House pisses me off

[Rob Ruffo]

Main reason why alot of music videos have gone the DSLR route.
Since MTV and VH-1 hardly show any music videos anyway..most band''s
videos will not be broadcast and will live on the internet where the
720P thereabouts resolution of these cameras is adequate.

Many music videos also now have such low budgets that a 5D or 7D is a necessary evil. In this case I agree, although a 2010 adapter rig (not the old ones) would still give visibly better results in many cases, even just on the net. Still a bit more expensive, and the music video business is really hurting.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

To me, this just reeks of Canon paying to have this happen. Especially when I found out they shot the entire episode with Canon still lenses (seriously WTF why would you do that to your AC's?). It's like a big commercial for Canon. I'm sure the news of this sold a few thousand 5D's. Some of the answers given in that twitter interview feel very staged and PR to me. http://www.petapixel.com/2010/04/09/...on-5d-mark-ii/ Of course having it done over twitter also feels like a publicity stunt, where you can have Canon advisers coaching all the answers.

The answers sound an awful lot like Shane Hurlbut's answers on his blog about the making of "The Last three Minutes" (which I think is pretty good BTW) http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/04/07/the-last-3-minutes-canon-5d-24p-firmware-shines/ At least with this you know it is sponsored by Canon.

I have a problem with people being sleazy/shifty about who is paying them to say what. To me that is not cool at all. Shane at least is upfront, as was Laforet.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Trust me Rob, when a producer asks me to shoot RED and then comes back a few days later and says they want to do 5D it pisses me off too for financial reasons. But as for House, I I'm intrigued to see the episode.

It's not about the money, it's about creating good images with good tools. I prefer film most of all, but that IS noticeably more expensive for something like a small TV promo for a seasonal special, so I get why they would often say no to that, but I would still try to sell them on that even though it would mean my losing a Red rental. But the Red is really cheap, with basically free film. There's no excuse.

 

[Shane Betts]

I remember years ago, when I earned a living from shooting fashion here in Oz, a new guy appeared out of nowhere and, for a year or so, changed the way things were shot. This guy had been a high school teacher; got retrenched with a sizeable redundancy package. Apparently he'd always wanted to be a stills photographer, so he took his new bundle of cash, flew to NYC and bought an entire top of the line Canon kit. He then approached some small model agencies offering free looks in exchange for free models - did the same in LA. A month later he's back in Melbourne with an "international" folio and a business card with his NYC & LA "offices" listed there (who's going to call them to see if the number is connected?). So the ad agencies in Melbourne go nuts for him. He's the new big thing. Only problem is, every face in his folio is dead centre of frame because he apparently didn't know how to move the focus zone. Peanut. Worst of all, and this is where I agree with Rob, all the other shooters in town, people with real talent and actual experience, start getting told by the art directors to leave more headroom because "that's what they're doing in the USA now". AAARRRGGHHH!

On the other hand, we have a feature we're looking to post that has been shot on 1D and 7D. We put it up on the (1080) projector the other day and, yeah, there are issues but by far the biggest one, from the perspective of how I feel the audience will perceive it, is the focus. Stands out like dog's balls.

Personally I'm all for no-budget filmmakers doing whatever they need to do to get their story on the screen. More power to them. But using these cameras on a pro shoot can be a pain in the arse.

On the upside (and here is my point - you knew it was in here somewhere) I just feel this all bodes well for Epic. Producers will get the hunger for a smaller form factor camera but will (hopefully) grow tired of the issues with VSLRs. Along will come Epic owners (all current Red owners - love the way Jim does business), riding in from the sun with their small cameras - with resolution, DR, focus, RAW, 5k, 125fps, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Surfs up. Grab your board.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

One should always know the facts before one jumps to conclusions. Here are some facts you might want to know.

