a well defined path into reality.

I'm gonna let them do it! For fear of being runover in the street by some DSLR Rebel Without a Crew that recognizes me.
 
Do please lay out, in detail, the "well defined path to reality" that is tried, true and....guaranteed.
 
Dunno if anyone's interested but I did a super low budget music video recently where I applied some filters to try to make it look more filmic. To be honest it does go OTT, it's a process after all, but I feel it does remove a bit of the plastic look. I should also say I'm not a theorist, more intuitive so it's not scientific.

http://vimeo.com/11990717
 
Kholi said:
but to even think DIT is going away...

Sigh...

This forum's toast.
Click to expand...

Obviously I don't think a Grip or a DIT will totally go away. I said "perhaps" but I am pretty sure in relation to DSLR filmmaking - they'll be less of them, and they'll be working less hours and work more jobs. And I'm not talking about "one man band" filmmakers.

http://philipbloom.net/other-stuff/case-studies/greg-yaitanes-house-interview-transcription/

"The things I loved about the Canon addressed so much of what has frustrated me over the years. I’m not a big – I have a respect for, but I’m not a fan of the relationship of the DIT to the DP or the director. I find that, in a way, I compare it often to the mistress in a marriage. I’ve found that I’ve really been hindered – I got a phone call about a DP that I’ve worked with on a show that has shot digital and I couldn’t give him a recommendation because I frankly didn’t have a relationship with him. He was under a tent with the DIT and there wasn’t an opportunity to have the collaboration that I feed off of, which is to have that great relationship with my cameramen.

So when we got to the Canon, the idea that we could be un-tethered and that there’d be no DIT and that we could go anywhere that we could go and physically, actually knowing what we had to accomplish in the finale, if a guy could get somewhere we wanted to make sure the equipment could follow; we weren’t hauling film, hauling bags of lenses, hauling, hauling, hauling. I wanted to keep us as lean as possible. That was very, very exciting, just the idea that you are unencumbered, that there’s not wires going to a central brain and then off of that everybody’s going somewhere.
" - Greg Yaitanes



Isaac_Brody said:
Except grips have nothing to do with camera... You are still going to be needing grips to setup flags and lights. I don't understand where people think this is going to be less people. Unless you think the Director is going to be setting up flags to control the light. You will still need lights, perhaps this means less wattage but the DP is still going to need extra hands to control and create a dramatic image with contrast.
Click to expand...

Except from my experience this is true. I've been on over a dozen DSLR shoots now (each with 10+ crew on set) and the grips have mainly not had much to do besides pack up the lighting kits, tape some wires down, and have a coffee for the next 5 hours. It's more to do with the aethetics and the way people are using these SLRS. [tight areas, real locations, less need to do more complicated setups]. It's mostly alot of us just sat on the curbs in our high-visability jackets staring at the flight cases and chatting.
 
Looks cool andrew00. Looked like an old superhero movie.

Honestly one doesn't have to go to extremes to remove that "plastic look." It's just that people find any and everything to complain about with these cameras.
 
the idea that we could be un-tethered and that there’d be no DIT and that we could go anywhere that we could go and physically, actually knowing what we had to accomplish in the finale, if a guy could get somewhere we wanted to make sure the equipment could follow; we weren’t hauling film, hauling bags of lenses, hauling, hauling, hauling. I wanted to keep us as lean as possible. That was very, very exciting, just the idea that you are unencumbered, that there’s not wires going to a central brain and then off of that everybody’s going somewhere.
Click to expand...

But -- this has nothing to do with DSLRs. Technically you could do that with *any* camera. It's just that the end result will suffer as a result. I mean, all those folks are there for a reason! Those cables and equipment are there for a reason! There are very good reasons why "video village" sprang into existence.

Going untethered with a DSLR is, IMO, riskier than doing it with a conventional video camera. With a conventional camera you at least have onboard zebras, focus assist, audio meters, all that stuff that helps assure that you're getting the best result. With a DSLR, you give up all of that ... so you should be relying even heavier on your DIT to be watching your back and making sure you're capturing footage properly exposed, properly focused, properly everything.
 
Barry_Green said:
But -- this has nothing to do with DSLRs. Technically you could do that with *any* camera. It's just that the end result will suffer as a result. I mean, all those folks are there for a reason! Those cables and equipment are there for a reason! There are very good reasons why "video village" sprang into existence.

Going untethered with a DSLR is, IMO, riskier than doing it with a conventional video camera. With a conventional camera you at least have onboard zebras, focus assist, audio meters, all that stuff that helps assure that you're getting the best result. With a DSLR, you give up all of that ... so you should be relying even heavier on your DIT to be watching your back and making sure you're capturing footage properly exposed, properly focused, properly everything.
Click to expand...


