Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 5d2/5d3  (Read 6556 times)
bcooter
Guest
« on: March 04, 2012, 12:02:58 PM »
ReplyReply

Just saw act of valor at the Ziegfeld.   Big screen, probably not the best theatre on the planet, but still a big screen.

Didn't go to really see the movie, wanted to see how well a 5d2 would hold up on a large screen.  After 30 seconds I forgot about that and watched the movie.

The movie is shot very well, graded impeccably, it's not going to win any academy awards, but it's led the box office and I know that no viewer has a clue whether it was shot with a three or ninety thousand dollar camera, actually make that cameras as they used 8, which makes sense given that in the digital world we all (motion and stills) are shooting twice as much in half the time.

There is a lot of production value behind this movie and I'm sure the budget was quite large, though for this movie it made sense as there are a lot of crash cam sequences where you know the camera didn't survive.

It's not shot or directed like the Hurt Locker which has that gritty 16mm real life feel, but there is a lot of intimacy of the look of the film, with the camera following the subjects out of planes, or low on the water, right in the middle of pyro shots etc.

It's also effected and partially edited on after effects and premier, using HP windows boxes.    I think the final edit was with Avid.

There you go, a complete movie, not just a hand held TV series, but a real full screen medium budget movie shot with a 5d2(s) using software anyone can afford.    

In the past I wasn't the biggest fan of Shane Hurlbut, but I have to admit he shot this incredibly well and the lighting, camera work and post work is really excellent.

Sure they went hand held, used some PL mounts, a lot of canon glass, shot on sticks, stedicams, probably everything, but knowing how long it takes to set up a RED vs. a 5d2, I'll bet the the prep time was 1/4 of what it traditionally would have been and knowing how long days and fatigue effect how you work, it probably was like a breath of fresh air to use these small cameras.

The only downside was the transcoding with was into the thousand hour range.    That is the one area RED smokes everyone given with a RED rocket you can transcode in virtual real time so 200 hours of footage takes 200 hours (at least for a one light work print) where moving the canon files to prorezz is a chore.

The real lesson of this movie is the pace and realism.  Obviously it's staged, obviously there are some effects, though most of it is real time, real life action and unlike cg'd action it looks believable, exciting and it moves quickly.  Given the fact they used real Navy Seals, the dialog can be a little strained, but the actual on the ground action scenes, just look great.  

Anyway, all in all really impressive photography.

http://tinyurl.com/76skux7

When you think about it, every operator on these sets can also be the still photographer.  All they have to do is recreate on of the scenes for 30 seconds and click the still frame button to get a real 22mpx still.

IMO

BC



« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 12:06:28 PM by bcooter » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 04, 2012, 01:25:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Shane gets to some extent the joy of small, light, light sensitive camera systems and the ability to shoot multi multi cam - he's trying to break it down a bit

How much was shot on film Im not sure.. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1591479/technical

I think Heli stuff due to rotor jello

Its worth considering that Shane uses cine lenses, $50+k, cinetape focus aids ($20k) M1 Focus motors ($3k), Prestons $8k not to mention a lot of large lights

At that point the budget hits a level where I think any one sane would (IMO) choose an Epic for the main body of the work.

Its interesting to compare Shanes film to Danfungs film; http://hellandbackagain.com/

That was shot with a $400 glide cam, one 5d2, three L lenses, and no crew at all

S






« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 01:27:24 PM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 04, 2012, 01:30:17 PM »
ReplyReply

As for the 5d3 - Im kind of exited/not excited

Its great to have a mic for tiny one person projects, having a little less moire will be nice, but the poor connectivity means I will steer clear of using it as an A camera

Ill only get it if my 5d2 falls apart - Ive already been through one shutter

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #3 on: March 04, 2012, 02:07:08 PM »
ReplyReply

This is a real movie made by real motion pro team.
I will go to see it.

The 5D2 allowed them freedom and going deeper into the action, as you pointed,
maybe even sacrificing some units in some takes, but this isn't the wanabee dslr crowd production.

There is serious production and highly skilled cine pros operators in all the chain.
It might have cost less with this particular set but in such a contex it would have looked good
filmed with a I.phone.

This is in fact a proper cine production with all the ingredients involved except the cameras.

