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 :)

House pisses me off

Status
Not open for further replies.
This thread is a shame. It sums up everything that is wrong about camera fanaticism. It's a tool, nothing more and we are in the very fortunate position of having a huge choice these days at a very affordable price.

I had a long chat with DP Gale Tattersall (and incredibly nice guy by the way) at NAB and the already linked recorded interview with Directer Greg Yaitanes about why they went Canon 5DmkII despite the limitations it has. It was an honest interview and I raised the questions to both Gale and Greg and it was simply the right tool for them for this episode. The sets were like 3 and a half feet tall and there was no way you could get a film camera in there or even a RED without taking walls out. They went for an intimacy with this episode that only the small form factor of the Canons could give them and Greg says they pulled it off making it was more emotionally captivating due to this. I applaud them for that.

I personally think they are nuts shooting at F1.2 as my focus puller would kill me if I suggested that, but they did it and they pulled it off. We should be applauding their massive balls in doing this and not slamming them or at worse making off hand remarks about motivations.

Every camera is simply a tool, not a religion! I will get my Scarlet when it comes out and most likely an EPIC if I can justify it. If this becomes the case will I still use my Canons for jobs? Yep, depends on the job. They have become an essential part of my tool box and will continue to be for some time to come. I will always go with the right tool for the right job, this should be the same for every single one of us here. Gale and Greg have made the 5DmkII work for this episode of House. Let's applaud their bravery and massive balls. They are doing pioneering work, like the first person to use a RED for a feature. Without pioneers the industry will go nowhere.

On a side note: Let us not forget that these cameras are giving people with very little money the chance to make great looking movies that would have used to have cost a fortune to look that good. Let us not be snobs. This technology is inspiring people to go out there who would not have done so otherwise. This will mean that undiscovered talent will be discovered and that is a good thing.

Link to interview with House Director Greg Yaitanes http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19...-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/
 
Michael McVicar said:
These are networks that show footage that people tune into (and buy the disc for) because of the quality. Americas Funniest Home Video's footage actually came from some of the gear people joke about here. People tuned in for the gags.
Never the less, if you can make someones jaw drop with amazement, people will seek out the stunning.
To aspire to inspire.​
Click to expand...

I don't think I went to film school to shoot videos like that.
 
Philip Bloom said:
This thread is a shame. It sums up everything that is wrong about camera fanaticism. It's a tool, nothing more and we are in the very fortunate position of having a huge choice these days at a very affordable price.

I had a long chat with DP Gale Tattersall (and incredibly nice guy by the way) at NAB and the already linked recorded interview with Directer Greg Yaitanes about why they went Canon 5DmkII despite the limitations it has. It was an honest interview and I raised the questions to both Gale and Greg and it was simply the right tool for them for this episode. The sets were like 3 and a half feet tall and there was no way you could get a film camera in there or even a RED without taking walls out. They went for an intimacy with this episode that only the small form factor of the Canons could give them and Greg says they pulled it off making it was more emotionally captivating due to this. I applaud them for that.

I personally think they are nuts shooting at F1.2 as my focus puller would kill me if I suggested that, but they did it and they pulled it off. We should be applauding their massive balls in doing this and not slamming them or at worse making off hand remarks about motivations.

Every camera is simply a tool, not a religion! I will get my Scarlet when it comes out and most likely an EPIC if I can justify it. If this becomes the case will I still use my Canons for jobs? Yep, depends on the job. They have become an essential part of my tool box and will continue to be for some time to come. I will always go with the right tool for the right job, this should be the same for every single one of us here. Gale and Greg have made the 5DmkII work for this episode of House. Let's applaud their bravery and massive balls. They are doing pioneering work, like the first person to use a RED for a feature. Without pioneers the industry will go nowhere.

On a side note: Let us not forget that these cameras are giving people with very little money the chance to make great looking movies that would have used to have cost a fortune to look that good. Let us not be snobs. This technology is inspiring people to go out there who would not have done so otherwise. This will mean that undiscovered talent will be discovered and that is a good thing.

Link to interview with House Director Greg Yaitanes http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19...-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/
Click to expand...

Well put Phillip.
 
Rick Darge said:
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
Click to expand...
I second this post 100%.

Rick was one of the first to post an useful comparison where it was possible to understand the strengths of one (RED ONE) and another (5D Mark II). There are many situations where the adoption of one over another can be well more interesting than the use of the other. It doesn't matter about what tool you're talking about. Budget matter? Yes, why not?! Budget matters.

Any shooting has a budget behind and beyond. $1 is $1 in any budget. And that's what counts in the end. Let's keep it professional. It is definitely not to say my girl is prettier than yours.
 