The guys from House had wireless follow focus, and wireless video feed. Sure they're tethered in the sense of HD Monitor and a monopod/crane/tripod, but really... reallly... I'm sure the guys pulling focus and operating didn't *need* a DIT or a zebra line or whatnot because they're concentrating on their sole job well.

And again, I'm not talking about one-man band people, who would have to be awesome to do all that.
 
I actualy liked the episode...and I probably only seen one or two other episodes of that show. I guess the big bang for that episode was really about the relationship between to two doctors....and him possibly going back into taking drugs. I didn't follow all the shows to help me build up to this point...but I just enjoyed the story that took place in the rubble. I felt bad already when she had to give up the appendage...but what took place afterwards came out of left field. I'm still upset about it.
 
Lammy said:
The guys from House had wireless follow focus, and wireless video feed. Sure they're tethered in the sense of HD Monitor and a monopod/crane/tripod, but really... reallly... I'm sure the guys pulling focus and operating didn't *need* a DIT or a zebra line or whatnot because they're concentrating on their sole job well.

And again, I'm not talking about one-man band people, who would have to be awesome to do all that.
Click to expand...


SO basically, the only thing you know for sure is that there were Wireless Follow Focuses on the shoot. And, the rest is what you are not sure about.

Which is precisely the point.
 
Ian-T said:
I actualy liked the episode...and I probably only seen one or two other episodes of that show. I guess the big bang for that episode was really about the relationship between to two doctors....and him possibly going back into taking drugs. I didn't follow all the shows to help me build up to this point...but I just enjoyed the story that took place in the rubble. I felt bad already when she had to give up the appendage...but what took place afterwards came out of left field. I'm still upset about it.
Click to expand...

If you're upset about that go check out the Grey's Anatomy finale. It was really excellent. Several friends who have never seen episodes also watched it and enjoyed it thoroughly.
 
Kholi said:
SO basically, the only thing you know for sure is that there were Wireless Follow Focuses on the shoot. And, the rest is what you are not sure about.

Which is precisely the point.
Click to expand...

So, the director of House was lying in the interview when he said he didn't think a DIT was for him, nor is lugging alot of equipment?

No, we know for sure you don't need a team as big working on an DSLR as you do say... IMAX, or 35mm. The word *need*, sure you can want to have a DIT or extra guys to lug things around. It's the production team's choice.

There are alot of professional filmmakers out there that have used 16mm, miniDV, HDV, and now DSLRs, because of the budget/crew slimming/creative reasons. I don't need to be unsure, it's clear from past technical innovations.

What was the point again? "You don't know what they need, so stop assuming?" I said the same thing to Barry in my previous post as he assumed they should be tethered and that they may not be skilled enough to do without zebra lines. See, this convo is going in circles.

I don't think anyone is disputing that a good quality production will always require a well sized crew. It's very condescending to assume people would think otherwise.

On a related note: House is the best DSLR footage I've seen. But that's mostly because Hugh Laurie is infront of it ;)
 
This is in response to Barry's "Solofest" idea(which is pretty far back in the forum)...

I think this would be a great idea, I have an add-on to it. How to prove the films were shot one-man band style...

Make it a 2-fer one man band shoot(bear with me)
1 narrative/live action filmmaker makes her or his film
1 documentary filmmaker makes reality doc about the making of this film.
The key is the docmaker and primary filmaker must have their mouths ducttaped shut
so not to give creative feedback to one another.
Either that or a live stream seccam proves no additional help.
 
xqzt said:
This is in response to Barry's "Solofest" idea(which is pretty far back in the forum)...

I think this would be a great idea, I have an add-on to it. How to prove the films were shot one-man band style...

Make it a 2-fer one man band shoot(bear with me)
1 narrative/live action filmmaker makes her or his film
1 documentary filmmaker makes reality doc about the making of this film.
The key is the docmaker and primary filmaker must have their mouths ducttaped shut
so not to give creative feedback to one another.
Either that or a live stream seccam proves no additional help.
Click to expand...


I think that'd be a hilariously awesome competition to see.

Why would there be a need to offer proof? If it's a good film, and other people worked on it but were unaccredited, that's abit of a nasty isn't it?

At the end of the day if it's that one person's responsibility, everyone else would be helping that person and letting them take sole credit anyway.
 
For the record I came up with the idea. Barry came up with the cool name SoloFest after I suggested a quasi DogmaFest about 1 person making a film on their own.

Barry did we break the spirit of solofest already by both giving ideas towards it :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top