-
Posts
15,439 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Articles
Everything posted by Andrew Reid
-
[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342485877' post='14007']That said, Colt and everyone on the test is way more experienced than me - I do not know much about setting up a lot of lights for cinema, but I would love to learn more.[/quote] Would be great to learn more about lighting setup for sure. As long as it also included natural light, which is a big skill to get right - with timing your shoots, weather, locations, etc. Also audio. Sound is half of cinema
-
NEX 5N Cine Housing now available to pre-order
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
You can choose a SmallHD or Zacuto EVF in place of the CLM if you prefer to work that way. The V55 is however a lot cheaper and lighter than something like the DP6. For checking focus, which is the main purpose of it, it's one of the best value DSLR monitors available. 1 sold already. Congrats Sergio, first buyer! -
Reading a lot of the reaction to the Shootout Part 2 is making me cry a little inside. I want to offer my view of it and rebuff what I think are the misconceptions out there. I am sure Steve can chip in as well to correct me if I'm wrong. [b]Misconception - "Coppola did not pick "the GH2" as having the best technical performance, he picked the way it was used as being more appealing than the way some of the others were."[/b] This is only half true. Any shot is a marriage of 'the way the tool was used' and 'the technical performance'. The resulting shot is the sum of all parts. You cannot give the camera no credit or say the camera doesn't matter, even if the lighting was a bigger factor, the camera still plays a critical role in delivering the image. [b]Misconception - "Gear does not matter. It's you."[/b] "It's you" is the correct part of this statement and the part I think Steve is getting across. "Gear doesn't matter" is often used as shorthand for saying "talent matters most" which is fine but unsurprisingly the way people are interpreting it is often very literal, very black and white. Of course gear matters. Filmmaking is a marriage of man and machine, of the technical and the artistic. Both aspects matter [i]greatly[/i]. "It's you... And a thousand other things". Let's not over simplify it. [b]Misconception - "Clean images look too plastic"[/b] I've seen grungy stuff that is so out of place. Sometimes I cry out for that highly saturated HD look. A silky smooth image with no noise. Grungy images are just one of the paints in the filmmaking palette, they are not automatically more cinematic than a clean image. I personally like putting the life back in with old lenses, film grain overlays, etc. But it doesn't mean I will shoot everything like that. Just the stuff that needs it. [b]Misconception - "Content is king"[/b] This is shorthand for saying that unless you have a narrative script which goes from A to B, you have no content. For me, a beautiful shot or a small unspoken moment can have as much content as 10 pages of dialogue. For these kinds of shot, how you shoot it visually is more important than the literal interpretation of the script. It actually transcends the content and the words on the paper. If we count everything in front of the camera as 'content' and crown it king, that also is wrong - because you can have a complete dummy behind the camera with no feel for the language of cinema and piss that content right up the wall. [b]Misconception - "Grading is cheating / Grading doesn't matter / Grading is essential"[/b] Again extreme arguments when the truth is never that black and white or one trick suits all. Overheard a quote elsewhere about the Shootout and think it is worth drawing attention too... "This is crazy that people are basically implying that the lighting and coloring was a form of cheating. Guess what camera looks good with no regard to lighting/post work? None of them." Whilst I don't agree that footage automatically looks rubbish if you don't grade it I do agree that to imply that grading and post work to lift the lower end cameras in the Shootout was a form of cheating is ridiculous. It is a viable and established technique in filmmaking and all the cameras were touched by the colourist even the F65. [b]Misconception - "Lighting is king"[/b] Lighting is very important but sadly there are many many many people who have a very boxed in view of what lighting is. A key light, a fill light, a man literally moving an electronic light source into position. 'That is how you control lighting'. No it isn't! Your key light could be the sun. Your key light could even be the god damned moon. Your fill light could be a rear window, it could be the end of a tunnel or even a cloudy London sky. Woody Allen likes Europe because of our shit weather. Our shit weather is his fill light. Go and square that with your Arri Fresnel set! [b]Misconception - "It is bad to be more interested in camera gear than everything else"[/b] Filmmaking is a collaborative effort that brings a range of people together. They are focussed on what they're most interested in, only the director, writer and producer have a very broad overview of the whole thing. If I hire a DP I'd be worried if he was NOT interested in the camera technology. I wouldn't want him as a writer that is for sure :) Some of these obsessives who talk about cameras and pixel peeping are future cinematographers. They are not merely hobbyists.
-
More sharpness but it does have a few cute things going - weaker anti-aliasing on the horizontal axis, the filter not same in all directions, you might find aliasing an issue when you sharpen in post versus the 5D Mark III If you compare both the 5D Mark III sharpened in post to the same optimally sharp footage from the 1D X they will be very close I think. They're close enough as it is actually.... I am not going to be parting with $6000 any time soon. It is a lot of money for a camera without peaking.