The interest and good news is that it shows how far we could go with those Dslrs. In fact, really far.
The bad news, is that for most of us, such an output-result is out of range.

As you point the grading is superb, probably done by a very experienced colorist(s), the cameramen are pros, the steady
are the good ones manouvered by the good ones, there is lighter lightning but proper DP, generators, gaffers, camera assistants, MUAS and stylists and story-boarders and cranes, an army of editors and FX artists etc etc...
and there is a story.
And this, as you pointed, is only considered as middle budget prod.

They would have use the GH2 or the Nex 7, the same. The camera plays a little part in the equation in fact when in such context. It's all the chain that is bloody demanding in motion,
both in terms of mediums and knowledge-skills.

Yes I beleive that those camera will lighten a lot the circus, yes I beleive that they will allow less people on set, that they have no rival
when it comes to go into the action, that they are so cheap that you could film with 10 cameras the same take with no fear to break one etc...
but I mostly beleive that all this is a real professional team craft that is not forgiving (and the PP monster...).

If, as you pointed in another thread, these guys are starting to do ads campaigns because of the global situation, I think it will be really chalenging for us to compeat.
The only good point for us coming from still is that we generally are more versatiles and quicker to "see" and set with less people and mediums.



What catches my attention is that I have a strange feeling that you aren't convinced convinced by the Scarlet. To my surprise to be honest.
I would have thought that the form factor and design would have been ideal, and reading in between lines something is not pleasing you
completly with this camera (a part for the menu-buttons) Shocked
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 02:30:19 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 04, 2012, 02:32:16 PM »
ReplyReply

A purely hypertheotical question.

Red, or whatever..

You can input sound - and watch the take back with audio straight away - director likes it - move on

Absolute finesse of colour balance - not required due to raw - less monitors in tents - less people and set up times

Wider DR - less fill lighting, or lower watts,  less people setting up scrims, less people faster setup times

Less onset issues with HDMI connectivity - less fk ups

I wonder at what size of production it actually becomes cheaper to use a more expensive camera?

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #5 on: March 04, 2012, 02:34:25 PM »
ReplyReply


I wonder at what size of production it actually becomes cheaper to use a more expensive camera?

S

Sam,

This is exactly the question I'm asking for a week or 2.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 04, 2012, 02:39:11 PM »
ReplyReply

I think you must answer that for yourself, maybe rent a few and do some tests - things can be very different off the internet

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: March 04, 2012, 02:51:54 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep.

As soon I finish the editings and get more free time, I rent a Scarlet and a F3 for some testings.

Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #8 on: March 04, 2012, 05:52:17 PM »
ReplyReply





I don't dislike the Scarlet and I'll know more by the end of this week as we start production tomorrow.

I also do not or ever have suffered from buyers remorse, even if I make a mistake.  It's all part of the process.

I do know in very quick testing, the menu system is detailed but complicated, as some of it is controlled by the handle, all can and is controlled by the touch screen.

The Scarlet is well built, feels strong and heavy and I love that it accepts different mounts, I love the detail of the lcd.

The file is very clean and it has actually hand holdable.

Some things are a little silly like the still mode.  Still mode really isn't click, click, click, it's 12 or 15 fps that you then take a frame out of CineX as a still.

Some things are complicated like all the buttons.  Most can be disabled and we will do that.

The two other things I'm not wild about is the autofocus which hunts and is slow, slow, slow and likes bright contrast, does not track well to medium contrast.  This may be fixed in future firmwares and RED is very good at staying on something until they get it right.

The other thing is the in camera battery.  That's good for about 15 minutes.    You have to use a belt clip and a larger battery, but I assumed that would be the way I'd have to work. 

The last thing I'm not wild about is the the male mini plug for sound.   I don't mind the mini xlrs, would prefer regular sized xlr, but those like mini plugs are a disaster waiting to happen.

Regardless, it does seem like a good camera, but after grading a lot of RED footage, after shooting hundreds of hours with our RED One's I really like the simplicity of the R1 vs. any menu system that is complicated, even if it is well thought out.

I personally think for most peoples work, it's a 5d world.  Sure if your shooting a big budget film or broadcast spot I'd go with the RED, but for most of what we do, I think the 5d2 is a good solution.

Now I've been asked a lot of I'm glad I bought the REDs and the answer is yes, in all capitals,

I love the r1's maybe someday I'll love the Scarlet . . . we'll see.

