Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

House pisses me off

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I will say it. I worked on an Internet distributed project called The Ballad of Mary and Ernie, directed by Robert Stadd (a visual effects supervisor who has done most of Michael Mann's pictures over the last few years). It was shot on the 5D and was projected on a reasonably large screen at Laser Pacific. I had color corrected it on a video monitor (it went to SR tape) and thought it looked pretty good, but had some of the aliasing issues that have been mentioned here. When I saw it projected on a 2K projector, I was somewhat shocked that not only did the image quality hold up, it looked better than it did on the monitor, and most of the "issues" were less noticeable, not more noticeable. Now, I wouldn't recommend using these devices for high end work for a multitude of reasons. But making blanket statements that are not borne out by the actual experiences of those who have used them is to be just as closed minded as those you're criticizing.

There's theory, FUD, and reality. I prefer the latter.

Michael,

I think I have logged about a month of set time now with the 5D as the principle camera. I've also dealt with the footage through grading. Does that count as actual experience?

This is pretty simple. Would you prefer a wavelet compressed raw image or an H.264 compressed baked image. I've worked with both and seen both projected in a grading theatre. You are right, the 5D is "surprising", especially when shot in perfect exposure conditions with minimal noise but add a little noise or a fair amount of movement and the situation gets drastically worse. If you really think that's FUD then I think your subjective tolerance for image quality must be significantly lower than others.

David Mullen said it best when he pointed out that when you are working within the confines of one particular format you tend to forget it's limitations. Grading a 5D shoot and saying "Hey this looks better than I thought it would." Is a wonderful example of living within such limitations.

But, if you feel strongly that I'm making a blanket statement when I say the Red makes a better blow up than the 5D or that my "FUD" is based on a "theory" then so be it.

IBloom
 
Out of interest.... is House finished to 1080p or 720p?

Everything in network television is mastered to 1080p (or 1080i if it's a live event). The 720p version is made purely as a delivery element for networks that broadcast in that format, which would be Fox and ABC owned broadcast and cable networks.
 
But, if you feel strongly that I'm making a blanket statement when I say the Red makes a better blow up than the 5D or that my "FUD" is based on a "theory" then so be it.

I think you're either taking my comments out of context or misunderstanding what I was referring to. I wasn't commenting on an "either/or" scenario. I was stating that those who feel that the DSLR footage is completely unacceptable based on numbers or comments made on places like RedUser likely haven't seen properly shot footage from these devices under good viewing conditions. Not being the equal of a higher priced camera with much better specifications and quality does not make these things unacceptable under all circumstances. That doesn't mean one isn't significantly better that the other, clearly that is not the case. But at least at the moment, they have considerably different form factors and that alone makes one more appropriate than the other under certain production circumstances. Being able to get a shot at all is sometimes a bit more important than being able to get it with ultimate quality.
 
First, I'd say the concept of the DSLR sized camera that even RED has embraces is proving itself to be what people want because they can use it almost anywhere. I took a wide lens (10mm) put my 7D on the end of my monopod and shoved it up in a tree to take a neat overhead shot. I could NOT imagine doing that with most other cameras. People are excited by multiple aspects, not just the video itself.

But the truth is, and interesting part, is using a 5D/7D is/will be MUCH MORE difficult than a One/Scarlet/Epic and people ARE willing to trade the simplicity in terms of shots for the other added benefits. I've never seen a Red Once shoot as nice of night shots, but that was before the MX sensor, which the night shots we have seen are amazing. For people like me who do this on the side, the cost/performance ratio up til now is not there. Like I said, $50k for a red package (is that right?) I would NEVER pay back with the amount of work I currently do. Eventually I would, but I feel until the Scarlet is released, for me, economically, the 7D is perfect. I THANK Canon for what they've done.

I used to get this is the audio industry all the time, the "You are taking business away from me with your digital crap!" and the arguments I would have. 95% of people could care less if you used a $5k compressor on the mix. The audio monitors I used are better than 99.9% of the speakers my music is probably heard through. That's the problem. The people who were mixing music were out of touch with the people who were buying the product. The people paying you for doing this music are not. People are mixing art with business. If someone can get by shooting something for 1/5th the price and still sell the same # of units they are going to do it, simple economics.