-
[quote name='steve zacuto' timestamp='1342480997' post='13997'] Couple of things. Let's talk about the GH2, the hack they used was not stable and crashed a lot. I don't think it would be viable in a real production. One thing that seems to be misunderstood is that the scene was supposed to be very dark. The original lighting was supposed to be a room with a few practlcle lights on in the house and the extreme light coming in form the window. What Colt and Jonny did was to over light the scene and make it a bright room. I think people interpreted this as having the most DR as opposed to being the most pleasing and artfully done. I preferred Polly and Rodney's interpretation, it was more about retaining a moody scene. There are two tests. In part 3 you are going to see how the cameras look out of the box in an apples to apples test with no lighting changes. In part two you saw what talented DP's can do with these cameras. Together this shows you the comparison of what is-- and what is possible. Steve [/quote] Thank you for coming on the board Steve. For sure the hack is not stable. The extremely high bitrate 'performance' versions are not designed to be the go-to patches for reliability on paid work. Please if anyone is thinking of taking an untested GH2 straight out of the box onto a paid shoot with Driftwood's hack, don't do it. Think about reliability. The 44Mbit image looks almost as good as the 176Mbit version. Driftwood himself gives a variety of patches, some are designed for performance and some for reliability. Lighting is subjective, it is interesting that people reacted more to the lighting than to the cameras and this is a testament to the job those Japanese engineers did at Panasonic to put so MUCH into a consumer cam. It is crazy! But wonderful. Because it opens doors. Long may it continue. I thought that with the huge window at the back, it was too much of a stretch of logic to accept a dark room. Colt seemed to be the only DP to question this. To prove this. But your explanation of Colt's lighting makes perfect sense - the audience reacted to that illusion of dynamic range. He did a great job, because cinema, after all... Is an illusion. I can see why you guys wanted the darker room and brighter window - as a test of the cameras.
-
[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1342460719' post='13979'] You seem to use the words "fact" a bit loosely here for some odd reason. The only "fact" is that yes, you can get a strong image from the GH2 for its price. What is NOT a fact is that the GH2 can hang with the big boys [of this shootout] with its image. Only after huge lighting modifications are added and major post work has been done can it do so. Even the twin DPs admitted this BEFORE and DURING the shoot. Why can't you?[/quote] I for a fact, have shot with the GH2 countless times and not needed to use $40,000 worth of lighting and post production to get it to look like cinema. I know for a fact the camera in the right hands is capable of 'hanging with the big boys' as you put it without spending tons of money. On the shootout, all the cameras had similar treatment - same set, they were all lit with expensive lights, all attached to the same god damn expensive lens. This is not what makes the GH2 sing, for me. You have to give the camera some credit. Plus the fact Colt Seaman did a very creative take on the lighting. Whether your light is studio rigged, or natural, or expensive, or free... It doesn't matter. Your job as a DP is to find the right light for the story, or the mood you are trying to create. That is what Malick does with the magic hour sun. And sun light is free. There is a guy on the comments for my Shanghai piece where he mistakes it for Red Epic footage. [media]http://vimeo.com/33047750[/media] The reason for this is simple, that after both are graded for a punchy 1080p look, the GH2 looks like the Epic. There's a 2nd reason, and that is I didn't f*** up the look and made the most of the camera. But it really is down to the camera to deliver as much as it is down to me. It is a joint effort!! Both important!!
-
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/compact-cine-systems-nex-5n-cinema-housing.jpg[/img] [url="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=2&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&icep_item=120951703965&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg"]Click here to purchase your Cine Housing for the NEX 5N[/url][img]http://rover.ebay.com/roverimp/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?ff3=2&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&item=120951703965&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER][/img] Due to demand Richard Gale has decided to go ahead and put into production his Compact Cine Systems housing for the Sony NEX 5N. The housing is designed to be used with the NEX 5N, Sony CLM V55 monitor and lens. It is built to order and made in England.