According to what I've been told, this particular episode of "House" was written to take place in a collapsed building. The production wanted to construct a set with a practical collapsed ceiling both for realism and to help the cast feel what they were supposed to be going through. "House" is shot on 35mm film, but with the plans for the set, this became almost physically impossible. The rather tiny Canon cameras presented an opportunity not only to shoot in cramped quarters, but to do it with fewer lighting units than would normally be used, and to use multiple cameras when needed. In other words, the circumstances of the production required new approaches, and the Canon cameras represented one approach that could help solve the problem. The fact that it also presented an opportunity for some experimentation was a secondary attraction, but the reason for the approach was based on the productions particular physical circumstances.

Rather than assuming that nobody cares about image quality, rather than assume that this was some inside deal with Canon, and rather than get pissed off, one should seek out facts. And, probably, watch the results and judge the success or failure based on that.

Fine. But my clients don't know this either. One of them told me he was sure that 24 was shot 100% on the 5D. You see what I mean? The net has really taken off with misinformation about this and the clients are not DOPs, nor is it their job, but they like to feel they know something, and the net makes them feel that they do. BTW - kudos to Canon on their social networking-based marketing coup.

 

[Justin Chin]

I always think it's rather silly to see a 5D or 7D completely rigged up like it was a Panavision 35mm camera. If you've got the budget and crew to afford all that gear to surround the camera, why the hell are you trying save money on the camera body?

You know I am plenty happy to rig the same matte box and follow focus on my 5D that I use on my Red. I do so so I can use all the other tools and accessories that I already own or have access to. It's still smaller and easier to shoot with on a run and gun project (and in fact reminds me of the current pictures of the Epic from NAB). It would be the same with any production. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, just because you're using a different camera body, you might want to hold onto some tools that you already know.

I do understand what you're saying though, but the reality is that the indy guys will always find ways to shoot cheaper and the high end guys will use the tools that they feel do the job. That's the problem with being "positioned" in those indy/industrial trenches, producers are always trying to find cheaper ways (some good and some bad) and if you're limited to "only" a Red camera they might go with the guy with a cheaper camera. The same thing happened when the first 24p Panasonic came out, almost all other cameras were rendered moot, and it took a way a lot of potential clients.

The reality of the business is that cinematographers need to position themselves as talent rather than just owner operators. If you can do that, then they'll hire you and let you help work out the camera details later.

Hell, at least the 7D/5D is cheap enough to just buy and put yourself in that market. That is, if you want it.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I remember years ago, when I earned a living from shooting fashion here in Oz, a new guy appeared out of nowhere and, for a year or so, changed the way things were shot. This guy had been a high school teacher; got retrenched with a sizeable redundancy package. Apparently he'd always wanted to be a stills photographer, so he took his new bundle of cash, flew to NYC and bought an entire top of the line Canon kit. He then approached some small model agencies offering free looks in exchange for free models - did the same in LA. A month later he's back in Melbourne with an "international" folio and a business card with his NYC & LA "offices" listed there (who's going to call them to see if the number is connected?). So the ad agencies in Melbourne go nuts for him. He's the new big thing. Only problem is, every face in his folio is dead centre of frame because he apparently didn't know how to move the focus zone. Peanut. Worst of all, and this is where I agree with Rob, all the other shooters in town, people with real talent and actual experience, start getting told by the art directors to leave more headroom because "that's what they're doing in the USA now". AAARRRGGHHH!

On the other hand, we have a feature we're looking to post that has been shot on 1D and 7D. We put it up on the (1080) projector the other day and, yeah, there are issues but by far the biggest one, from the perspective of how I feel the audience will perceive it, is the focus. Stands out like dog's balls.

Personally I'm all for no-budget filmmakers doing whatever they need to do to get their story on the screen. More power to them. But using these cameras on a pro shoot can be a pain in the arse.

On the upside (and here is my point - you knew it was in here somewhere) I just feel this all bodes well for Epic. Producers will get the hunger for a smaller form factor camera but will (hopefully) grow tired of the issues with VSLRs. Along will come Epic owners (all current Red owners - love the way Jim does business), riding in from the sun with their small cameras - with resolution, DR, focus, RAW, 5k, 125fps, yadda, yadda, yadda.

Surfs up. Grab your board.