For many of you, why wouldn't you be upset? The clients want to spend less with an expected result that they expect you to get. You CAN get great results with a 5D/7D but guess what? It means you have to work WAY harder to get them. You have to scrutinize every shot, check for Moire, check for aliasing, look for compression artifacts, jello, skew, and lets not even get to the sound part of things. The fact is, it is doable, it's just harder and frankly you waste a lot of time and shots dealing with camera short-comings. In other words, your job just got harder for less money.

That said, there are other people willing to do it for that less money. It's just a fact of capitalism.

But beyond all that, I implore you to look at one awesome aspect of this. Imagine how much easier it is to get the Scarlet or Epic into a production after all these places have dealt with the painful parts of working with the 5D/7D in the future. Not like these problems are going to go away. In the future, these cameras will eventually make selling your skills EASIER

As an off-topic, I think the S35 is going to be the dominant Scarlet brain. After using the 5D myself, I do not prefer full frame. I know tastes vary, but keeping things in focus can be a nightmare in some situations. I am going with the Scarlet Fixed/S35 brain combo because the S35 will be closest to the sensor size in my 7D which I really like that format.

I'm sure in like a year we're going to be seeing this discussion over at other boards "House 2011 pisses me off! Why do they use a Scarlet and how come no one wants to use my Arri camera"

:)
 
Hi,

I always assumed that 'dynamic' had some connection with 'dynamics', which is why I assume the +/- dynamics should be connected to ISO.

Latitude used to the term that described the +/- error in an exposure that could give an acceptable result, now it's often (usuallly) used to describe DR.

I have to say, I am not a Hollywood DP (not even close) but I am surprised at the confusion here.On this forum, I have seen how so many people mistakenly confuse latitude and dynamic range, despite the fact that the difference has been clearly articulated over and over here. It does, however, seem true that the two are very sloppily interchanged in conversation. As Nils so clearly put it, dynamic range is the total number of stops of which the camera is capable (and whatever metadata ISO you set it at doesn't change that). RAW makes a difference vis a vis the metadata thing.

Latitude is different - essentially the amount of "forgiveness" you have in the shadows and the highlights, respectively, once you have "baked in" your exposure parameters (I am probably not defining this part well so refer back to better explanations). One thing I was surprised to learn (from Deanan's post) is that the dynamic range of the Canon can actually change depending on the ISO you choose.
 
Last edited:
Hi Mike,

I am on the same page as you, not sure what Deanan was saying.

Stephen

I'm saying that when Canon uses analog gain when they change ISO, it also means that they sacrifice some of the total range. For example, if they have 10 stops (i picked an arbitrary number) at their native ISO, if they turn up analog gain to go to higher ISOs, it'll cause the highlights to clip earlier in the A/D.

Think of it as the diagonal line in photoshop curves. Increasing gain tilts that line up and the top end clips so while you gain a bit more definition (more values for the same signal from the sensor) at the low end, you also throw away a lot more at the top end.

On R1, ISO is metadata so the dynamic range is not affected and what you're doing is choosing how much highlight vs shadow range you want.
 
Hi,

It was no contest, the director knew exactly what he was doing & why. Horses for Corses!
I seem to remember Red M in Tungsten light showed about 8 stops in many tests, rather less if you rated the camera at 1000-2000 iso!

This was old builds, and this certainly was not with MX sensors. This also was not with modern noise-reduction tools, even with the old sensor. Red noise is fine-grained and quite easy to clean up, being 12 bit, whereas 8bit noise with macroblocking errors (or worse, noise already crudely reduced by an on-board digic) there is little you can do with to post-produce back up details in the blacks.
 
...It's about other serious productions brutally cheaping out and using ridiculous equipment for what it was not designed, with "well if it's good enough for "House" it's good enough for me" argument.

Then welcome to capitalism and free markets...everyone, even those with deep pockets, are free to do whatever they like...
 
Think of dynamic range as a fixed spec of the sensor and electronics. It is the range of voltages the sensor can produce between the noise floor at the low end and maximum clip point at the high end. Latitude is the range of choices you can make for exposure and processing either in camera or in post to get the image quality you want within that dynamic range. Latitude varies with many factors from scene light levels and contrast ratios to camera gain settings. Dynamic range ultimately does not.
 
