House pisses me off

[Rick Burnett]

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?

It is absolutely fair. House isn't spreading misinformation, they are spreading what they shot on the 5D. At the end of the day, the consumer and the industry will judge what was released and whether it was acceptable. It's frankly that simple. Sure, it was probably harder for them to get great shots, limited the camera movements, etc, but only they know how much they end up spending.

It's also a simple matter of knowing your equipment. The more I shoot with the 7D, the more I know what it cannot do. With enough "learning" time, I'll be able to know unequivocally what I can and can't shoot on my camera. Again, it's frustrating to know end knowing where I have those limitations, after enough time, it will become second nature to me, as has to other film makers.

It's a good thing that young filmmakers are being 'untaught' because frankly, in my opinion, that is the essence of progress. There are too many people that 'do things like they've always done' and not decided to explore new territory. If it wasn't for people 'unlearning' the trade, nobody would be shooting on digital in the first place.

Your opinion on audio is just that, an opinion. I could point you to a dozen places that will all tell you that digital audio is crap for the SAME reasons as digital video, when you get near the top or the bottom, digital does not handle those well. Clip a digital amp compared to an analog amp and the difference in those scenarios is VERY VERY VERY easy to hear the difference. My point being is that YOUR threshold for acceptable levels of quality are different. YOU are not the judge, your client, and their clientele are the final critic of your work. If someone shows you a Vimeo or YouTube video, or even a show shot on television with the 5D and YOU cannot prove to them why your equipment and flow is better, then House didn't fail, but YOU did. You aren't able to show the value of your work, or convince your client why. Not everyone expects the same quality as you. I'd say though that it's even a deeper issue than that. I told someone that Sanctuary was shot on the RED ONE and they responded, "Oh, that show sucks". I actually agree with them, but now, they associate the quality of that show with the RED ONE. I no longer mention that show, but now, the Book of Eli.

I'm GLAD that DPs are having fun with different technologies really pushing the bounds of cinematography and seeing what can be done. I'm also SO FREAKING GLAD that this means they aren't playing with the handy cams (Cloverfield) as much It's the ONE TIME ONLY that the rolling shutter of the 5D/7D is working in our favor.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

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've seen some ISO2000+ test shots comparing RED M-X to 5D2 and analogue gain is indeed a bad idea... You could really see the drop in DR caused by it on the 5D2 making for some really ugly skin colours and tones.

Graeme

 

[Nils Ruinet]

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.

I see what you mean, but that's not entierly true.
Often you switch to higher ISO because your main subject is in low light, but that doesn't mean you won't have brighter items in your frame, such as lamps, lights or brighter lit stuff in the background, for whatever the reason.

Maintaining some highlight information on these is pretty important in my opinion, rather than having clipped videoish highlights. The RAW path that Red chose allows you to use that highlight detail to get a nice soft roll-off in those highlights.

 

[Brad Webb]

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.

No one is saying the 5D and 7D are not great cameras for the price. They are amazing.

What we are talking about here is why you would choose to shoot with a camera that records to an inferior format such as h.264 when you have the budget to shoot 35mm film.

If anyone reading this would make this choice I will gladly trade you my 7D for your RED or 35mm camera.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Wow Rick valid points at the end it's what the client wants, even though in this case it seems it's what the shooter wants. Good point though I can attest.

Your job as a professional is not to just do what the client wants when what that client wants is counter-productive to their stated goals and you know it. A doctor doesn't perform some unneeded surgery on you just because that's what you want. ("You know what Doc? I think I need to have my liver removed!" "Sure buddy! The customer is always right!") Instead he or she tries to guide you toward procedures that will result in your stated goal of good health.

To do otherwise is to let your clients and yourself down.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

It is absolutely fair. House isn't spreading misinformation, they are spreading what they shot on the 5D. At the end of the day, the consumer and the industry will judge what was released and whether it was acceptable. It's frankly that simple. Sure, it was probably harder for them to get great shots, limited the camera movements, etc, but only they know how much they end up spending.

It's also a simple matter of knowing your equipment. The more I shoot with the 7D, the more I know what it cannot do. With enough "learning" time, I'll be able to know unequivocally what I can and can't shoot on my camera. Again, it's frustrating to know end knowing where I have those limitations, after enough time, it will become second nature to me, as has to other film makers.

It's a good thing that young filmmakers are being 'untaught' because frankly, in my opinion, that is the essence of progress. There are too many people that 'do things like they've always done' and not decided to explore new territory. If it wasn't for people 'unlearning' the trade, nobody would be shooting on digital in the first place.

Your opinion on audio is just that, an opinion. I could point you to a dozen places that will all tell you that digital audio is crap for the SAME reasons as digital video, when you get near the top or the bottom, digital does not handle those well. Clip a digital amp compared to an analog amp and the difference in those scenarios is VERY VERY VERY easy to hear the difference. My point being is that YOUR threshold for acceptable levels of quality are different. YOU are not the judge, your client, and their clientele are the final critic of your work. If someone shows you a Vimeo or YouTube video, or even a show shot on television with the 5D and YOU cannot prove to them why your equipment and flow is better, then House didn't fail, but YOU did. You aren't able to show the value of your work, or convince your client why. Not everyone expects the same quality as you. I'd say though that it's even a deeper issue than that. I told someone that Sanctuary was shot on the RED ONE and they responded, "Oh, that show sucks". I actually agree with them, but now, they associate the quality of that show with the RED ONE. I no longer mention that show, but now, the Book of Eli.

I'm GLAD that DPs are having fun with different technologies really pushing the bounds of cinematography and seeing what can be done. I'm also SO FREAKING GLAD that this means they aren't playing with the handy cams (Cloverfield) as much It's the ONE TIME ONLY that the rolling shutter of the 5D/7D is working in our favor.

I agree that it is our job to sell good methods, but by creating this thread I am giving myself and others one more tool for that.

 

[Dan Kanes]

Your job as a professional is not to just do what the client wants when what that client wants is counter-productive to their stated goals and you know it. A doctor doesn't perform some unneeded surgery on you just because that's what you want. ("You know what Doc? I think I need to have my liver removed!" "Sure buddy! The customer is always right!") Instead he or she tries to guide you toward procedures that will result in your stated goal of good health.

To do otherwise is to let your clients and yourself down.

I think cosmetic surgery is a much better analogy to what we are talking about since it's an aesthetic choice, and electively decided on much like a client/studio relationship.

Personally I find fake boobs gross, but some people like them.

Same with hdslr footage.

 

[Brad Webb]

It is absolutely fair. House isn't spreading misinformation, they are spreading what they shot on the 5D. At the end of the day, the consumer and the industry will judge what was released and whether it was acceptable. It's frankly that simple. Sure, it was probably harder for them to get great shots, limited the camera movements, etc, but only they know how much they end up spending.

That is exactly the point. Only House will know how much damn post work and extra money they spent to spit shine up all the moire and aliasing they got. Only House will know how much money they lost during production when they had to spend a few extra hours a day to make the shots look right in the camera, or how many times they missed focus working with those Canon SLR lenses. No doubt the end product is going to look incredible. This is what producers are going to see, and every one is going to hear "well House did it, and it looked good."

This is where the misinformation will come from. The producers are only seeing the money saved on the cost of camera. They are not seeing the money lost on post and on set.

 

[Brad Webb]

I think cosmetic surgery is a much better analogy to what we are talking about since it's an aesthetic choice, and electively decided on much like a client/studio relationship.

Personally I find fake boobs gross, but some people like them.

Same with hdslr footage.

OMG that is hilarious.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Your job as a professional is not to just do what the client wants when what that client wants is counter-productive to their stated goals and you know it. A doctor doesn't perform some unneeded surgery on you just because that's what you want. ("You know what Doc? I think I need to have my liver removed!" "Sure buddy! The customer is always right!") Instead he or she tries to guide you toward procedures that will result in your stated goal of good health.

To do otherwise is to let your clients and yourself down.

I am a professional chip designer and I give the customer what they want. When they want something that doesn't make sense or goes counter-productive to the end result, I very carefully and methodically explain to them issues with their request/desire and what caveats there will be and let them make a decision if they want to go down that path or not. THEY are paying me, I INFORM them and EDUCATE them of the risk, THEY make the final decision.

All legal and moral issues aside, if the doctor says "Hey, that will kill you!" and the customer says "I know, let's do it anyways." then at least they know what they are in for.

Like I said from the beginning, if you can't convince these clients of what value add you offer, you need new clients!

 

[Terry VerHaar]

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 am not sure you are completely grasping the advantage of shooting RAW in this context. If Epic is giving you 13.5 clean (low/no noise) stops of dynamic range, then your RAW files let you start out with this. From there you make decisions about how much of it you want to see in your final footage and where your midpoints are. You can decide how much of the blacks you want to open up and how you want highlights to roll off, etc. Because your ISO is metadata and does not limit what is available to you, you have complete flexibility in what to "keep" and what it looks like. I am not sure I understand what analog gain would give you in this scenario?

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think there are many (if any?) venues where you can actually show 13.5 stops (contrast ratio of around 11,500:1) in your final output. So, what is it you would do with analog gain on top of the clean sensor data you are already getting? Feel free to correct any factual errors as I want to make sure I understand this topic thoroughly.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

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.

Broadcast over cable it would look terrible, as it does not re compress well, just like the SNL credits do. I also assume the prod had no establishing shots of brick buildings, or any of the hundreds of other things you can't shoot with a 5D.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

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.

Well that's my largest problem with the vdslrs at present. "Properly shot." is extremely challenging since there are so many pitfalls. As I've shot more and more 5D stuff I'm building my list of "no-go" situations to avoid at all costs but it seems like 1-2 always sneak past every time I take it out.

Of course if you're House I'm sure you'll be shooting loads of test footage and there shouldn't be any surprises. But I'm not out of my "paranoid" phase with the camera. Last 'gotcha' was lightly textured paper that turned into a rainbow. Wouldn't have expected that to be a source of moire so I it wasn't checked. I've never seen white paper moire before. Another thing to add to the list...

 

[Terry VerHaar]

I think cosmetic surgery is a much better analogy to what we are talking about since it's an aesthetic choice, and electively decided on much like a client/studio relationship.

Personally I find fake boobs gross, but some people like them.

Same with hdslr footage.

Personally, I only use my 7D to shoot fake boobs! :lol:

At least that's what I'd do if I had one!!!

 

[Rick Burnett]

That is exactly the point. Only House will know how much damn post work and extra money they spent to spit shine up all the moire and aliasing they got. Only House will know how much money they lost during production when they had to spend a few extra hours a day to make the shots look right in the camera, or how many times they missed focus working with those Canon SLR lenses. No doubt the end product is going to look incredible. This is what producers are going to see, and every one is going to hear "well House did it, and it looked good."

This is where the misinformation will come from. The producers are only seeing the money saved on the cost of camera. They are not seeing the money lost on post and on set.

It's not misinformation! It's an ignorant producer is what it is. And if the result looks incredible but took more work, it's still a valid result! If that is what the customer wants, then you shoot what they want and charge more for the additional work. If someone else is not charging more for that work then guess what, YOU'RE TOO EXPENSIVE! Capitalism.

if someone came to me and said, "We want to shoot this action sequence with a movie camera tracking blah blah blah" there is NO WAY we would shoot in on the 7D. We'd use the HVX200 for that. Why? Because we KNOW our equipment. The rolling shutter and shallow focus will kill us in these shots trying to get them. Wrong tool for the job.

I personally wish more people would pay attention to what they are producing than what it is shot on because most things on the TV these days are absolute crap. I don't care if it were shot in 150K resolution, it still sucks!

 

[Nils Ruinet]

Well that's my largest problem with the vdslrs at present. "Properly shot." is extremely challenging since there are so many pitfalls. As I've shot more and more 5D stuff I'm building my list of "no-go" situations to avoid at all costs but it seems like 1-2 always sneak past every time I take it out.