That's a really interesting story. I have never wanted any object more than a Epic. In fact I've only wanted world peace and certain women more.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

You know I am plenty happy to rig the same matte box and follow focus on my 5D that I use on my Red. I do so so I can use all the other tools and accessories that I already own or have access to. It's still smaller and easier to shoot with on a run and gun project (and in fact reminds me of the current pictures of the Epic from NAB). It would be the same with any production. You don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water, just because you're using a different camera body, you might want to hold onto some tools that you already know.

I do understand what you're saying though, but the reality is that the indy guys will always find ways to shoot cheaper and the high end guys will use the tools that they feel do the job. That's the problem with being "positioned" in those indy/industrial trenches, producers are always trying to find cheaper ways (some good and some bad) and if you're limited to "only" a Red camera they might go with the guy with a cheaper camera. The same thing happened when the first 24p Panasonic came out, almost all other cameras were rendered moot, and it took a way a lot of potential clients.

The reality of the business is that cinematographers need to position themselves as talent rather than just owner operators. If you can do that, then they'll hire you and let you help work out the camera details later.

Hell, at least the 7D/5D is cheap enough to just buy and put yourself in that market. That is, if you want it.

I do get hired 100% on that basis. I never talk about equipment until later (whenever possible never) , and we only own what we own because we've done the math and we would rent it enough to make a profit on ownership. The problem now is I have to talk them out of using the "cool and groovy kid 5D all the most with-it herd members are using" and it annoys me. Again, it's all about making good images, but you need the right tools for that.

This said, the much scarier reality is that if they tell me to use the 5D and I agree, but then there is moire or whatever problem, they will come back and say it's my fault because I don't know how to shoot like Laforet or whoever. It is unlikely they will be able to see how his videos have shots carefully chosen to hide potential problems, along with the natural problem-hiding filter of low-res compressed web distribution. It's not like saying "I told you so" to a client who hates what you did for him or her and cannot broadcast it is ever a fun meeting.

 

[Stephen Williams]

Well 8 stops (on a 5D) is not that great. An Ex1 is 11. A Red with MX about 13

Not sure about your tests, I tested a Red V a 5DMKII, the director chose the 5D because of how it handled tungsten light & highlight roll off.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Speaking on behalf of those who cannot afford a Red One, let alone an Epic, I can't help but be reminded of the same arguments I've heard over and over in the music industry with larger analog studios having a hard time competing with smaller digital studios with a lower cost basis, and in their opinion, inferior sound.

How is most music distributed today? MP3, Radio, Streamed? Quality? DEFINITELY lower. People don't demand high quality.

As someone else mentioned, the ironic part of all this is that film people DO say the same thing about the RED ONE. I was working on a budget for a full length film and the investors said absolutely NO to a RED ONE. They wanted us to shoot it on film (and still do, it's in pre-production). I pulled out of the project because of this.

It's the same argument. While the RED ONE output is acceptable for you (and me), for some it isn't. For many clients the 7D/5D is acceptable to them, not to you. You won't get an argument from me about the limitations of the 5D/7D as I have one as well, but this doesn't stop me from using my 7D on the weekends to make money shooting various things. I'm sorry this makes you mad, but I am giving people what they want. I have NEVER had a dissatisfied client so far with every 7D shoot I have done. That said, *I* have been dissatisfied on almost all of them as I've had to throw amazing shots away because the camera ruined them.

That said, what's going to happen when you have an Epic and I have a Scarlet S35 and can charge less as well given a MUCH lower cost basis? Are you going to complain why can't customers see the benefit of the Epic? The Epic is going to give YOU more latitude as a shooter. You can still make crap with an Epic, just as you can with film.

Times are changing and you are stuck in the middle of it. We are in a serious transition period in the video acquisition world and I am sure there are some pissed of 35mm film operators that people don't want to spend the money on doing real film anymore. Same shoe. I bet you probably took some business from them as well.

Sounds like to me you have the wrong clients though if they are so easily swayed towards technology. You want to show them the difference? then show them the difference! Prepare material that shows what value-add you offer with your setup. There are PLENTY of examples out there showing why using a 5D/7D is not a good solution. I wouldn't be on REDUSER if it were! It's not that hard to show value if you have value.