First, I'd say the concept of the DSLR sized camera that even RED has embraces is proving itself to be what people want because they can use it almost anywhere. I took a wide lens (10mm) put my 7D on the end of my monopod and shoved it up in a tree to take a neat overhead shot. I could NOT imagine doing that with most other cameras. People are excited by multiple aspects, not just the video itself.

But the truth is, and interesting part, is using a 5D/7D is/will be MUCH MORE difficult than a One/Scarlet/Epic and people ARE willing to trade the simplicity in terms of shots for the other added benefits. I've never seen a Red Once shoot as nice of night shots, but that was before the MX sensor, which the night shots we have seen are amazing. For people like me who do this on the side, the cost/performance ratio up til now is not there. Like I said, $50k for a red package (is that right?) I would NEVER pay back with the amount of work I currently do. Eventually I would, but I feel until the Scarlet is released, for me, economically, the 7D is perfect. I THANK Canon for what they've done.

I used to get this is the audio industry all the time, the "You are taking business away from me with your digital crap!" and the arguments I would have. 95% of people could care less if you used a $5k compressor on the mix. The audio monitors I used are better than 99.9% of the speakers my music is probably heard through. That's the problem. The people who were mixing music were out of touch with the people who were buying the product. The people paying you for doing this music are not. People are mixing art with business. If someone can get by shooting something for 1/5th the price and still sell the same # of units they are going to do it, simple economics.

For many of you, why wouldn't you be upset? The clients want to spend less with an expected result that they expect you to get. You CAN get great results with a 5D/7D but guess what? It means you have to work WAY harder to get them. You have to scrutinize every shot, check for Moire, check for aliasing, look for compression artifacts, jello, skew, and lets not even get to the sound part of things. The fact is, it is doable, it's just harder and frankly you waste a lot of time and shots dealing with camera short-comings. In other words, your job just got harder for less money.

That said, there are other people willing to do it for that less money. It's just a fact of capitalism.

But beyond all that, I implore you to look at one awesome aspect of this. Imagine how much easier it is to get the Scarlet or Epic into a production after all these places have dealt with the painful parts of working with the 5D/7D in the future. Not like these problems are going to go away. In the future, these cameras will eventually make selling your skills EASIER

As an off-topic, I think the S35 is going to be the dominant Scarlet brain. After using the 5D myself, I do not prefer full frame. I know tastes vary, but keeping things in focus can be a nightmare in some situations. I am going with the Scarlet Fixed/S35 brain combo because the S35 will be closest to the sensor size in my 7D which I really like that format.

I'm sure in like a year we're going to be seeing this discussion over at other boards "House 2011 pisses me off! Why do they use a Scarlet and how come no one wants to use my Arri camera"

:)

No, this is not fair. If the 5D outperformed Red, I might feel sad about lost investments, even Jim's lost investments, but I would not be pissed off at House, as they would not be spreading misinformation, basically "unteaching" young filmmakers. The audio argument some years back did not really hold much water in terms of final product, and the benefits of digital in many cases outweighed the cons, and digital audio is capable of a more than adequate - superb even - audio performance for a huge majority of applications. This is different. The 5D is NOT a good cinema camera. If the 5D Mark III comes out and its image performance is great, I will just buy it, and use it.

Part of the misinformation you state yourself. You don't really save money using a 5D because you lose time on lost shots. This is fine on a student production (again, this thread is about the appropriateness of DSLRs for paid, high-end work - no budget indies must make due with whatever and should be encouraged either way - that is not the point), but if you have paid crew and actors, how much does a lost 2 hours cost? You also don't have to buy Red, you can rent it here in Montreal for about $650 for a small package with a Nikon or Canon (Birger) mount. 2 hours of set time, when dealing with a pro situation, costs a lot more than $650, on top of creating a disapointed client and an unpleasant set of meetings and damaging your reputation. Meanwhile, after this mishap, do you think Canon, Zacuto, etc. are going to give you your money back?
 