IMO

BC


P.S.  In regards to act of valor, yes these are professional artists and technicians with professional equipment and if they shot with almost anything it would look good.  The thing about the Canons are it would have been very costly to rent 8 Arri's, Epics, R1's, even Scarlets and use them as crash cams.

As Mr. Hurlbut said they shot 4 times as fast with the 5d2 and I believe that.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #9 on: March 05, 2012, 12:13:02 AM »
ReplyReply


I personally think for most peoples work, it's a 5d world.  

I would agree that it is a 1080 $5k camera world for many

But I still think the FS100 is in a different league at that price point

-Proper XLR synched sound - can feed one mic into two tracks at different levels - great for the less experienced sound recordist
-Big HDMI, well placed
-amazingly efficient codec with hours of run time - or clean 1080 to a recorder
-60p 'slo mo' at 1080 - available at one button press
-Sony, Canon EF FD, Nikon manual, Nikon G, PL, Leica, voigtlander - pretty much any glass
-runs for 8 hours off V-lock via dummy batt

Just the settings seen on some blogs ruin the FS100 colours

How mine is looking, I know this would make the 5d2 look terrible, hopefully the mk3 would be better..
http://dslr4real.tv/smmspace/webimages/dslr4real/angel/Angels.jpg

S
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 12:29:13 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #10 on: March 05, 2012, 04:58:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Yeah,
The FS100 is a good camera.

Strangely, many footage I've seen in the past with this cameras had a magenta dominance and a sort of coldish video-like output. It seems not so easy to grade but otherwise it's a serious tool I think.
The body buttons look very messy, but in the end once we spend time on a camera we get used of everything.

What I found a-priori difficult with the FS100 are the skin tones. But as I don't own the camera, I guess that owners end to find correct settings to compensate the default output. But the WB seems very delicate to set (correct me if I'm wrong)

The low-light is significantly better than 5D2 and hacked GH2.(although hacked gh2 has a great grain low-light and not a soup artefact). But the banding's there also and, bloody hell !, NO ND filter. That really pisses me of for a video camera.

The problem is that I see it in between 2 worlds, price included. Otherwise I would probably bought one. It's expensive enough to think about keeping this money and saving some more to access directly more robust camera models. That's my view but I understand that for some, it would be priced exactly right considering the specs.

But without the shade of a doubt, it's a good very capable camera with less hassles than dslrs-evils.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 05:09:41 AM by fredjeang » Logged
Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #11 on: March 05, 2012, 10:10:17 AM »
ReplyReply

It's been over a year since I've shot motion on the 5D2, but in hindsight the look is prettier than the anything I've seen out of the $5000 cams.

I've preordered the 5D3, & even though I'll mostly use it for stills, I'm excited to try it out for motion.
« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 10:15:29 AM by Bern Caughey » Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #12 on: March 05, 2012, 10:29:35 AM »
ReplyReply

It's been over a year since I've shot motion on the 5D2, but in hindsight the look is prettier than the anything I've seen out of the $5000 cams.

I've preordered the 5D3, & even though I'll mostly use it for stills, I'm excited to try it out for motion.

I have fits with the fs100.

The highlights are very hard to control and as Fred says the skintones are pink/magenta. 

Most of it can be fixed in post and by shooting a flat cine look and working the heck out of the file in color, but it's a lot of work.

The real issue I have with the file is it just looks video to me, or better put it looks Sony, which seems to like the video look.

I can't put my finger on it and say it's frame rate, or color, or grain, maybe it just looks kinda flat and thin.

The 5d2 looks thick and rich.

Now given this if Canon had made a fs100 with a 5d2 chip, hmmmm.

IMO

BC

Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #13 on: March 05, 2012, 11:26:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Now given this if Canon had made a fs100 with a 5d2 chip, hmmmm.

Ha !

Yeah.