-
Nice that you like it. I'm a great fan of this and Roberto's filmmaking. I've blogged about it before http://www.eoshd.com/content/6462/new-official-gh2-firmware-out-adds-25p-early-findings
-
Experimental filmmaking - David Lynch's Rabbits
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
This is what the Zacuto Shootout 2013 should be like. More rabbit heads please. -
Watch the first five minutes of GH2 feature film Musgo (warning - NSFW)
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
[quote name='Chris Santucci' timestamp='1342456990' post='13976'] Where'd the highlights go? [/quote] Silver screen. No super white. It looks like it is being projected. Helps soften the harsh electronic highlights you get when viewing stuff on an LCD monitor. That is my theory of why he's done it that way. I don't tend to shoot like that but in this instance it worked. -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CdjWWSKfKsg&feature=related Thoughts welcome :)
-
Watch the first five minutes of GH2 feature film Musgo (warning - NSFW)
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
[quote name='onedogdan' timestamp='1342452653' post='13967'] The look of this is very good! It was shot in 1080? I find the stuttering during pans and fast motion to be pretty distracting, but maybe it's because my GH1 has the same issue, and I'm looking to closely for it? Maybe to a normal viewer who is not a filmmaker would smooth right over that issue? Otherwise, the lighting and grading is superb. As a viewer- It's a little overly dramatic in the scene direction and soundtrack for my taste... I'd call it 'well on the way to being a solid film', rather than a breakout hit. But as a filmmaker- I can safely say I would die happy having reached this level of ability. Thanks for sharing! [/quote] It is 24p and you are streaming it over Vimeo. Also your monitor is not going to look as cinematic for motion as a good home theatre projector. Maybe you can experiment with your set up a bit. It is the way it is being displayed not the camera or the shooting style which has the issue. -
Watch the first five minutes of GH2 feature film Musgo (warning - NSFW)
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
Plot looks strong from the start. I'm interested to know if it holds my attention throughout the 72 min feature and that will be the true test of the plot. There is a synopsis on the original trailer... [indent=1]Sara runs a large country house in the middle of the Pyrenees, away from the hustle and bustle of the city. Her peaceful life is interrupted by the unexpected arrival of her stepmother with whom she does not get along. Her stepmother brings her father’s ashes. What at first looks like a reconciliation turns into a nightmare.[/indent] [indent=1]Cast Meritxell Ortega…… Sara Mercè Espelleta…… Mercedes Joan Manel Chilet….Juan German Parreño…… Alex[/indent] The first five minutes actually seem more like the middle of the film so maybe it has a non-linear plot which jumps back and forth in time. That would be pretty cool, I have seen that work to great effect before. Congrats Gami, and I will try to grab an interview stay tuned -
[quote name='mattbatt' timestamp='1342425901' post='13949']To add light and tons of post work is a detriment to a camera. A camera is supposed to make the MOST of natural light available in which the DP gets to sculpt with artificial light – in the hopes of creating a masterpiece. But it is all about the use of LIGHT. When obvious changes become so dramatic that the lighting looks staged, that speaks to a camera’s weakness far more than resolution or price alone. [/quote] I do agree with this. Natural light, or natural looking staged light is what I tend to go for when shooting with the GH2, or any of my other cameras be it 5D Mark III, FS100 or NEX 7. But I still think Colt did a nice job of making people think the GH2 was the Epic :)
-
[media]http://vimeo.com/45596420[/media] [b]Warning - this video contains content some viewers may find disturbing. Not suitable for work.[/b] One of the best looking trailers I've seen on Vimeo from anyone has been for a tense Spanish thriller called Musgo. It now appears the feature length film itself could as thrilling as many were expecting. This looks like being a real breakout hit.
-
[quote name='KahL' timestamp='1342440252' post='13954']The Red isn't very limited, neither is the Alexa, or the C300 and at certain noise levels, neither are the Canons. [/quote] What is your point again? Frustrating. None of them make any sense. You're claiming I'm flip flopping when I'm not. You're either not reading what I'm saying or choosing to twist it. You're using too much personal stuff in the post as well so cut it out or you will get a ban. I've sent you a warning, so calm down or lose access.
-
[quote name='Shawn_Lights' timestamp='1342407031' post='13939'] @Andrew I think what you're failing to understand is we're commenting on how the GH2 was used in the shootout. It did look like soap opera TV. Now is that saying that the GH2 isn't capable of a filmic image? no. However, the way it was used in the shootout was pretty bad to me. Yes the other cameras kept the room too dark and I would've loved for them to add a little more light. However, I think it had more of a drama feel than the GH2 footage in this test. I like this site and respect what you do. I just feel sometimes you get too defensive sometimes like no one is allowed to dislike anything about the GH2. Also sometimes you don't simply state a fact about Canon products you resort to trashing it. I admire your passion for gear that indie filmmakers can use that'll produce high quality stuff. This isn't an attack on your or anything. I don't always agree with how you go about things but I respect it. Also to be clear I was simply commenting on the way the GH2 was used and not the camera itself. I think this was more of a DP test than anything. [/quote] I agree to some extent that the test scene was more TV soap than art house cinema :D But this did not for me make me dislike the way some of the cameras were handled. These DPs could only work with the set they were given and the scene is a very basic one. What I have suggested to Steve for the next shootout is to go all out on creativity and really make it a test of ideas and filmmakers rather than cameras - to take the cameras out of it entirely. But then it would lose the very useful educational purpose it serves, in showing us how these lovely tools perform in the real world. And look - I'm not The Great GH2 Defender - it is just that it has a lot of unnecessary detractors who think it looks like video when it should be obvious by now that it is a very fine cinema camera... For $700. Just putting the facts across.