Think of dynamic range as a fixed spec of the sensor and electronics. It is the range of voltages the sensor can produce between the noise floor at the low end and maximum clip point at the high end. Latitude is the range of choices you can make for exposure and processing either in camera or in post to get the image quality you want within that dynamic range. Latitude varies with many factors from scene light levels and contrast ratios to camera gain settings. Dynamic range ultimately does not.

Very well put.
 
Hi,

I always assumed that 'dynamic' had some connection with 'dynamics', which is why I assume the +/- dynamics should be connected to ISO.

Latitude used to the term that described the +/- error in an exposure that could give an acceptable result, now it's often (usuallly) used to describe DR.
Graeme explains it better than I do :
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=581027&postcount=820
http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=581160&postcount=848
 
I'm saying that when Canon uses analog gain when they change ISO, it also means that they sacrifice some of the total range. For example, if they have 10 stops (i picked an arbitrary number) at their native ISO, if they turn up analog gain to go to higher ISOs, it'll cause the highlights to clip earlier in the A/D.

Think of it as the diagonal line in photoshop curves. Increasing gain tilts that line up and the top end clips so while you gain a bit more definition (more values for the same signal from the sensor) at the low end, you also throw away a lot more at the top end.

On R1, ISO is metadata so the dynamic range is not affected and what you're doing is choosing how much highlight vs shadow range you want.

Maybe I am missing something, but if I want to raise the ISO, it's because my subject is less well lit so I am happy to loose top end to gain at the bottom. Obviously if it's very bright it would be good to go the other way.

Perhaps future cameras from RED will use analog gain, having seen some pictures from the latest Nikon, I don't think it's a bad idea in principle.
 
I think what he's saying is that non-cinematographers don't know that. That some product director or producer sees a pretty Vimeo video and say "zomg pretty colors this will look awesome projected on an 80' theater screen, shoot the whole thing on a $2400 camera."

I don't know to what extent that's true, I'm just saying what I think his point was.

YES. Although in my case the TV screen is likely a 50 1080p plasma - but that's exactly it.
 
Well 8 stops (on a 5D) is not that great. An Ex1 is 11. A Red with MX about 13

I'm sorry, this is a fail.

7D has 11-12 stops of DR. 5D should also be around 10.5-11.5. It's crammed into a 4:2:0 space but it does have the capability of recording the same hyperwhite as the EX series cams. Gradients just look worse because of the color space.

No argument from me that red produces better images. House was hype, and lame. Let's not mix arguments here though. Aliasing/moire blows. These cams can record good DR, but they are noisy. There are of course many more problems, but 18 months ago the possibility of creating images at this price point that looked this good was not really possible.
 
EX1's are only approved for SD production.
5D's Not approved for anything
Red is approved for use by Independent productions only

http://www.bbc.co.uk/commissioning/production/hd.shtml

Last I checked on an actual prod 4 2 0 EX footage got through with some talking. Nanoflash which is 422 they could hardly object to. All these things, in practice, are negotiable and depend on the relationship and what your show otherwise looks like, but 5Ds they really, really bug on because they do not broadcast well at all.
 
Not sure what this is doing in the RED One - General forum, but an interesting read anyway.

My experience with the HDSLRs have been quite troublesome. At one point I convinced myself that it was my capabilities that were letting me down, but realized the only way to work with these cameras is to work around the limitations. Sadly, for me, these limitations are impossible to work with. All credit to DPs who can work around it. Let's not get into conspiracy theories like Canon paying House/DP off, etc. I think its a simple case of the DP convincing the top personnel in House that these cameras are indeed awesome (by playing at their strengths and specs, maybe?). "It has a frame size larger than 35mm!". It is true, technically. And then, you can shoot a well-lit close up with a shallow depth of field, and compare it to 35mm scanned at 2K (throw away half the information) side-by-side (throw away half of that - we are at quarter) to a 35mm strike print (throw even more information - 35mm is a poor projection format). And at that level, you are basically seeing less than 0.5K of each - and the 7D does perform at that level. Now, this is going to convince the non-technical people, no doubt.

Let's not forget too, that House is destined for the small screen.

A 1080p 50' screen is pretty big - and when you sit close to it you can resolve as much rez as a cinema audience viewer - sometimes more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top