That's what I'd like to see, and that's why those dslr designs anouncements for video never end to light my fire.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #14 on: March 05, 2012, 11:30:23 AM »
ReplyReply

I think the FS100 has had its rep badly damaged by various crappy flat profiles put out by so called experts testing the camera on a bunch of flowers and a watch in a black room

Personally I keep the contrast right up, dial out some red, and expose very carefully - much less ETTR than with a raw camera - its taken me six months to learn the histogram

Sure the 5d is pretty but as soon as that HDMI lead wobbles and the shot cuts during an important take, your client is not worried about a pretty image - they just think you are an ars******

I think the FS is so sweet given the price point

While I could stretch to an F3 or a C300 I think Ill sit on the FS for a year or two and see what the next gen brings or wait for a used Scarlet

S

« Last Edit: March 05, 2012, 11:33:01 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #15 on: March 06, 2012, 03:53:17 PM »
ReplyReply

It's funny,

I'm thinking about the stills. I'm not really sure in the end if we had the hability to shoot still "the traditional way", clic clic...while filming is in fact a good option.
The level of concentration when filming is indeed high and I think it would be an overtask to add still capture the old (sorry, current) way.

Maybe the best convincing system is the Scarlet option to, in fact, reducing the frame-rate and jumping in reso at 12 ips and then simply choose the stills from the image sequence in the raw dev, in this case RCX.
The only downside is that it's more time consuming, but would it be in fact much more than opening C1, Phocus etc etc...?
The good thing, is that there are much more to choose from.

The more I think about it, the more I see that the best solution would be cameras made and designed first for motion with still options and not the opposite.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 04:05:33 PM by fredjeang » Logged
JonRoemer
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 131


WWW
« Reply #16 on: March 06, 2012, 04:09:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Shane gets to some extent the joy of small, light, light sensitive camera systems and the ability to shoot multi multi cam - he's trying to break it down a bit

How much was shot on film Im not sure..

Shane has an Act of Valor Q&A online where he goes into which cameras were used for what.

Overall, 5D2 = 70% of film.
Logged

Bern Caughey
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 179



WWW
« Reply #17 on: March 06, 2012, 10:30:09 PM »
ReplyReply

It's important to note that Shane's footage was run through Cinnafilm's Dark Energy software, a cost few independents could absorb.

It will be very interesting if the 5D3 doesn't require such expensive treatment, but we'll need to wait for Canon to end the embargo of 1080p footage.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #18 on: March 06, 2012, 11:29:03 PM »
ReplyReply

It's important to note that Shane's footage was run through Cinnafilm's Dark Energy software, a cost few independents could absorb.

It will be very interesting if the 5D3 doesn't require such expensive treatment, but we'll need to wait for Canon to end the embargo of 1080p footage.

Looking at Mr. Hurlbut's comparison screen shots of before and after dark energy, I think with proper color, a little sharpening then some grain, you'd be very close to his after samples.

In fact I think you could get very close in 2k using Apple Color (the version from fcp 7).

I'm not saying the conversion would be 100% as good as running on a Quantel with fiber optics, but there doesn't seem to be "that" much of a difference between the before's and afters.

Actually for those out there with fcp7, give color a try.

It's not perfect, it's not the most full featured, but it is very good and fairly easy to learn.

IMO

BC

P.S.  It's obvious that there was a great deal of resource put into color and working of these 5d2 files, but I doubt not any more than is put into any hollywood release with a medium budget.

Only the person writing the check knows for sure.

P.S. 2   For anyone out there moving from stills to motion understand that beautiful color is hard.  No harder than stills other than the subject and scene is moving and you have to correct or amplify that.

Regardless, take 10 frames from a recent still shoot of a moving subject and try to make them exactly match in photoshop.    Now multiply that by 24fps, with 2,3,4 and up to 5 minute segments, shot with 2 or three different cameras, lenses and cinematographers and you'll understand why post production in motion imagery is the black hole of time.


« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 11:34:17 PM by bcooter » Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2214


WWW
« Reply #19 on: March 06, 2012, 11:46:02 PM »
ReplyReply


Regardless, take 10 frames from a recent still shoot of a moving subject and try to make them exactly match in photoshop.    Now multiply that by 24fps, with 2,3,4 and up to 5 minute segments, shot with 2 or three different cameras, lenses and cinematographers and you'll understand why post production in motion imagery is the black hole of time.


Do they need to match, or do they need to match enough to keep the viewer inside the box of the story?

While Ive assisted on some shoot with 'video DPs' one thing I have been really trying to get my head round is 'cheating' the lights - moving them between takes

Initually I thought it would be death to move any light - now it seems like you just have to keep it 'motivated' from the same direction ??

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad