Martin Scanlan's "Dig"

yoclay said:
No, you dont buy different cameras in this paradigm. You rent them. Only rental houses have enough turnaround these days. Right camera for the right job. If it's not paid off within 2 years of purchase, it never will be. This is as it was. I never had enough money to purchase an Arri 435 or an Aaton Minima, I rented them, along with the lenses. Right camera for the right job. But I still had to buy film stock, pay lab fees and later the cost of a DI. What do I have to purchase today, really?

A hard drive.
Click to expand...

Yoclay, I couldn't agree more......Well put.

One thing though, of course when shot on film everything goes to transfer and colour correction and that was a cost that encouraged clients to go "video"....But now a lot of digital work goes that route too, especially when shot Raw. I am happy that the predicted death of the transfer/colour correction house didn't come to pass, or at least not yet. Digital, especially 4-5K and then maybe more, acquisition has just cut out the labs and film stock suppliers.

But you're right, the days when it was worth owning a camera outfit, if that's what you wanted to do, I believe are pretty much gone for most of us because as you rightly say payback has to be within 2 years or less to make any financial sense. For me right now my F3 is that "last camera", glass though....well that's another thing altogether
 
I think with the "pay it off in 2 years" mantra, you are judging the future by the rules of the past.

I believe we are reaching a (near) zenith in camera design, where a digital camera will last as long as old film cameras did, or audio kit does today. Yes, there will always be some new feature, high frame rates etc. as there also was with film cameras, however I think the difference in end result will become negligible. I don't think we are quite there yet but the F55 is the getting close. If the images are as hoped, what else would you want from a camera?
 
mmm said:
I think with the "pay it off in 2 years" mantra, you are judging the future by the rules of the past.

I believe we are reaching a (near) zenith in camera design, where a digital camera will last as long as old film cameras did, or audio kit does today. Yes, there will always be some new feature, high frame rates etc. as there also was with film cameras, however I think the difference in end result will become negligible. I don't think we are quite there yet but the F55 is the getting close. If the images are as hoped, what else would you want from a camera?
Click to expand...

I agree with this, 4k is more than enough for a while to come, especially since 1080p isn't even a universal standard yet; a lot of mass-media content is lower-res than that. 4k is like 1% of the market right now.
For frame rates, something like 120fps should be enough for most effects that don't require the use of a Phantom (that you rent anyway), and of course the F55 has all the in/outputs one might hope for, plus a million codec options.

Camera itself is small, light, doesn't seen very power-hungry, etc. there isn't much to not like.
 
On the 4K front, the only thing I have is a DCP, I'm hopefully going to get graded DPXs shortly. If Sony are happy we'll try and make a couple of Raw files available, but at the moment you'd need to get hold of Alpha/Beta software to look at them. We used a Beta of Resolve and I think the Stargate guys had a Beta of Baselight, plus I think Adobe may have got something working with CS6. I don't have flat DPXs I'm afraid.
 
I also see things levelling out. A couple of years ago digital S35 cameras were rare but today there are plenty of them and the technology has matured to the level that we have many really good cameras to choose from. Even the F5 is a camera that'll last a long time.
 
Thanks for the responses, interesting thoughts about the hoped for longevity of the newer breed of S35 cameras and maybe you're right, I hope so. It would be good not having to dig deep every couple of years.
Meanwhile I have just wrapped on an interview shoot this afternoon, ( France ), with the F3. Logging and looking at the images now and I have to say that I'm still pretty happy with this camera...Really nice skin tones. S-Log / CP2 Primes / natural light.
 
Well, all I can say is that it might be worth taking the Roger Deakins approach.
What does he own?

A light meter.
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Well, all I can say is that it might be worth taking the Roger Deakins approach.
What does he own?

A light meter.
Click to expand...

I've thought about that a lot, but I came to the conclusion unfortunately that I don't live in a world where every job has an AC to prep camera, nor pickups the day before to save me from driving around to pick up a camera.

Life/work without a camera of some sort would be a pain indeed, I suspect. But I can't deal with the shortcomings of a DSLR, or the BMCC on a daily basis. So here I am.

It's an awful lot to pay for what's ultimately a convenience, but I hold out hope one of these days I'll have the right camera at the right time and pick up enough money on the side to have made it more than worthwhile. Until then, it always winds up paying for itself at least, and I make a few K. If I can find one that lasts more than 2 years, I'll start collecting that way too.

[edit: I just realized I know of at least 2 A-List DPs that own cameras, one of which who owns a huge amount of gear, bodies, lenses, etc, and works them to death. Not validation for the approach really, just remembering myself there are a few at the high level that choose to play the rental game]
 
Last edited:
yoclay said:
Well, all I can say is that it might be worth taking the Roger Deakins approach.
What does he own?

A light meter.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with Nate when he says that "life without a camera would be a pain indeed".
Roger Deakins is one of the best DP's out there and so he is able to go from feature film project to feature film project, and sure all he has to own is a light meter because on high end features everything including three square meals and more is all provided for.
For lessor mortals it's good to have one's own kit available, if not to make money on then to be able to experiment with projects of our own that would not support rental costs, like documentaries and short films........
 
Kholi said:
The motion is SUPER clean, but not exactly hyper-video like every other Sony camera. NOT one hundred percent about color (yes, of course it was graded I know) but everything else...
Click to expand...

Just admit that you are COMPLETELY confused about the infamous "Sony-motion" stuff. If someone shoots a Sony cam with a shutter different than 180° you always come a running saying stuff like "that's the Sony look!". I feel that is just some odd placebo. Or is it nocebo? This thread is again another proof of that. F55 had "Sony-motion" (whatever that is) until you saw a video that had a pretty regular shutter speed used.

Come on ;)
 
Kholi said:
There are always very core traits that an image has, no matter what camera it comes from. I guess I'm a hyper pixel peeper, but I see a different image here, and I do not like anything coming out of the F3.

I was not sold on the elephant footage, this footage? Yeah, pretty much.
Click to expand...

So first you are "not sold", then you see a completely different video with the same cam and you are "sold". Geez, that's what a professional production does. It doesn't tell us whether or not that could've been done with an F3 as well. I bet it could've, with maybe 10% less detail.
 
There's one big advantage to ownership. As long as you're not an A-listed DP to own a camera gives you the endless opportunity to shoot stuff and improve your skills. It's great to let the creativity flow without money stopping you.
 
Editman Sweden said:
There's one big advantage to ownership. As long as you're not an A-listed DP to own a camera gives you the endless opportunity to shoot stuff and improve your skills. It's great to let the creativity flow without money stopping you.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. It also depends on how your work comes to you, might get called saying you need to be on the spot yesterday, and renting goes out the window; you'll be glad to have everything ready to shoot in in 10 minutes then.


In any case, the F5/55 should definitely be sharper at 1080p than the F3, since I recall a test showing that the F3 can resolve only up to 850 lines or so and has light aliasing. F5 footage sampled down from 4K is going to be sharp down to the pixel and zero aliasing, assuming quality processing, this might be extra bit of crispness people here are noticing.
 
Last edited:
I find resolution on the F3 to be excellent but certainly the newer Sony cameras with 4k to start with should be better when it comes to resolved image.
 
maarek said:
So first you are "not sold", then you see a completely different video with the same cam and you are "sold". Geez, that's what a professional production does. It doesn't tell us whether or not that could've been done with an F3 as well. I bet it could've, with maybe 10% less detail.
Click to expand...

Are you saying the other production wasn't professional? Because, it looked like it was to me.

ARe you also saying that you can't see a qualitative difference in the core image between the two projects?

AGain, if you can't see it then you can't see it, that's just the bottom line. Scanner said there's a major difference between the images, he's used the camera, what more do you need?
 
My eyes aren't good enough to distinguish between the ALEXA or the OP's F55 video. When I saw the video all I could really think of was the ALEXA. There might be a slight difference but overall it's very ALEXA-like overall. If someone posted it and said it was ALEXA I wouldn't know it wasn't.

That other video posted amongst the arguing looks nothing like the F55 video. It's not the same at all.
 
Wow. My F3 & BT Red One will definitely be up for sale toward the end of Feb.!

To the people discussing ownership, to each his own. I for one love to own because with any project, whether short film/music video/feature film, once I wrap & budget is completely exhausted, I can grab whatever pick-ups, b-roll, etc that I want. All it costs me is a few dimes for gas & coffee. At times this can make a pretty significant difference in the final product, and can make my work look better for future clients & investors.

Also, I occasionally encounter something crazy/sexy/cool that I can run & grab my camera for and BOOM; stock footage royalties. It's not much but it helps, and once you build your collection it feels pretty good to get a monthly check for doing nothing.

Edit: also, for the folks saying it's not a step up enough from the F3; again to each his own. The image on the F3 is incredible, and had the same folks who shot this video used an F3, I agree...wouldn't be an enormous difference. But there is something very Alexa-ish about that image. Also, the high frame rates, global shutter & 4k would be an amazing step up for me. I occasionally crop/re-frame shots, occasionally stabilize in After Effects, crave 4k (starting to see a lot of 4k projection in local theaters and it makes me drool), and I shoot tons of slow mo. Def. worth the extra cost to me.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top