Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • 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 :)

Finally saw the House Season Finale

N

Nathan Pena

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 7, 2008
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Points
0
After reading an article in ASC mag, I was reminded to check out the House season finale, which was completely shot on the 5D. I gotta say, besides most of the shots being buzzed or completely out, it looked pretty fantastic. Also, it just made sense to use small cameras with that tight set. Speaking about small cameras, imagine if scarlet was available. Just as small with no banding and other problems. Can't wait.

-Nathan
 
I thought it was a great technical achievement for using those cameras. A textbook example of how shoot with a dlsr.. Some scenes could have been a bit deeper as far as color representation - but overall, some of the best photography in the show. Especially the last scenes in House's apartment, the grade and exposure worked really well to underline the emotions.
 
It's entirely possible to take shallow depth of field so far as to have nothing at all in focus. Many shots in house were so shallow, leaving practically nothing in focus, and that is hard for me to watch. I keep wanting to clean my spectacles to remove the blur, which is hard to do when you're not wearing any. To me, in many places it was like watching fog.

Albert
 
Using such shallow DoF was a choice made in House, not a technical limit.

They could easily have selected a Canon 7D, or a RED. (I'm willing to bet Jim would have happily brought them his EPIC if they asked.) They could have thrown in more light. Or both. Any of these would have altered the look. made it more in keeping with "traditional" cinematography.

I find it interesting and instructive that the discussion is centered about this creative choice and not the photographic technology.

These cameras leave a lot to be desired, but in the hands of professional users they can do the job.

Exciting times.
 
Agreed. And there were several times where the shallow dof was really effective. Being able to completely separate house from the background in a cowboy shot was really powerful for that moment.
 
HD version

HD version

Missed the broadcast. Is there an HD version on the web?
Watched hulu and don't think it does it justice- looks pretty bad. Do I have to wait for BluRay?
 
I saw it on Fox's website. Maybe its some sort of compressed HD, might have to wait till bluray or a rebroadcast on tv.
 
Nathan Pena said:
... Also, it just made sense to use small cameras with that tight set. Speaking about small cameras, imagine if scarlet was available....
Click to expand...

Epic is just about as small. To go from RedOne to size of Epic in one
generation was a real magic trick..like pulling a rabbit out of a hat.
But it had to be done..as very soon all cameras will be so small.

One reason why alot of DPs have taken to the HDSLR is the size..
Shane Hurlbutt ASC has referrred to 100 lbs. of metal talking about
hand held film cameras. And the CSI Miami DP uses 7D w/ Zeiss
and Canon glass on little inserts of the show and did a feature
recently with the same set-up. When asked on one those HDSLR
websites stated following...

Well, we all know that House shot their season finale on 5d's, so as far as resolution is concerned, I think the cameras are up to the task...as far as an entire episode of CSI Miami being shot entirely with the canons...nothing has been talked about yet as far as our new upcoming season, but I wouldn't be opposed to that notion if the story would support the style....Ken Glassing
Click to expand...
 
OptiTek said:
Missed the broadcast. Is there an HD version on the web?
Watched hulu and don't think it does it justice- looks pretty bad. Do I have to wait for BluRay?
Click to expand...

Buy it from itunes. Looks great.
 
Even if the Epic-X were out, it sounds like they would have used the 5DII.... they wanted FF for the shallowest DOF possible.

I enjoyed it. It is a great glimpse into what the future holds for us all... whether we use DSLRs, Scarlets, Epics or other small form, large chip, amazing low light cameras.

VERY exciting times ahead.
 
Jim Retar said:
Even if the Epic-X were out, it sounds like they would have used the 5DII.... they wanted FF for the shallowest DOF possible.
Click to expand...
Concordo/agreed. Even if I am used to shoot 3D with 2 x GH1, I wouldn't leave both 5D Mark II at home.
 
My 2 cents... looked very uneven... especially in the flesh tones... very patchy, most notably in the hospital interiors. Lots of strange patches of off color... very inconsistent from shot to shot which I found distracting. Seemed effective for the close quarters segments under the rubble. Some nice lensing for sure... good use of flairs etc. I'd like to read about how they approached the color grade and if aliasing and artifacts played a role in it's direction or how they originally exposed and then compensated in post. Expensive shoot aside from the camera so you know they did some serious testing.
 
In my ideal world, the S35 Epic would be bypassed.
If they put out a 5k or 6k FF35 that could still shoot S35 in cropped mode,
shoot anamorphic properly...

It would be great competition for the 5D and it's successors, and also offer something stunning that the Alexa won't be offering.

It would be the best camera in the world, and Red would be king.
 
why is everyone so amped on FF?

not many lens choices (if there are they are in the 20k per lens category)

harder to pull focus..

and that shallow depth of field thing is SOOOOO 2003
and overused by students everywhere
 
Assigning an outmoded tag to depth of field choices isn't helpful. Surely perfectly valid and profoundly moving images will continue to be made using shallow depth of field. "Students" use a lot of things a lot of the time, that's how they learn to become great filmmakers, but competent filmmakers are not about to eschew a certain technique/look because students tend to overuse it. If, instead, you mean that the camera work, having employed shallow depth of field for no other reason than cheap effect, then I can understand. Was that the case?

FF sensors and larger offer greater depth of field performance than do small sensors. Consider the 8x10" stills format, its standard lens is about 250mm, compared to 35mm's 50mm standard lens, so why did the "f64 Group" ( and everyone else for that matter) use large format cameras to facilitate maximum sharpness throughout an image, from foreground to infinity? enlargement ratio is why. Even without the benefits of tilting/swinging fronts and backs, large format wins hands down because it rarely has to be enlarged to such a degree as to reveal typical small format shortcomings. Try comparing a contact print from an 8X10 neg to an 8x10 print made from a 35mm or smaller neg, then consider depth of field performance of a 1/4" sensor. Certainly, if enlargement ratio and inherent resolution limitations were not a factor and 1/4" sensors performed as well as larger ones on a large screen, then using smaller sensors for their depth of field qualities might make sense. And I say "performance" because the overall superior quality of large format plays a considerable role in depth of field visuals. The circle of confusion applied to large format depth of field calculations tends to the more forgiving side because it considers enlargement ratios. Same thing applies to "digital video/film", even if it is a little more complicated with its numerous screen sizes. If I were making a movie for the big screen and desired greater (deeper focus) depth of field performance, I would not use a small sensor. You tube is a different story. Maybe the seasoned film guys would care to comment on this?
 
Bill Anderson said:
If, instead, you mean that the camera work, having employed shallow depth of field for no other reason than cheap effect, then I can understand. Was that the case?
Click to expand...

absolutely my point.. students DONT ascetically make any choices except for.. DOES IT FEEL LIKE FILM.. and to make their hvx seem like film they throw a dof adapter in front of the stock lens..
that was my dof point.

OBVIOUSLY there are reasons to use shallow depth of field.. I use it when the shot requires it.. but overuse has killed the effect.. and FF will just emphasize the over use, whether you want that look or not.

I dont know.. this is all just an opinion so dont rip me apart if you dont agree:)

but also.. there are so many people invested in s35 glass that might or might not cover FF, that i dont see it becoming a standard, but rather a specialty
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top