House pisses me off

[Rob Ruffo]

It's one thing to intercut and use it as a "B" camera, but to rely one of these for an entire episode, when you've shot every other episode on film, I just don't get it.

Yes, there are a lot of things a DSLR can do, but there are way more things it can't do. Things that you expect a high quality camera to be able to do. When you have a limited budget, crew, and/or shooting schedule, it makes sense to step down a level in camera quality.

Yes, agreed. I might use a 5D to have a second unit try and get quicky B-roll shots while we set up the main camera - shots we don;t really need, and if they're all garbage, whatever, we still have our storyboard and/or shotlist down. It's another matter to DEPEND on something so undependable.

But.... I think the amount of $$$ to fix in post can very, very quickly end up costing much more than what you save in camera body. I recently watched someone re-create a brick wall with 3D matched-move inserting of rendered bricks because the 5D recording of that brick wall was unusable. To say that fix cost more than $650 is to understate things quite a bit.

BTW - When I mention people profiteering of indy filmmakers dreams I exclude Redrock. They make truly excellent gear, and we use their 35mm adapter very often with our EX1 and get 1000p of actually resolved, non-aliased pixels (test charts) and bokeh that is very tight when you move beyond f2.6 - which is already thinner than usually practical.

 

[Rick Burnett]

What results? Tell me a broadcast time in 1080i over cable - that's what I am talking about. I have seen results - the SNL opening credits look really awful. I don't care how things look on Vimeo - this is not the market of my work not most of the work here.

So you are basing ALL the broadcast capability of these cameras from ONE broadcast production. That seems like a pretty faulty test. I'm not saying there won't be problems, but that is HARDLY a good argument.

If it's so bad, couldn't you demonstrate this for people with encoding DSLR video using the same techniques for television and make that available for people? Because with all the overwhelming proof you've provided, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I feel you are contributing to misinformation by not providing ample proof of your claims.

Like I mentioned many posts ago, I see things on television shot with tons of digital and film cameras used and the artifacting and noise are unacceptable to me already. Sanctuary, which is shot on a Red One, looks horrible because of the cable company. I've watched non-broadcast versions and they are superior.

 

[Tom.Wong]

Keep in mind the r1 is much heavier than the 5d also, in the interview with the director about "House" they wanted really quick from light tripod, to the handheld, but in the end, I really guess that 1.5 feet or so made a difference. We aren't on set with them, or in their shooting conditions.

They are gonna have to deal with a lot more more than moire and aliasing, no long takes, possibly overheating issues, lack of PL ergonomics on the lenses they are using. It must be a good reason for them to use it no? Unless they are just masochists and want bragging rights...

which could also be the case!

 

[Rick Burnett]

Is the 1.5 or so extra feet of the R1 really going to make that much difference? I dunno, I'd rather lose that foot than lose so much image quality.

Yes actually, that is the whole point! Maybe you need to take your 5D out some more and recognize the beauty of some of the shots you can achieve, and then when you get your Epic, you'll have the best of both worlds.

 

[Martin Weiss]

Philip Bloom just posted that he did an hour long interview with The director/producer of said episode.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

So wouldn't this suggest that if their budget cannot pay for the fixing required, then their business is unreasonable and you should turn away the work? I mean truthfully, if you shot the material, regardless of the technology, and even if the hardware screwed something up, it's still really your fault for not working around that limitation. It's not like it magically appears once you show them what you've been doing. And, it's also detectable with the right equipment. And if you didn't account for dealing with that problem with them, you weren't honest to begin with on setting their expectations on what you can deliver.

I really don't see the problem. If you cannot easily convince a client why shooting on the Red is such a better solution for what you want to do then honestly the disconnect is you. Your work and offerings should stand for themselves. Just because some one told them, or they heard on the internet, or they saw on TV, or they read in a blog, that this other technology is capable of doing what they want, as you know, it doesn't mean it can. This is NEVER GOING TO CHANGE. People are going to push the envelope with not as capable technologies and what have you continually. Some people just want to be the FIRST to do something cool with something that wasn't intended for said cool purpose!

And in a few months hopefully, all this will change when RED will be dominating the forums again as people put the EPIC and SCARLET cameras to every test known to the universe. And when that happens, I guarantee you without a doubt the CMOS haters will be out in storm "FILM IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO!" And then those clients will be like "Hey, you have a RED, you're hired!"

I don't even have a freaking RED camera yet and I've got people asking me to come do work for them when I get it. And they know I have a DSLR now and have no desire for me to use that with them.