I can certainly understand your frustration, but I will say this, these are the growing pains of technology. While we wait for SUPERIOR cameras from RED right now, that's what it is. If you can't convince your clients easily of why RED is superior for what they want, why do you expect other people to do this? Just like when the 35mm DIY adapters came out and people shot some amazing things, I think people have shot some amazing things on the 7D. The FORM FACTOR is what I think drives a lot of it as well.

Imagine Epic/Scarlet with this same form factor. I personally CANNOT wait to start seeing the video from these all over the place!

 

[I Bloom]

It is patently ridiculous to shoot a PL mount lens (at least 20K for even the cheapest set) when you could shoot a Red with good SLR lenses and the whole kit, rented or bought, would cost less. Hell, I'd much rather pull focus off the lens barrel and use a plank of plywood instead of rails and shoot with Red, because in that case I'd at least get some good images I could use in 1080p.

I guess I'm confused here now. You do or you don't understand why people use PL cinema glass instead of still glass? You would roll a dolly on plywood instead of rails if it meant you could shoot on Red?

 

[Danish P.V.]

Jesus...who gives a f**k about this? City of God was 60% Super16 scanned to HDCAM and recorded back to 35mm with high printer light settings - I won`t compare that movie with "House" but as many people before said - I couldn`t care less about format as long as the story and image "works".

 

[Ross Isaacs]

approved BBC cameras

approved BBC cameras

anyone have a list of BBC Natural History Unit's approved cameras?

 

[Rob Ruffo]

I guess I'm confused here now. You do or you don't understand why people use PL cinema glass instead of still glass? You would roll a dolly on plywood instead of rails if it meant you could shoot on Red?

I meant use a piece of plywood and mount the camera to that instead of 15mm rails and handgrips or even a top-handle. Of course I get why people use PL glass. But the difference between Pl and SLR glass, in terms of final output, is much, much smaller than the difference between a Red camera a DSLR.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Jesus...who gives a f**k about this? City of God was 60% Super16 scanned to HDCAM and recorded back to 35mm with high printer light settings - I won`t compare that movie with "House" but as many people before said - I couldn`t care less about format as long as the story and image "works".

Again, we question the point of making statements like on a tech forum, much less a tech forum centered around a specific camera. The whole point of this forum is to discuss technical approaches to cinematography, although it does have subsections more related to other topics. If I had posted in a scriptwriting forum, your comment would be well taken.

Obviously you do not think camera, film stock or other equipment choices are of any significance. I presume that you are not a DOP, and that if you are this attitude is not helpful to you in creating good images within a limited budget, although I'm sure the scriptwriter appreciates how singularly important you think his or her job is, since all other on-set positions are in your above stated opinion irrelevant to the quality of the final product.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

anyone have a list of BBC Natural History Unit's approved cameras?

I know they forbid DSLRs, very strictly, and as far as I know only accept EXs if used with Nanoflash, but I also hear this last rule is given more slack. Reds are 100% fine for 100% acquisition..

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Not sure about your tests, I tested a Red V a 5DMKII, the director chose the 5D because of how it handled tungsten light & highlight roll off.

They are not my tests, they are tests done by many people. That said one thing both the 5D and the EXs can do a bit more easily, without effort on the DOP's part, is hold saturation further up into the near-clip highlights. The solution is to shoot anything even remotely important (especially faces) well below clip (at least 1/2 stop), and bring up the highlights in grade. Even losing that 1/2 stop Mysterium is still giving you a healthy 9-10 stops total. This for the original Mysterium, which also had less total range - the MX beats em all in all ways, hands down.

 

[Rob Ruffo]

Speaking on behalf of those who cannot afford a Red One, let alone an Epic, I can't help but be reminded of the same arguments I've heard over and over in the music industry with larger analog studios having a hard time competing with smaller digital studios with a lower cost basis, and in their opinion, inferior sound.

How is most music distributed today? MP3, Radio, Streamed? Quality? DEFINITELY lower. People don't demand high quality.

As someone else mentioned, the ironic part of all this is that film people DO say the same thing about the RED ONE. I was working on a budget for a full length film and the investors said absolutely NO to a RED ONE. They wanted us to shoot it on film (and still do, it's in pre-production). I pulled out of the project because of this.