-
Canon mirrorless to feature APS-C sensor according to sources
Andrew Reid replied to Andrew Reid's topic in Cameras
I want Rioch to succeed and I'm glad you seem quite taken with the little GXR. However there are more M mount digital solutions if you count the E-mount with adapter, Micro Four Thirds with adapter and even the Fuji X Pro 1. -
[quote name='Leang' timestamp='1342404290' post='13933'] a bit unfair that the AG-AF100 was not included. truly unfair. different spec architecture than the GH2. this really bothers me. the AF100 is a very underrated camera. 4:2:2 8-bit w/ BNC out. cmon. too bad I couldn't invite Copoola to my premiere. what a stupid workshop. just marketing for "Zacuto." [/quote] The AF100 is underrated you're right. And it is cheaper than the FS100. Unfortunately it has an older sensor than the GH2 and is outgunned for the price by the FS100 on image quality. Various tests have proven that even though the AF100 can do a HD-SDI out in 4-2-2, the GH2 still gives a better image overall. So I don't really mourn its absence and it is time for Panasonic to get their AVC-Ultra stuff out - and quick.
-
KahL please meet Facts. The GH2 has decent dynamic range, it isn't limited at all. You have to remember that dynamic range is first and foremost a feature which allows you to fix a broken shot in post. Of course a $700 consumer camera is not going to have as much dynamic range as a $70,000 one that shoots raw. If you want raw on a budget get the Blackmagic for $3000. Or better still, shoot it right the first time with a GH2 then you won't even need to grade. I've only graded 1 or 2 of my GH2 projects. I prefer to bake the preferred look in at the time of shooting. It has worked for me. I am sure it works for others. Regards lighting, you don't need to blast 5k at a set at all. What Colt did looked good, it would have looked good if he'd used more fill light on any of the cameras in my opinion - because he was the only one who actually lit the set for the subject - i.e. a party with huge window. The other scenes had the interior too dark for both the mood implied by the party and the amount of light implied by the window and the brightness of the outdoor lighting. Nearly all of my shoots with the GH2 was done in natural light. Stuff as subtle as a single flame as a key light, or the light from passing traffic casting shadows on a wall in the dark ally at ISO 12,800. It all counts as creative lighting, and creative use of the camera. NOT having to carry around a lighting rig is one of the reasons I love DSLRs in the first place. Of course lighting is necessary but I tend to prefer to work with natural sources of it. Partly for convenience but partly because it turns me on. Is that wrong? Nope. Yet some people have this very ridged view of lighting only being studio megawatts and huge rigs. It is far more diverse and natural than that. You can use the damned moon as a key light if you want these days! The sun at magic hour is one of the widest used light sources in cinema, just have a look at Malick's work for a prime example. TV-ish? I just don't agree. You can dial in a flatter and less crisp look to GH2 footage. You can rough things up with an old lens. You can add film grain in post. Anamorphic. List is endless... I find dialling down saturation a far more reasonable a task in post than trying to fix moire or sharpness on a Canon. I don't think this looks like TV, do you? Shot on the GH2, mind. http://vimeo.com/45596420 What your comment proves, and people continue to prove, is that no matter how much proof to the contrary there is out there and for how long it is out there for, they will never be satisfied. We're talking about a $700 camera here which shot footage (in capable hands) that none other than god damned Coppola liked better than a $70,000 one. Wake up. We're premature? More like you are 2 years late!
-
Yeah F11 is it. But when you're shooting in bright sunlight with any camera you need an ND ideally, not just RX100. I never stop down to F11 just to maintain 1/50. Given the choice between a rock and a hard place I'd rather choose to shoot wide open at 1/2000. Depth of field control has a larger affect on the overall way the image looks than shutter speed, especially if your shot is locked down or with little subtle movements inside it.
-
[quote name='evil_thought2' timestamp='1342388942' post='13914'] I said nothing either. I said your opinion was wrong. Given they didn't change the lighting, ADDS to F65 performance. The F65 operators were confident that the camera could do well without changing the lighting. H was in top 3 for many people. Even EOSHD had it on the front page wrongly thinking it was the "amazing" GH2. It turned out to be F65. You said, "sony's lack of interest in being creative with the lighting was a shame." I said you were wrong. They wanted to show off that their camera can handle the lighting. This is internet. Get used to people telling you are wrong. [/quote] I do think you need to calm down sir. You are entitled to your opinion, but there's no need to put it across by targeting Rich for criticism. If a DP does a shit job at lighting they deserve criticism. If a person on the other hand is simply expressing an opinion, you have no right to be offended.