Of course if you're House I'm sure you'll be shooting loads of test footage and there shouldn't be any surprises. But I'm not out of my "paranoid" phase with the camera. Last 'gotcha' was lightly textured paper that turned into a rainbow. Wouldn't have expected that to be a source of moire so I it wasn't checked. I've never seen white paper moire before. Another thing to add to the list...

Gavin,
would you mind sharing that list with us ? I'm sure that would be useful to a lot of us.
Thanks.:smile:

 

[Rick Burnett]

The problem with adjustable analog gain is it is not necessary with a properly designed camera and I absolutely agree with how RED has approached their design this way. The ONLY need for analog gain as far as I can see from a technical standpoint is to increase the output of the sensor over the noise of the A/D conversion circuitry into a deeper bit depth so you can bring the output down in digital and push out the A/D noise altogether. The factors you are balancing are the A/D noise, the sensor noise, and the amplifier noise to name a few. I'd also add heat noise as well as it should be considered in my opinion. Once you have thrown all these into the mix, you can then select gain and A/D to maximize the image out of the sensor.

With the selectable analog gain, all you are doing is pushing that voltage up the A/D. If the A/D is not large enough, you clip. You trade A/D noise for sensor noise and LESS dynamic range in most cases. I say most because if the A/D noise floor is larger than the sensor noise, you can pick up more detail in the shadows, but in this case I'd argue the system design was flawed to begin with and and you are dealing with an improperly designed system.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Gavin,
would you mind sharing that list with us ? I'm sure that would be useful to a lot of us.
Thanks.:smile:

Here's a small part of mine:

Beards (look thicker than normal due to line-skipping)
Pans of busy scenes or long Steadicam shots (compression craps out)
Vehicles moving past the camera (Jello)
Fast pans (jello far worse than any other cam)
About 30% of all commonly found fabrics (moire)
Faces lit with dramatic fresnel (pores are overly accentuated by aliasing)
All buildings in focus/cityscapes (always some fine lines in there that will moire)
People with wrinkles in their foreheads or dark eyebrows with thicker hair strands (they can moire)
Any high detail scenes (look too soft and will crap-out compression)
Any fashion-client faces (small defects in skin and makeup, including freckles, over-accentuated by aliasing and unacceptable to myself and client)
Car grilles (moire)
High dynamic range shots (cannot really re-grade safely)
....

 

[Rick Burnett]

Broadcast over cable it would look terrible, as it does not re compress well, just like the SNL credits do. I also assume the prod had no establishing shots of brick buildings, or any of the hundreds of other things you can't shoot with a 5D.

Broadcast over cable looks like crap in the area I live no matter who sends it and what they shot on. I actually cancelled cable because I cannot take it anymore. In my area, we have Time Warner, AT&T U-verse and a bunch of Dish network offerings. I have looked at them all on both 720p and 1080p systems and the amount of artifacts and noise are AMAZING. I even checked other people's setups and saw the same thing.

Let's then add to that the quality of Netflix streaming video which also has HORRIBLE artifacting and strange strobing effect with massive scene changes. I can't stand that either.

I think we need to be pissed at all the consumers in the world for accepting this crap I jest of course, but it does amaze me people are okay with this quality when so much better exists. I wait and buy the shows I want when they are released so I can enjoy your and everyone else's hard work.

 

[Rick Darge]

You know what pisses me off?

Camera bashing...

It's stupid and gets you nowhere. Cinematographers are entitled to shoot on a 24 fps pin-hole camera if that's the look they want.

• Red has it's own unique look
•*Alexa has it's own unique look
•*Canon has it's own unique look
• FlipHD Video has it's own unique look



People need to get over this dSLR camera bashing nonsense. It makes Redusers look like a bunch of fraternity fanboys with most of Hollywood laughing at silly threads like this.

The right tool for the right job should be every filmmakers motto. The moment you start caring about the tech over the story is the moment you lost at life