It's pretty hard to work around some of these limitations - you need a deep-DOF shot of a city street, for example, what are you going to do, not shoot it? They don;t understand what you are talking about, and they hold you responsible. I NEVER shoot pro jobs on a DSLR -but now I have this headache of explaining why to people, over and over.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Yes actually, that is the whole point! Maybe you need to take your 5D out some more and recognize the beauty of some of the shots you can achieve, and then when you get your Epic, you'll have the best of both worlds.

I did take it out. I tried everything, read up all the tricks. There were no pretty pictures, by my standards. There was low resolution, bad compression, messed-up textures (most egregiously skin texture) and so on. These don't show as much on Vimeo, but on HD broadacst they very much do which is why so many networks will flat our refuse to broadcast 5D footage. I didn't get in this business to pursue mediocrity.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

So you are basing ALL the broadcast capability of these cameras from ONE broadcast production. That seems like a pretty faulty test. I'm not saying there won't be problems, but that is HARDLY a good argument.

If it's so bad, couldn't you demonstrate this for people with encoding DSLR video using the same techniques for television and make that available for people? Because with all the overwhelming proof you've provided, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take your word for it. I feel you are contributing to misinformation by not providing ample proof of your claims.

Like I mentioned many posts ago, I see things on television shot with tons of digital and film cameras used and the artifacting and noise are unacceptable to me already. Sanctuary, which is shot on a Red One, looks horrible because of the cable company. I've watched non-broadcast versions and they are superior.

Compression is like a bad photocopy of a bad photocopy. The more your first copy is bad, the more the second one will be. You can see this with your own eyes by recompressing a jpg several times. The first jpg, even highly compressed, will look OK - similar to the original. But now try re compressing it. You'll see what I mean.

However bad a particular broadcast may be, 5D footage over that same broadcast would be far worse.

And here is something for you: How many GOOD examples of 5D broadcast can you point me to?

 

[Tom.Wong]

HD broadcast is FULL of mediocrity in general. A lot of stations (hopefully changing) downrez their HD signal to SD, than re upconvert the SD signal back to HD for HD broadcast. Why? cause they already had that system implemented when HD was in more of its infancy stage, and it's cheaper just to do that. Plenty of shows have shown signs of aliasing and other types of artifacts. I was just watching a few shows the other night, and the B-roll of cityscape had so much aliasing in it I could believe what i was seeing.

The compression levels on broadcast is incredibly high too, and when i compare the HD channel to the blu ray of the same show i've been watching, I'm astounded with how much quality is really lost.

In the end, I think a lot of these decisions aren't made by the "technically" minded like the lot of us, but by people who are in positions to make these decisions and have no clue what aliasing, resolution sizes, and compression are. They see numbers, they see turnarounds, they see a lot of other things other than what we see.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I did take it out. I tried everything, read up all the tricks. There were no pretty pictures, by my standards. There was low resolution, bad compression, messed-up textures (most egregiously skin texture) and so on. These don't show as much on Vimeo, but on HD broadacst they very much do which is why so many networks will flat our refuse to broadcast 5D footage. I didn't get in this business to pursue mediocrity.

True, the unfortunate point is some people in this business accept mediocrity if it means it costs less And I mean that in all seriousness. I see it happen ALL the time.

I'd like to take one moment though to throw out something to turn the whole premise of this thread around. The most amazing part of this whole ride that's been going on is that RED has embraced the concept of smaller form factor cameras and that in a few months time, all the limitations of shooting the RED ONE in these scenarios can go away with the new body styles and formats. I mean seriously, that is amazing. Now, with that consideration, think of all the cameras that are like $100k plus. Now think about now how they are going to look at the quality of the Epic, and the size, and imagine how these viewpoints are going to be shifting around.

The DSLR has shown that there is certainly a market for the form factor (ergonomics aside) and that people are excited enough by this format to deal with an inferior acquisition. Professionals. It just shows that people want more freedom.

As a nice side story which actually relates to this, I bought my GF a Samsung camera, one of those small ones with the LCD on the back only that shoots macro even for $99. She loves taking pictures and gets some AMAZING pictures from under mushrooms and flowers and such. I gave her my $1200 D90 that obviously takes superior pictures. That said, she can't get those under the flower or mushroom shots anymore. So, she doesn't use the D90 as much because of this. The form factor is too large. I can't argue with her because her shots are AMAZING.

Size can be everything

 

[Jim Retar]

Rob never said Canon was paying them.

I said it, however, I have made it very clear that it is 100% speculation on my part.

Direct quote from the first post "My feeling is that House DOP got paid big time by Canon. Otherwise it makes no sense, no sense at all."

Where do you think misinformation starts? People speculating, then Chinese whispers take care of the rest.

As far as i'm aware, there are zero statements from Canon saying "the 5DII is capable of shooting video for prime time TV".... so the misinformation is not coming from the manufacturer.

In which case your clients, or whoever you are concerned about being misinformed seem to be basing their views on personal speculation or biased opinion. That happens with every camera... and every other piece of technology in the world.

There is plenty of misinformation out there about RED too... good and bad, but it doesn't mean a film shooter should get pissed off if someone chooses to use a R1 over film.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

HD broadcast is FULL of mediocrity in general. A lot of stations (hopefully changing) downrez their HD signal to SD, than re upconvert the SD signal back to HD for HD broadcast. Why? cause they already had that system implemented when HD was in more of its infancy stage, and it's cheaper just to do that. Plenty of shows have shown signs of aliasing and other types of artifacts. I was just watching a few shows the other night, and the B-roll of cityscape had so much aliasing in it I could believe what i was seeing.

The compression levels on broadcast is incredibly high too, and when i compare the HD channel to the blu ray of the same show i've been watching, I'm astounded with how much quality is really lost.

In the end, I think a lot of these decisions aren't made by the "technically" minded like the lot of us, but by people who are in positions to make these decisions and have no clue what aliasing, resolution sizes, and compression are. They see numbers, they see turnarounds, they see a lot of other things other than what we see.

Here in Montreal, all stations that are sold as HD must be either 720p or 1080i, by law, for a minimum number of hours. They all do that, although some of the wee hours are SD reruns.

I agree abouit what you say about numbers, but if a show looks bad the numbers in the audience will go down, and that is another number they very much care about. Many shows depend on their look to get audiences - many Discovery shows, CSI Miami, etc.. Besides, strobing rainbow moire is not exactly something that only a pixel-peeper would care about in ANY show, nor is a lost shot that screws up your plot.

 

[Noah Richoz]

Wow, 25 pages! I've only seen a few episodes of House but now really want to check out this 5D Ep. then make my judgments based on the content/style.

Is it the season finale?

 

[Rick Burnett]

And here is something for you: How many GOOD examples of 5D broadcast can you point me to?

I can't, which is why I am not arguing that the 5D is acceptable or unacceptable broadcast, I am saying it is still an unknown. Not all compression algorithms are equal. Some fall apart quicker on recompress. But for a computer analogy, if I take a zip file and compress it over and over it never loses any quality. It all depends on how lossy that compression is. Also, when switching from one compression type to another, their faults don't always line up, so the degradation can be elsewhere.

But you've brought up a good test that I might try if I get some free time. I am going to take a segment of video and recompress it through H.264 maybe 10 to 20 times just to see what falls apart after that many compressions. It is an EXTREME case, but I am curious of what happens!

 

[Tom.Wong]

Here in Montreal, all stations that are sold as HD must be either 720p or 1080i, by law, for a minimum number of hours. They all do that, although some of the wee hours are SD reruns.

I agree abouit what you say about numbers, but if a show looks bad the numbers in the audience will go down, and that is another number they very much care about. Many shows depend on their look to get audiences - many Discovery shows, CSI Miami, etc.. Besides, strobing rainbow moire is not exactly something that only a pixel-peeper would care about in ANY show, nor is a lost shot that screws up your plot.

And I agree with you 100%, but I've dealt with producers, and various people in the U.S. NY post industry, and some of the things they ask for equals to an amount of acceptable loss in quality most times. STrobing rainbow moire everywhere is a lot different from seeing some of it on someone's shirt for a 3 second cut, there will be a point where the image loses so much, they'll say, this isn't usable. But as I said again, I've seen entire b-roll shots of NYC in full broadcast television shows where all the skyscrapers had moire all over it! They showed it anyway, my friend was watching it with me, and all he barely even noticed, he thought it was SUPPOSED to be like that. And I had to explain to him what it was, and why it was terrible.

