T2i on narrative WW2 short film "The Bridge"

marlontorres

marlontorres

Well-known member


When I heard that Canon’s upcoming 550D (Rebel T2i) was gonna have the same video quality as the 7D for half the price, I thought it was too good to be true.

Well, all I can say is, if the quality isn’t the same, it’s certainly damn close because I can’t tell the difference. I was so happy with the test footage that I decided to take a gamble and shoot one of my scenes from my WW2 film “The Bridge” on the T2i just to see how it would match up with the rest of the movie (prior, the film was being shot with the 7D and 5D Mark II). The result? It fit perfectly like like a glove with the rest of the footage.

I also threw the camera on a Steadicam Merlin. I was little worried that it was a little too light for it but with the heavy lens, it seemed to work fine.

Thank you Canon for this amazing piece of hardware. You are truly making the art of filmmaking accessible to everyone!

For more of my thoughts on the camera, check out my blog at www.torresstudios.com
 
Last edited:
shaocaholica said:
I think thats the resounding point. Great work. You might as well just say you shot the whole thing on a $800 camera. You can't tell the difference anyway right?
Click to expand...

Well, that depends... some locations especially when rough weather is involved I wouldn't have been able to shoot with the t2i. I've shot some scenes in fairly heavy rain where the 7D was getting soaked and it had no issues thanks to its weather sealed body. I'm not sure if the t2i would of held up so well...
 
marlontorres said:
Well, that depends... some locations especially when rough weather is involved I wouldn't have been able to shoot with the t2i. I've shot some scenes in fairly heavy rain where the 7D was getting soaked and it had no issues thanks to its weather sealed body. I'm not sure if the t2i would of held up so well...
Click to expand...

Thats true. Although there are tons of 3rd party rain accessories people can use with T2is. Still, a weather sealed camera is interesting because I would think that most narrative work pre-HDSLR would have never been shot with the camera actually in the rain.
 
shaocaholica said:
Thats true. Although there are tons of 3rd party rain accessories people can use with T2is. Still, a weather sealed camera is interesting because I would think that most narrative work pre-HDSLR would have never been shot with the camera actually in the rain.
Click to expand...

When your a guerrilla filmmaker and your area has pretty unpredictable weather... it definitely helps to have one less thing to worry about. It's one of those situations where you can go... "oh o, it looks like its going to rain... okay, time to pull out the 7D" :)

I'll definitely be holding on to my 7D but the t2i will make a great B camera.
 
I remember you said you were having problems with the 7D and moire in your current short. I believe it was on fabric. Is it the same or different with the T2i?
 
marlontorres said:


When I heard that Canon’s upcoming 550D (Rebel T2i) was gonna have the same video quality as the 7D for half the price, I thought it was too good to be true.

Well, all I can say is, if the quality isn’t the same, it’s certainly damn close because I can’t tell the difference. I was so happy with the test footage that I decided to take a gamble and shoot one of my scenes from my WW2 film “The Bridge” on the T2i just to see how it would match up with the rest of the movie (prior, the film was being shot with the 7D and 5D Mark II). The result? It fit perfectly like like a glove with the rest of the footage.

I also threw the camera on a Steadicam Merlin. I was little worried that it was a little too light for it but with the heavy lens, it seemed to work fine.

Thank you Canon for this amazing piece of hardware. You are truly making the art of filmmaking accessible to everyone!

For more of my thoughts on the camera, check out my blog at www.torresstudios.com
Click to expand...


Wtf? :undecided

Seeing as I will probably never shoot footage that even looks remotely close to that can you please give some advice on what is needed? I seen that you are using an expensive lens ( $1000) does it really help?

If you can give a quick run down on how you achieve this look it would be greatly appreciated, I might as well break my camera right now comparing my footage to this.......
 
tears2040 said:
Wtf? :undecided

Seeing as I will probably never shoot footage that even looks remotely close to that can you please give some advice on what is needed? I seen that you are using an expensive lens ( $1000) does it really help?

If you can give a quick run down on how you achieve this look it would be greatly appreciated, I might as well break my camera right now comparing my footage to this.......
Click to expand...

Haha, first off, don't be so hard on yourself. Yes, my lens is pricey... but for video, it doesn't seem to make too much of a difference unless its a low light situation. The kit lens should be fine.

