I don't get it? Is that DOP blind? Can he not see how soft these )&%# DSLRs look in HD!?
This angers me. Just yesterday an agency art director said she wanted us to use a 5D because it was "the cool, in approach". So aliasing is in style now? Is moire what all the hip DJs, Russian models and Berlin performance artists are into? Yeah, cool kids hate true high resolution - that's so last year.
Now this House thing makes winning arguments harder. I need to win these arguments, because I cannot rent out a Red kit for free to productions as I might my 5D. (I have baseplates that cost more than my 5D, which I bought because I love it as a STILLS camera). I also HATE that awful aliased low res over-compressed look the 5D gives me. It's no fun to shoot crap.
My feeling is that House DOP got paid big time by Canon. Otherwise it makes no sense, no sense at all.
Here's my theory of the whole phenomenon. There are lots and lots of amateurs out there. They know almost nothing about cinematography, have no real eye, etc. To them, the 5D looks "movie-like". This band of morons is a HUGE market to sell accessories to like follow-focuses made from RC car gears. Now we have a motivated group to promote the idea that its a great solution: all the mugs who sell cheap-crap accessories at high prices.
The other motivated group are the no-budget-no-connections filmmakers themselves. It's very appealing for them to think that their tool is "almost as good as 35mm film", the preposterous claim that is the subtext of the Zacuto shoot-out recently. They will scream and shout and jump all about if you try to tell them that is not true, because if that is not true it means that their pipe-dream of shooting a movie for $700 and having it look as good as Hollywood feature is not realistic (it's not realistic for a number of other reasons as well, but no room to go into those here). They don't want to hear that, especially since most of them deep down, know it's true. More motivated sellers of the 5D lie.
Then of course, we have Canon. Video shooters, even wedding guys, have deeper pockets than photo guys. L Glass, compared to dedicated video lenses, is essentially free. What an awesome market for Canon. Thus the third pillar of the trifecta of 5D Lie Salesmen.
This lie is more easily sold because most of what we see from that camera we see hyper-compressed on the web, at a highly blurred 720p or lower, with all the shots that didn't (can't) work - like bricks in focus, high-contrast wrinkles, beards, etc. etc. edited out. No one stops to think that a resolved 550p or so, as streaming web video is commonly capable of, is as good as the footage will EVER look, unlike footage from other real film and video cams, which would look FAR BETTER on HD cable or blu-ray.
There are so many salesmen that a fellow DOP was sitting with me the other night and said "Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way. Maybe aliasing and low resolution are no big deal." No. It's important we realize that successfully brainwashing people with a statement does not make it true.
The fact is, the 5D hurts the business in many ways. It is a great student camera, like my old Bolex was, but I think it is destructive to our trade if we say we can shoot a major network show on a modern-day Bolex.
We need to more aggressively and shamelessly say that good tools and of course good talent are not cheap, and that standards must always remain high in all ways. Otherwise pro and amateur will be blended together as one low standard, and film schools may as well close.
Originally Posted by Christian Munoz D
