Pentax 645D: The Interview

[TMARK]

I was told months ago that this was not the case, that the 5D was for certain sequences.  I guess they changed their mind.

The real question is:  how much was the post budget compared to a regular episode?  I know its possible, we ran our own tests.  We shot a trailer for a script my brother in law wrote on Super 16, Red, Sony EX1 and 3, and the 5D2.  We were looking for ease of integration of the different formats.  It was all compiled by Postworks in NYC, and our conclusion was that the 5D2 footage needed too much post when integrated into other formats and there were too many image anomalies, like randon Christmas tree lights off of spectral reflections.  The negatives outweighed the positives of generally excellent IQ.  If we had been paying for the post, it would have been considerable.

We are looking at the 7D now, and hope that Canon puts some effort into their next generation.  Honestly, I'd rather shoot Super 16 than any digital vid cam.  That being said, simplicity is king.  The less that gear and process gets in the way of the creative process, the better, and there is certainly (or can be) less gear in the way when using a video dslr.  

FYI, as for shooting film, Super 16 looks real nice and is about the same cost as digital, maybe a little more.  When we shoot freebees and use film, the stock is usually donated, and we get breaks on processing and telecine.  So if you are shooting your reel, get jiggy with Super 16, ask and beg for stock and discounts.  

Here's the story: House Season Finale Filmed Entirely with Canon 5D Mark II

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/house-...non-5d-mark-ii/

Some quotes:

"@MVRamunno: What is the difference in how it looks on a TV screen compared to a regular camera?

Greg Yaitanes: richer. shallow focus pulls the actors faces to forground [sic]"

"@klizma: How did you manage to stabilize the camera in tight spaces? Any special kind of brackets?

GY: no. mostly gave it a hand held feel. or on a small tripod"

"This is quite an endorsement for Canon, with a network giant entrusting the finale of one of its most popular shows to the 5D Mark II "

"In 2008, House was distributed in a total of 66 countries. With an audience of over 81.8 million worldwide, it was the most watched television show on the globe and far surpassed the viewership figures of the leading TV dramas the previous two years"

[lisa_r]

It's nice to know that now a $2500 camera can do the job - at least for some. It's also interesting to note that shallow depth field trumps all kinds of perceived drawbacks such as "christmas trees" etc.

And it will be interesting to see this episode when it airs. They are putting it in front of 80 million viewers, I presume it looks pretty good ;-)

In any case, things can only get better from here: New lenses, cheaper chip technology, lower noise, AF while shooting, etc., etc. Yee ha.

[BJL]

The final episode of House is not being shot entirely with the 5D2, its being used as a special effect, shallow dof rig for certain shots. ... Pulling focus with the L lenses is a cruel joke.  You block the shot, run through rehersal, tape everything down, then BAM, focus is slightly off.  The next 5D and ds4 I bet will solve many of these problems, such as RAW VIDEO.

Apart from the fact that it was in the end shot entirely on the 5D2 (not quite an $800 camera, especially with all the lenses used!) it does seem that there could be a major issue of focus pulling with lenses not designed for still photography.

I wonder if the next wave will be cameras specifically designed for video and using sensors of about cine-35mm size. Panasonic just announced one such at NAB 2010 yesterday, with a 4/3" sensor, and I just say a photo of Sony presentation at NAB today. Few details on the Sony, but I am guessing it will use the forthcoming EXMOR APS-C HD sensor. [Edit: I was wrong it seems; the new SRW-9000PL model for which we have details uses the same Sony Super 35mm format CCD sensor as in the Sony F35 CineAlta. My guess now is that the future unnamed less expensive model also shown at NAB will use the same sensor as those two Sony 35mm professional video cameras that we know about so far.]

There is a potentially huge advantage in not going beyond traditional cine-35mm formats like the 24.9x18.7mm of ANSI Super 35mm: the ability to use cine-camera lenses through PL mount adaptors. Focus pulling should be a bit easier with dedicated cine-lenses and a somewhat smaller format, and if you need a 7x zoom faster than f/2.8 across the whole zoom range and with minimal focus breathing, 35mm still camera lenses will not do it, but PL mount will: http://www.zeiss.de/c125756900453232/Conte...125756f003df792

P. S. Maybe the post-processing problems of "mixing media" dictated the all 5D2 decision?
And about 16mm: for lower budget options, I believe that micro 4/3 mount cameras can be used with many 16mm lenses without vignetting problems.

[TMARK]

Christmas Tree artifacts aren't a "perceived" drawback. It's real and it's ugly and time consuming and expensive to fix if you don't catch it in rehearsal and block the shot differently or do something with the offending spectrals. I'm not saying this because I'm against the 5d or Canon. It's fact. I also think that the David and Goliath hype is out of control. It's neat, you can shoot pro work with it, it looks really good by itself, looks even better with tons of post. It's small and cheap. Awesome. It has flaws and requires work arounds, too.  

 

It's nice to know that now a $2500 camera can do the job - at least for some. It's also interesting to note that shallow depth field trumps all kinds of perceived drawbacks such as "christmas trees" etc.

And it will be interesting to see this episode when it airs. They are putting it in front of 80 million viewers, I presume it looks pretty good ;-)

In any case, things can only get better from here: New lenses, cheaper chip technology, lower noise, AF while shooting, etc., etc. Yee ha.

[lisa_r]

Christmas Tree artifacts aren't a "perceived" drawback. It's real and it's ugly and time consuming and expensive to fix if you don't catch it in rehearsal and block the shot differently or do something with the offending spectrals. I'm not saying this because I'm against the 5d or Canon. It's fact. I also think that the David and Goliath hype is out of control. It's neat, you can shoot pro work with it, it looks really good by itself, looks even better with tons of post. It's small and cheap. Awesome. It has flaws and requires work arounds, too.

tmark,what I meant was "observed" drawbacks, not "perceived." No offence.

[TMARK]

tmark,what I meant was "observed" drawbacks, not "perceived." No offence.

No sweat LR!

[CJL]

... at some point, the Pentax at ten grand is also going to seem ludicrous.

Just like the EOS 1D... it was $8000 when I bought mine... but it was easily justified at the time (in film savings alone).