RED one Leonardo Dicaprio Test

P

Polaroid22

Well-known member
Hey,

I saw this Red one test shoot http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJpLgdD7r3c
And It is only lit with a match. I thought the red one was not really a good low light cam(as I heard from a filmstudent, who had to use a 5DmarkII instead for some low light shots).

Is it possible to get the same thing done with a GH2/GH3?

Thanks,
 
What makes you think a $1000 dollar camera can match a $50 000 camera with cinema lenses?
 
HOLD. THE. PHONE......

a filmstudent told you something and you took it as sage advice/knowledge?

...

well yes the r1 wasn't amazing in low light but it wasn't awful either, that and if you think low light ability is all that makes an image then keep running from these flm students you've been talking to

that, and it's not just a match, the background is professionally lit, and that match is not acting as just a match, he's lighting it sideways, puffing the cigar, using the smoke, etc... to get a MUCH higher light output than just a measily regular match flame.

that, and superspeeds.

but yes, i get what you're asking, can you get the same exposure/noise level if you were to duplicate the exact same conditions. and yes, you could probably get something comparable with those cameras.
 
That test was a break threw of what the MX could do over the M sensor in terms of low light and dynamic range. The image really holds up well pushed to 2,000 ISO. Let's not forget that video is almost 4 years old now. Man how technology moves.... Sure the 5D might be better in low light, but I would give up low light for higher dynamic range, higher resolution, and of course RAW...
 
EDV said:
What makes you think a $1000 dollar camera can match a $50 000 camera with cinema lenses?
Click to expand...

Usually a safe bet and good point (more money = better quality) but sometimes not nesecarily on all aspects of the camera. Photography lenses and DSLR's are capable of some very clean high ISO's and fast optics, probably equal to or better than cinema, if that is all you are taking into account.

Additionally, many DSLR's look better in low light (in regards to noise) at extremely high ISO's because they have greater lossy compression which although is often a negative, can be a strange benefit at times as the compression can soften and thus hide much of the subtleties of sensor noise. Many would be happy to argue that Canon cameras (Cinema and DSLR) look cleaner at SUPER high ISO's despite lacking in DR, resolution and other important image qualities.



Joncarr said:
That test was a break threw of what the MX could do over the M sensor in terms of low light and dynamic range. The image really holds up well pushed to 2,000 ISO. Let's not forget that video is almost 4 years old now. Man how technology moves.... Sure the 5D might be better in low light, but I would give up low light for higher dynamic range, higher resolution, and of course RAW...
Click to expand...

Exactly.

First of all, this was ancient camera news. This was back before Epic even existed, I believe. Showing the MX upgrade from Mysterium on R1's. The Dragon is rumored to be twice as sensitive for the given noise floor, which is the new upgrade for Epic.

But the truth of the matter is DSLR's have always been equal or better than high-end digital cinema cameras as far as ISO sensitivity is concerned.

Strangely enough, it wasn't until this test (the Mysterium X sensor) came about where digital cinema cameras were considered 'fast'.

I remember back then, the R1 was acceptable at daylight up to 400 and 320 on Tungsten. I remember the noise being terrible above those numbers. Big cameras like Panavision Genesis, Sony F35, GV Viper, Dalsa, etc... all those big cinema cameras were always around 200-350 iso native. Pushing it above 400-500 was usually disasterous, depending (Films like Collateral did it and embraced it.) So it really was the Mysterium X sensor, in my opinion, that was the beginning of the new wave of high iso capable digital cinema cameras.

As mentioned this is due to many reasons, one I believe being compression hiding/smoothing noise in sensor. The fact of the matter is, they lack heavily in all other areas of professional cinematography / filmmaking, so they aren't used in cinema applications very heavily or often.

However, cameras like C300's are very sensitive with pretty clean results. So that would be a great way to get ISO sensitivity in a more video/cinema production suitable body.



To answer the OP's question... with the right optics and a fast/clean ISO capable camera, yes. You can. But you will have to light your scene in ratios that provide the right range for whatever DR your sensor provides. Also get a good focus puller.
 
Last edited:

As has been mentioned by others... the set itself is actually lit so let's not pretend there is something magical going on here lighting an entire scene "with a match".

The big break-through in this test was that the noise floor was heavily reduced with the upgraded R1 sensor to the MX version. (Still a break-through nonetheless).

You can read more details about this shoot here but you can definitely shoot a scene like this as Ryan said by lighting your scene using ratios that will compliment your camera's dynamic range. ie. expose for the match light so and light up your ambient so it shows up on your camera. Experiment and light your "shadows" to about 5-10 IRE. You can always crush the blacks a bit in post if needed but of course with that you will change the look.
 
Notice that when he blows smoke at the end - after the match is out - that you can see it. There is some lighting going on there. However, it is clear what that match is doing. But you can do this on a lot of cameras. As noted previously, this was to demonstrate a triumph of reduced noise on the MX sensor and at that it does a very good job (both sensor and demonstration).

Story I was told (not sure if it's true) is that DiCaprio bought a house in LA from Jim Jannard and as part of the deal Jannard got Leo to do this quick shoot. Fair enough! He's my friend's neighbor; I should ask him sometime.
 
Can someone maybe do a brakedown of the shot so I could try a similar setup? Like what mm would you say the lens was, what were the lights and where were they placed and what distance do you think is between DeCaprio and the door in the back (the closed one)?

Thanks in advance!
 
Ville Leskinen said:
Can someone maybe do a brakedown of the shot so I could try a similar setup? Like what mm would you say the lens was, what were the lights and where were they placed and what distance do you think is between DeCaprio and the door in the back (the closed one)?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...


The hardest part about recreating this shot is getting Leo to show up.
 
Ville Leskinen said:
Can someone maybe do a brakedown of the shot so I could try a similar setup? Like what mm would you say the lens was, what were the lights and where were they placed and what distance do you think is between DeCaprio and the door in the back (the closed one)?

Thanks in advance!
Click to expand...

Just go out and try it, then post it here and we'll all be sure to tell you what you did wrong. :D


Seriously though, at around 2000 ISO you'd only need a small amount of light for the background walls. A single fluorescent light might be enough to light the walls you see behind the talent. In this shot, it may only be the light on the wall next to the doorway lighting them. The further background has a little more going on with a lamp behind the glass door and another light at the top of the stairway on the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top