Evin Grant said:
As we can see though there will soon be a "Slumdog Millionaire" shot on a DSLR and some will say that it's the exception that proves the rule, but the reality is DSLRs are not often the proper tools for the job, but they are certainly good at some things.
Click to expand...
Both can be great tools, it depends on the task, hands and... budget. But yes, you can have hollywood with your 550D.

My favorite quotes these days...

«Stupid Todd says he's gonna shoot his feature this weekend if he can borrow his dad's mini van. His movie is going to suck because he thinks he can be a DP. Not without the RED he can't. Hahaha! I win!»

«Todd says he's going to shoot his feature with his stupid Canon 5D mkII. That guy is so dumb cause my RED is so much better. I think they forgot to ship all the lenses though cause I don't see them in the box. Are those extra?»

http://www.facebook.com/pages/My-Mom-bought-me-a-RED-camera-so-now-Im-a-DP/109571375748236?ref=nf
 
Emanuel A. said:
Both can be great tools, it depends on the task, hands and... budget. But yes, you can have hollywood with your 550D.
Click to expand...

But when the budget is not an obstacle, would you choose to shoot a 5D over Red, 35mm, Arri D-21, 16mm, Genesis, F-35, etc?

I agree, the things you can do with these DSLRs are remarkable. They've put tools in the hands of people that would never have had them before (much like Red did). They also give you a chance to put the camera in places it's never gone.

Now that the facts have come out about this episode of House, it is clear why they willingly chose to use the 5D. It's pretty clear that it may very well be the best tool for the job, in this case.

I've never bashed the DSLRs, I just know their limitations and shortcomings, and I couldn't understand why a fully funded show, with a fully staffed professional crew would choose to use the same camera I use to shoot internet videos with little to no budget or crew.

I'm very curious to see this episode of House. I will be very surprised if I see scenes that take place in the usual locations in this episode, if this entire episode is filmed with the 5D. If that occurs I will wonder why they didn't shoot those scenes in 35mm, and then the special to this episode scenes that require a small camera with the 5D.
 
Rob Ruffo said:
I don't think I went to film school to shoot videos like that.
Click to expand...

That's the point. The producers where able to pull together footage by people who didn't go to film school, shot on anything, appealing to the lowest common denominator. I hope you don't aspire to that.
But people watched it and (some anyway) enjoyed it. The quality didn't matter. The gags did. Quality DOES matter though to people who look for it. Even people who don't know what they are looking at can be affected. They will say "I don't know what it is but I know it when I see it." Sometimes I see something that makes me go WoW! We are in the study of why that happens. On a lighter note - House pisses everyone off, especially Cutty.​
 
Brad Webb said:
But when the budget is not an obstacle, would you choose to shoot a 5D over Red, 35mm, Arri D-21, 16mm, Genesis, F-35, etc?
Click to expand...
I wrote hands but should have added 'eyes', as well.*

Both routes can bring great tools. Just sometimes, it doesn't matter how many thousands of bucks you have in your bank account. Anyone can order pizza.

These DSLRs are a true democratization, revolution. Period. To enter in denial is simply to refuse the reality (as cruel as that -- as someone said a few pages ago, try to do the same with the MP3). The Coppola dream in his wife documentary 'Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse'... became true. Ask (ONLY) to any director or directors (my filmschool background, by the way) rather than DoPs what these people think about this discussion -- give it a try... :001_rolleyes:


* It doesn't mean 'pixels' or whatever any other sort of technical adverb. Precisely what you should avoid in any script. It is more between 'to see' and 'to watch'.
 
i think its cool and i bet it will look amazing .. every time people piss on tech before they can even see what has been done it turns out to be a big slap in the nay sayers face

i think go pro cams are really cool and would love to see someone use something similar to those

maybe just a surf movie but id still watch it ...


but really has the dslr hating gotten a bit moldy by now?
 
Brad Webb said:
But when the budget is not an obstacle, would you choose to shoot a 5D over Red, 35mm, Arri D-21, 16mm, Genesis, F-35, etc?

I agree, the things you can do with these DSLRs are remarkable. They've put tools in the hands of people that would never have had them before (much like Red did). They also give you a chance to put the camera in places it's never gone.

Now that the facts have come out about this episode of House, it is clear why they willingly chose to use the 5D. It's pretty clear that it may very well be the best tool for the job, in this case.

I've never bashed the DSLRs, I just know their limitations and shortcomings, and I couldn't understand why a fully funded show, with a fully staffed professional crew would choose to use the same camera I use to shoot internet videos with little to no budget or crew.

I'm very curious to see this episode of House. I will be very surprised if I see scenes that take place in the usual locations in this episode, if this entire episode is filmed with the 5D. If that occurs I will wonder why they didn't shoot those scenes in 35mm, and then the special to this episode scenes that require a small camera with the 5D.
Click to expand...

Why did Rob Zombie shoot Halloween 1 and 2 on 16mm when he clearly could have had a budget to shoot 35mm or Digital?

Why did the Hurt Locker shoot on 16mm instead of 35mm or Digital? They might have had budget issues but then Digital makes even more sense yet they went with 16mm.

There are way too many tech heads here and not enough artists. Everyone thinks that if they use the camera that makes better pictures of a resolution chart that they will succeed past everyone else. They are in for a surprise.
 
Tim H. said:
There are way too many tech heads here and not enough artists. Everyone thinks that if they use the camera that makes better pictures of a resolution chart that they will succeed past everyone else. They are in for a surprise.
Click to expand...
Enough fairly said, you've got the point.

That's actually the grain of salt for the ' brechtian call '
any of us should apply for, as reader(s) over here.

Cheers,
E. :-)


<PS>

Even why, once he was used to call something as ' epic theatre ',
I couldn't resist ;-)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertolt_Brecht
 
Tim H. said:
Why did Rob Zombie shoot Halloween 1 and 2 on 16mm when he clearly could have had a budget to shoot 35mm or Digital?

Why did the Hurt Locker shoot on 16mm instead of 35mm or Digital? They might have had budget issues but then Digital makes even more sense yet they went with 16mm.

There are way too many tech heads here and not enough artists. Everyone thinks that if they use the camera that makes better pictures of a resolution chart that they will succeed past everyone else. They are in for a surprise.
Click to expand...

The difference between shooting 16mm and 35mm is nowhere near as drastic as going from 35mm to DSLR.

Shooting digital was not the right choice for Hurt Locker because they shot in extremely hot temperatures in the Jordan desert.
 
chrislancaster said:
i think its cool and i bet it will look amazing .. every time people piss on tech before they can even see what has been done it turns out to be a big slap in the nay sayers face

i think go pro cams are really cool and would love to see someone use something similar to those

maybe just a surf movie but id still watch it ...


but really has the dslr hating gotten a bit moldy by now?
Click to expand...

It is one thing when seasoned pros can honestly evaluate a camera like a DSLR as a tool and use it appropriately. But when the associated hype leads to assumptions by those less knowledgeable that it is the cheap magic bullet for everything it ultimately devalues the craft and the worth of better instruments. That I think is the point that Rob is trying to get at. A RED will not turn you into a great artist, neither will a DSLR.
 
Brad Webb said:
The difference between shooting 16mm and 35mm is nowhere near as drastic as going from 35mm to DSLR.
Click to expand...
It depends. Apples to oranges. You could say it otherwise («The difference between shooting 35mm and DSLR is nowhere near as drastic as going from 16mm to 35mm»). It would work in the same for many others.
 
Brad Webb said:
The difference between shooting 16mm and 35mm is nowhere near as drastic as going from 35mm to DSLR.
Click to expand...

Then why did they pick it? They picked it for VISUAL reasons. They wanted the look of 16mm. Drastic has nothing to do with it.

Brad Webb said:
Shooting digital was not the right choice for Hurt Locker because they shot in extremely hot temperatures in the Jordan desert.
Click to expand...

I've read that they shot on 16mm for budget reasons and some aesthetics. I think they shot close to 2 million feet of film (Fuji by the way). They also used high speed digital cameras in that hot heat you mentioned. Regardless the film won best picture and it was shot on a less "pristine" negative than 35mm.
 
This whole "episode" (pun intended) is better PR than RED could ever buy. Yes RED. Canon will benefit a little as well, but there is as much negative PR in all this for Canon as there is Positive. EPIC becomes the best of both worlds and RED wins.

Mark my words.

:)

-michael zaletel
 
Tim H. said:
I've read that they shot on 16mm for budget reasons and some aesthetics. I think they shot close to 2 million feet of film (Fuji by the way). They also used high speed digital cameras in that hot heat you mentioned. Regardless the film won best picture and it was shot on a less "pristine" negative than 35mm.
Click to expand...

The high speed shots were pretty limited whereas they used several units shooting 16mm...there's definitely no way they could maintain digital for the whole movie if heat was a concern.

I think logistics had a lot to do with their choice. That said, as soon as one is met with a logistic problem, a good artist takes that and makes it work as an artistic choice as well. So the gritty 16mm look works great for the movie...meaning that for them logistics and art came together as the same thing. I don't think logistics should be disregarded in favor of art however...in fact, I'd say limitations can often drive art (look at rigid poetic forms in literature). A good artist can make limitations work in their favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top