Coming from you and me, and other people on this forum, I think it's safe to say we have a lot higher standards for our material and what we want out there. But as it stands, the decision making people simply don't care as much as we do.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I can't, which is why I am not arguing that the 5D is acceptable or unacceptable broadcast, I am saying it is still an unknown. Not all compression algorithms are equal. Some fall apart quicker on recompress. But for a computer analogy, if I take a zip file and compress it over and over it never loses any quality. It all depends on how lossy that compression is. Also, when switching from one compression type to another, their faults don't always line up, so the degradation can be elsewhere.

But you've brought up a good test that I might try if I get some free time. I am going to take a segment of video and recompress it through H.264 maybe 10 to 20 times just to see what falls apart after that many compressions. It is an EXTREME case, but I am curious of what happens!

Zip is a 100% lossless compression format. H.264 is EXTREMELY lossly - it was designed for delivery (final output) not as a recording medium further back in the post chain. Again, to aid in anti-misinformation, 5D footage is very, very hard to compress, because the aliasing adds lots and lots of non-useful moving detail that a motion compressor does not know what to do with. So you would need many times to data rate to have the same lclean look from compression as data coming off a camera that does not alias. I don;t know the numbers, but I'd estimate 3 - 4 times as high.

 

[Rick Burnett]

I agree abouit what you say about numbers, but if a show looks bad the numbers in the audience will go down, and that is another number they very much care about.

I think that is pretty subjective. I have NEVER heard someone not into shooting video say they disliked a show because the quality of the video wasn't that great. Ever. I've only heard people complain about technique, mostly the current rash of shaky cam shots (Battlestar Galactica, Bourne Identity).

Most shows that fail fail because the story sucks. Yeah, I said it. And not even the Epic is gonna fix that!

When I hear my dad tell me "I was watching lost, but when the camera panned and the trees were kinda tilted like, I was like, this show sucks, screw Jacob, I'm watching something else!" then I'll believe it.

I don't believe anyone would think Moire in the result is acceptable. I don't. Any shots I do for my stuff I reshoot. Period. It sucks. These cameras limit what you can do. This makes it worse for the crew who make the show/movie, the home watcher remains unchanged.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

And I agree with you 100%, but I've dealt with producers, and various people in the U.S. NY post industry, and some of the things they ask for equals to an amount of acceptable loss in quality most times. STrobing rainbow moire everywhere is a lot different from seeing some of it on someone's shirt for a 3 second cut, there will be a point where the image loses so much, they'll say, this isn't usable. But as I said again, I've seen entire b-roll shots of NYC in full broadcast television shows where all the skyscrapers had moire all over it! They showed it anyway, my friend was watching it with me, and all he barely even noticed, he thought it was SUPPOSED to be like that. And I had to explain to him what it was, and why it was terrible.

Coming from you and me, and other people on this forum, I think it's safe to say we have a lot higher standards for our material and what we want out there. But as it stands, the decision making people simply don't care as much as we do.

This is a sad truth fro some people- but Discovery, Nat Geo, the BBC and many other networks have admirably stood up for high quality standards by barring DSLR use. I've also had clients and collaborators who were very serious about quality and appreciated all of the little extra bits of effort we put into their shows. I wish they were all that way.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I think that is pretty subjective. I have NEVER heard someone not into shooting video say they disliked a show because the quality of the video wasn't that great. Ever. I've only heard people complain about technique, mostly the current rash of shaky cam shots (Battlestar Galactica, Bourne Identity).

Most shows that fail fail because the story sucks. Yeah, I said it. And not even the Epic is gonna fix that!

When I hear my dad tell me "I was watching lost, but when the camera panned and the trees were kinda tilted like, I was like, this show sucks, screw Jacob, I'm watching something else!" then I'll believe it.

I don't believe anyone would think Moire in the result is acceptable. I don't. Any shots I do for my stuff I reshoot. Period. It sucks. These cameras limit what you can do. This makes it worse for the crew who make the show/movie, the home watcher remains unchanged.

It depends on the show, and the audience, I think. Many people, although they might not consciously be able to point at why, will say a film looks "ugly" "depressing" "cheap" whatever. Here in Canada many viewers (not just pros) will say a show looks "Canadian" when it has drab colors, harsh lighting, etc. that resembles typical 1970s government sponsored stuff. (There are some great CDN shows, but they don't look "Canadian") When they say this it means it's time to change the channel.

Pictures do affect emotional response. We might forgive one bad camera move but if the whole show looked bad most viewers, I think, would not enjoy as much.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Coming from you and me, and other people on this forum, I think it's safe to say we have a lot higher standards for our material and what we want out there. But as it stands, the decision making people simply don't care as much as we do.

Very well said.