I like to shoot flat and work my magic in post. Lighting and composition is a skill that you just kinda have to develop with practice. Read some cinematography books and watch some Roger Deakin's films. :)
 
marlontorres said:
(...) but for video, it doesn't seem to make too much of a difference unless its a low light situation. The kit lens should be fine.
Click to expand...
Disagree...
tears2040 said:
I('ve) seen that you are using an expensive lens ( $1000) does it really help?
Click to expand...
It helps. L glass class is another halfway if you have the right acquisition device. However, some old glass can give you a special look touch too.

Glass matters in any way whatsoever.
 
Yes it makes a difference but what I was trying to say that if I would of shot the same scene with the 18-55 kit lens, at the same fstop, iso, same focal length, etc... there wouldn't be much of a difference. There just isn't enough resolution in video to distinguish and big differences. At least, not enough difference for someone to say, "omg, that was shot on a $1200 lens!"

The L lens shine in stills and of course low-light.
 
marlontorres said:
Yes it makes a difference but what I was trying to say that if I would of shot the same scene with the 18-55 kit lens, at the same fstop, iso, same focal length, etc... there wouldn't be much of a difference. There just isn't enough resolution in video to distinguish and big differences. At least, not enough difference for someone to say, "omg, that was shot on a $1200 lens!"

The L lens shine in stills and of course low-light.
Click to expand...
Not only stills or lowlight. It depends on the shots. A few would call them subtle differences at times, not so subtle for a few others. I bet you can get it in any (or almost) wide shot you may be testing.

The 16-35mm f/2.8 L is a marvelous piece of optical sample. The same for the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5... You won't get the same codec (yes, I wrote codec) outcome in certain shots with that inferior 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 glass. I've noticed as same results with HD video (aka 1080p) as Bryan (Bryan Carnathan from www.the-digital-picture.com):









It is almost likely to compare the 5D Mark II with the 7D. Not only as far as lowlight performance concerns but sharpness as well. A few don't notice or care about any difference. Pero, como dicen de las brujas, los hay.
 
IMO, you don't have to go to "EL" glass for great shots and it certainly doesn't account for "another half way". The most expensive glass will have slightly more sharpness but you're mostly paying for better build, focus speed, weather sealing, etc, etc. Most of which doesn't affect the image.

I've got a handful of primes costing less than $100 each with a few maybe ~$200 that will wow any discerning pixel peeper who's used to premium glass. Especially for video, you've got a lot more slack.

Especially in the case of marlontorres's "The Bridge", its much much more than the lens. He could have shot that scene with 3 $100 primes and it would still look just as awesome.
 
"You don't have to go to" expensive glass for great shots. I wouldn't say the same for anything better though. [I've read somewhere an interesting post about what 'good enough' can mean nowadays.]

You're missing my point 'cause you surely have no idea about the pixel peeper in me ;-) I don't give a damn for pixel peeping show off or expensive gear either. I'm used to buy any glass bargain I find. If you have some to offer, please advise me.

However, facts are facts. Try to test them first, maybe you may find what I want to mean up there. "It certainly wouldn't account" in the same way of such post:
shaocaholica said:
IMO, you don't have to go to "EL" glass for great shots and it certainly doesn't account for "another half way". The most expensive glass will have slightly more sharpness but you're mostly paying for better build, focus speed, weather sealing, etc, etc. Most of which doesn't affect the image.

I've got a handful of primes costing less than $100 each with a few maybe ~$200 that will wow any discerning pixel peeper who's used to premium glass. Especially for video, you've got a lot more slack.

Especially in the case of marlontorres's "The Bridge", its much much more than the lens. He could have shot that scene with 3 $100 primes and it would still look just as awesome.
Click to expand...
 
Emanuel said:
Not only stills or lowlight. It depends on the shots. A few would call them subtle differences at times, not so subtle for a few others. I bet you can get it in any (or almost) wide shot you may be testing.

The 16-35mm f/2.8 L is a marvelous piece of optical sample. The same for the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5... You won't get the same codec (yes, I wrote codec) outcome in certain shots with that inferior 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 glass. I've noticed as same results with HD video (aka 1080p) as Bryan (Bryan Carnathan from www.the-digital-picture.com):









It is almost likely to compare the 5D Mark II with the 7D. Not only as far as lowlight performance concerns but sharpness as well. A few don't notice or care about any difference. Pero, como dicen de las brujas, los hay.
Click to expand...

I'd say there is a huge difference in the quality of these 2 lenses. Some may think it is a subtle difference but with experience the good one makes the other look like crap. Old high quality manual prime lenses that don't cost that much used may be the answer a budget in terms of sharpness, color, CA, and speed, over cheap new consumer lens answers from Canon.
For those who don't think the difference is that great, 98% is still not 100%
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top