It's the same argument. While the RED ONE output is acceptable for you (and me), for some it isn't. For many clients the 7D/5D is acceptable to them, not to you. You won't get an argument from me about the limitations of the 5D/7D as I have one as well, but this doesn't stop me from using my 7D on the weekends to make money shooting various things. I'm sorry this makes you mad, but I am giving people what they want. I have NEVER had a dissatisfied client so far with every 7D shoot I have done. That said, *I* have been dissatisfied on almost all of them as I've had to throw amazing shots away because the camera ruined them.

That said, what's going to happen when you have an Epic and I have a Scarlet S35 and can charge less as well given a MUCH lower cost basis? Are you going to complain why can't customers see the benefit of the Epic? The Epic is going to give YOU more latitude as a shooter. You can still make crap with an Epic, just as you can with film.

Times are changing and you are stuck in the middle of it. We are in a serious transition period in the video acquisition world and I am sure there are some pissed of 35mm film operators that people don't want to spend the money on doing real film anymore. Same shoe. I bet you probably took some business from them as well.

Sounds like to me you have the wrong clients though if they are so easily swayed towards technology. You want to show them the difference? then show them the difference! Prepare material that shows what value-add you offer with your setup. There are PLENTY of examples out there showing why using a 5D/7D is not a good solution. I wouldn't be on REDUSER if it were! It's not that hard to show value if you have value.

I can certainly understand your frustration, but I will say this, these are the growing pains of technology. While we wait for SUPERIOR cameras from RED right now, that's what it is. If you can't convince your clients easily of why RED is superior for what they want, why do you expect other people to do this? Just like when the 35mm DIY adapters came out and people shot some amazing things, I think people have shot some amazing things on the 7D. The FORM FACTOR is what I think drives a lot of it as well.

Imagine Epic/Scarlet with this same form factor. I personally CANNOT wait to start seeing the video from these all over the place!

The Scarlet FF35 is going to be a great tool, and I will happily use it. This is not my point. It's not about spending a lot of money, or even more money, it's about doing good work with tools that do not let you down. Very little of our budgets is equipment rental compared to talent and other costs - this is in fact my point: why skimp on the camera when you're running all that expensive crew? The Sony F35 is MORE expensive than the Red, but I like it less. If the 5D cost 50 000 I would still say it sucks just as much.

This is part of how Canon is doing the social networking thing, by infusing the idea that if you don't like DSLRs it means you are clinging to some old top-down, non democratic model from the past. That you are not "with it"

 

[Stephen Williams]

That director does not know how to grade raw Red footage. They are not my tests, they are tests done by many people.

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!

 

[Nook Kim]

I've heard canon cannot talk about the House episode yet because production is very angry about all the problems and fixes they had to do in post because of shooting with the camera.

Aliasing and missed focus would be the main problems?

I'm a colorist specialized in Red shot footage, but I started to get lots of 5D footage as well ever since the camera came out. In the beginning, 5D was used more as "B" cam, but once producers found out that they could get by for lower budget projects, now it's used more and more as "A" cam.

However, most of the 5D shot footage here in Korea get fixed in post, and post guys (especially vfx peeps) swear to death for all the extra things they have to work such as aliasing and moire. BTW, I give them DigiBeta print after my color work, so it's not too much of work for them, yet.

IMHO, 5D and 7D do do pretty well compared to RED with its color and DR when it's shot well (plus all the camera settings turned down or off), and I like close-up's shot on 5D very much. It's especially okay to be broadcasted here in Korea since we're still doing DigiBeta masters 95% of the time. Plus the fact that higher budget projects go through very heavy vfx does help. I see this will change when HD broadcasting is required in 2012. I believe people will need to, or want to, hand off the most error free images to the post house to keep the cost down. HD vfx is already more expensive than SD vfx, and all those artifacts will cost them more.

Canon may still have their place in 2012 in my country if they come out with something better, and I believe they will.

By the way, I rent a couple of Red's, and I love them. :001_wub: