jonjak2

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346003207' post='16514']
Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam.

However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money?

Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC.

You'd gain:

Wide angle faster than F2.8
Stills
Usable ISO above 3200

You'd lose:

12 bit colour
4-2-2 sampling
Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+)
Raw codec
Larger built in screen
HD-SDI
XLR
Da Vinci Resolve (it comes in the box)
$500 cheaper

I believe the BMC is by far the better deal. We don't need to catch up to Canon, we need to catch up to Blackmagic and so do they.

What people don't realise very often about the large sensor in the 5D Mark III is that it only has ONE advantage - the way it renders a lens. Shallower DOF all else equal (which is not actually what you always want on every shoot, every scene, every shot) and more choice of lenses at wide angle. It doesn't give any of the dynamic range, resolution or low light advantage in video mode that the sensor is capable of in stills mode.

The Blackmagic's image shits all over the 5D Mark III. The only thing it can't do by comparison is 24mm F1.4 and ISO above 3200.

13 stops of dynamic range for $3000 is a much bigger deal than a full frame sensor which is crippled by a dreadful image processor and dated codec.
[/quote]

The BMC is a 'better' camera on paper, fine. But how many people have even got the best out of the MKII yet? Who cares about 12 bit vs 8 bit if you can't even make 8 bit look good in the first place. Until you can produce images as good as House, what's the point in arguing about how much better the BMC is? If producing good cinematography isn't your aim then yes, but if you're serious about cinematography it's quite clear that even the MKII is way ahead of the skills of a lot of shooters. People are fixated with specs but they can't even make the 5D look great! Isn't that where the energy should go? The BMC shits all over the 5D? Show me some of your work that shits over the episode of House that Gale Tattersall shot, or something that comes even close!

You're clearly biased against the 5D and losing the ability to be objective. You got bullied by it in school and can't get over your resentment. It's the camera you fell in love with and now it's gone off with the cute football player. It's not the camera that's letting you down man! You've projected your need onto it and it hasn't met your expectations, shit happens. Still cuts in with an Alexa though so it's not all bad for a £2.5K camera.

Why make it 5DMKIII vs BMC? Stop trying to get your revenge man! They're two totally different cameras that do different things. One is a STILLS camera that happens to do amazing video in the right hands. The other is a low end cinema camera capable of groundbreaking images for the price, both have drawbacks.

[quote name='markm' timestamp='1345995782' post='16507']
If you can sharpen the image then my question is Is it really soft? OR have canon simply left it unsharpened. If so that should be more filmic as a 35mm movie camera doesn't add sharpening either. Sharpening adds a black line around objects. I'd be more happy with a mark 3 that doesn't add sharpening. The Mark 3 is the easiest to get a film look with its dof control but without the background out of focus the images to me don't look that great and not as good as the GH2. Another problem area is the 8 bits and for that reason see it as a very nice tool that is a bit of a luxury for me as it can only do one thing albeit very very well. The GH2 to my mind has more resolution. So resolution with cheap price OR better dof control with 4 times the price on two still compromised cameras that for me are just placeholders till a proper camera like the BMC is here. Why waste money in the manufacturers game of now you have it now you dont crippling
[/quote]

I would say Canon left it unsharpened, and rightly so, because generally in camera sharpening is poor.
I would also say that until someone has the skill to create images like we've seen the mark II capable of (House etc), isn't it better to focus on lighting, composition, visual storytelling before looking for the next camera? The MKII, as Gale Tattersall (House DoP) pronounced, is capable of cinema quality images, so why not get to the point where you can make it look as good as he did, before criticising its failings. So many people trash cameras like the 5D MKII/III, but they can't even make it look as good as it's capable of. These days, cameras are way ahead of us and we need to catch up.

[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345826566' post='16426']
You choose to ignore the point that I made that straight out of the camera the 5D3 is no softer than the 5D2. It doesn't have the moire & aliasing of the 5D2 either. With a bit of sharpening in post it looks even better. It doesn't necessarily require work in post as it's all a matter of taste. All these cameras have good & bad points. The soft look of the 5Ds can either good or bad depending on the shot. The GH2 has horrible ergonomics & the FS100 isn't a shining example either unless you are used to the overcomplicated fussiness of Sony cameras covered with little buttons. The 5D3 is a perfectly decent camera for shooting video. It is in all ways better than the 5D2 that everyone knows & (mostly) loves. I don't care if the image out of the GH2 has a higher resolution as people don't look as nice as they do when filmed with a 5D2/5D3.
[/quote]

Andrew is biased towards the GH2, and has a real bitterness towards Canon for not producing the camera he wanted. He seems to prefer resolution over most things. It's an aesthetic taste. Surprising because the 5D3 can produce wonderful images that cut in really nicely with an Alexa. When this point is brought up by people who actually do this, it is ignored, so take that for what it's worth. This might be my last post, because people are also banned from this forum for voicing this opinion and accused of trolling.

I used the Edelkrone Modular 5 rig and have to say that it is poorly designed for handheld work. The big flaw is that the camera is set too far forward, the weight of the rig is too high, and you have to lift your arms up to hold the bars. This creates a lot of strain, an unbalanced rig, and makes good handheld work difficult. I would not buy this rig due to this because it does not do the basics of what a handheld rig should. The follow focus is also poorly designed because it does not leave room for a matte box (unless you use a really small cheap one) and the smaller reversible wheel just slips under the tension of focus pulling.

Much better is a rig based around the Zacuto DSLR baseplate, because with this the camera is much closer to your head and much better balanced. Their hand bars are also set lower which is much more comfortable. I would save up the money, or buy second hand. I bought a whole zacuto handheld rig, matte box, follow focus etc for £1000. It can be done. Just keep watching ebay. The main thing to get is the DSLR baseplate, then just one handgrip on the right that is set low will do because your left hand will mostly be on the follow focus. You could buy other parts from other cheaper suppliers from there such as a weight and shoulder pad and so on. But, overall, don't buy cheap if you're serious about your work.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343206417' post='14474']
How would you compare it? Youtube?

Positive examples for digital in it's own right and dignity are the latest films of David Fincher.

The photography in Stanley Kubricks latest film, [i]Eyes Wide Shut[/i], is a good example of how the tissue of the canvas and the brushwork shine through. A good example, because Kubrick certainly tried to get the imagery as clean as possible, despite the extreme low light concept. Note, how the high speed graininess increases the depth of field! I am sure, if Kubrick lived, he would have been an early adopter of digital cameras.

I liked the look of Jesse James, but I am not sure how much of it is purely analog and how much digital post. I like the films of Christopher Nolan, but I think his insistence of analog recording is a luxury that's still affordable. This will change. Film is dying. Wave goodbye.
[/quote]

I can see the difference between the trailer for seven and Dragon tattoo on youtube. It isn't only grain, it's all the elements of the image.
Dragon Tattoo is nice, but with that type of film, digital excels. I'll wait to see a Western or There Will Be Blood type of film and we'll see. It isn't post that gave Jesse James it's looks, film was a big part of it.

Incidentally, Fincher preferred the red mx to the epic apparently. Commented that there was a graininess and texture to the MX that wasn't in the Epic so much.

[quote name='andy lee' timestamp='1343134276' post='14415']
2002- 2007 I used to shoot on Digi Beta Cam before I got the Canons
and even this was too clean so we used to add 'film grain' and noise in post to make it look like film.
All the pop videos I shoot on Canons have 'film grain' added after the grade as the final step before it is output to make it look 'less clean'.
You can mimic Kodak film stocks that I used to shoot on in the 1990s like Vision 100T and Vision 200T 5274 wery well in post.
Plus you can try differnt types of 'grain' to get just the right look for your project so you are happy with it.

I agree with Andrew you can make digital look very much like film in post - I've been doing it for many years now.
[/quote]

Can you point me to an example of something you've done that is digitally shot and looks like film? Very curious because this all comes down to what 'film' looks like to you.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343133784' post='14414']
You can mimic the imperfections of film in post. The problem is not that the cameras are too clinical, it is that the Hollywood people are taking all the imperfections out of their images, giving us stuff which is too glossy, to commercial, too clean.

This will get even worse after The Hobbit and 4K 48p. I remain to be convinced by the artistic merit of that as well.

We shall see...
[/quote]

You can[i] try[/i] to mimic the imperfections of film in post, but again, i've yet to see the type of grain, grit, and feel to the image that was in There Will Be Blood done digitally. Or for example, a bleach bypass look like Seven.

I hope someone makes a digitally shot Western that is supposed to have grit and texture, then we'll see. Hopefully something will come along for Roger Deakins where he has to produce the Jesse James look again, but on the Alexa. 'Now', his first Alexa feature was very unconvincing.

Your point about Hollywood being glossy, i don't agree with per se and i think it's easy to just demonise Hollywood. The independent filmmaker needs something to be angry at, but i think Hollywood being a scapegoat is a bit lazy. The reality is there are many big and small Hollywood films being made that are not just glossy. Sure there are glossy pictures, but then there always have been. Every year there are huge productions that look amazing. For TV check out Boardwalk Empire, 35mm and Primo's, looks stunning, for feature films there's plenty as well.

The Hobbit and 48p, i shudder... But let's see if it helps the story and involvement overall.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343123235' post='14402']
This has more to do with the attitude the artist has to his work than with the technique used. But you are right: If you fail to win over your audience, you fail.
[/quote]

Sure, but digital immediately gives you a problem. Can you work around it? Yes, but shoot a set on 35mm vs RED EPIC and there is an immediate difference. Remember, i'm not suggesting there aren't workarounds, i'm just saying that in my view there is an immediate aesthetic problem with digital, and i don't like the way some digital technology and some manufacturers are going.

This draws an interesting question though, what specs make the perfect camera? What resolution is 'best'?

[quote name='sfrancis928' timestamp='1343091904' post='14384']
Uh, film had been around for many many decades before those films were made. Good digital hasn't been around for long, and it's still getting better. I'm sure time (and not much of it) will give us digital films that (subjectively) match the beauty of those films.



Time has a way of fixing these things. Sets and visuals like that will be made to look more realistic as they are needed to. Things like that just work themselves out.
[/quote]

In time, sure. I'm not against digital! But right now, no, there isn't anything i've seen that looks as good, and my point is about the present, not what digital could be in the future.

We'll see if digital mimics all the imperfections of film in the future. Honestly, i'm not convinced, the cameras haven't been going in that direction so far, but lets see.

Your point about sets becoming more realistic in the future, this is actually what the [i]problem[/i] is. Everything is becoming more realistic. But film has a dream like, distant, mysterious quality to it. It allows a set like bladerunner to be built from junk but we can believe it. As resolution is ramped up, we start to see imperfections, things look too realistic, and you lose the magic of film. Why is the future about seeing and having everything, everything being technically 'perfect'. I love the imperfect, the things with character, individuality, and so on. When film was originally projected in cinemas, by the time you got to release prints you'd be seeing on average 680 lines of resolution. This was kind to actors faces, sets and so on. And what was wrong with it that needed to be improved? I wish digital cameras would focus on actually looking like film rather than racing for resolution, wide color gamut and so on. The only camera that's made a serious attempt to do this is the Alexa.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1343003076' post='14324']
So are we talking about something so subtle here between 35mm and 5D that on many occasions you don't notice, or are we to take you at your previous statement that the GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances.

Not film-like?

That is a bit of a narrow view. You're talking about subtle differences. To claim the whole damn film (like Blade Runner) looks the way it does because of a tiny subtle difference, is crazy.

You haven't even mentioned lenses yet. Most of the Blade Runner look has nothing to do with 35mm - more the fact it is shot with anamorphic lenses. You don't mention the DP, director, once... Not a single time... So are you saying 35mm has the magic that no director is capable of adding? Or are you claiming it is a small subtle difference and digital is not quite there yet? Which is it?

Is your main bone of contention the Zacuto shootout lighting? What are you judging the GH2 from, exactly? It looks as digital as you let it be, my friend.

[/quote]


No you misunderstand me. In SOME narrow circumstances you can cut between a 5D and 35mm. But if you watch a whole scene or movie or have the wrong type of shot the difference is obvious. Neither look like film. You could NOT shoot a scene from There Will Be Blood on any digital camera, put it in the movie and not notice. Bottom Line. I am not talking about subtle differences. You believe it is subtle, fine, i do not, and i say this from personal experience. If your personal experience is different, no problem, please discuss, i'm interested to hear, but it sounds like wishful thinking rather than something grounded in an unbiased experience based viewpoint.

I haven't mentioned lenses because i'm talking about the difference between film and digital at a basic level when the same lenses are used. The idea that swapping out the Alexa vs 35mm on Bladerunner and it would look the same. NO, you must be joking or willfuly delusional. What is your agenda here? Or perhaps you just don't notice in which case fair enough. Did you see Prometheus? Can you seriously tell me you don't see the effect of the digitally shot image once you take away the effect of the lighting/lenses/DP. I mean it's obvious! It looked so digital.

Can digital look great? Of course. Does it look like film, the very thing it is trying to do? No, it hasn't matched it yet. The Alexa is the closest, but still not there. Did you watch last years Zacuto shootout? Could you not tell the difference? I mean is was plain as day. The image does not look the same, what is the point in arguing that it does unless there is some agenda. It's no big deal. Digital can look good, but it's not the same, bottom line.

Regarding the recent Zacuto shootout and the GH2. All i know is when i watched it i voted B second to last and noted it down as really digital and nasty looking before i knew any results. It was something about the colour, the blacks, the sharpness, and the overall feel of the image. It just looked horrible and electronic to me. I guess we have different aesthetics. It had nothing to do with the lighting. Similarly with the 7D which i put next. The lighting wasn't great but the colour and feel were better, though still not great. It seems like you have an agenda with the GH2 which inhibits an unbiased viewpoint, anyway that's my impression, correct me if i'm wrong.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1343022905' post='14344']

Your sentence implies, that film right now can look better than digital. It will be surpassed by digital in the not-so-distant future. And once we realize that we need to overcome film, we can as well embrace new characteristics. The main thing is - everywhere! - if we care.
[/quote]

In my personal experience and from my personal aesthetics i think film has a much nicer look than digital right now, yes, absolutely. Digital cameras will be 'better' in the future, some of them are 'better' now, when you look at a piece of paper. But when i look at the image itself, film is more beautiful. I hope digital cameras keep pushing to look more filmic, its not there yet.

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1342996403' post='14321']
I guess I never apreciated the cinematography in There Will be Blood because the rest of the movie was so godamn terrible.
[/quote]

Hehe, different tastes i guess. For me it was one of the best US films in the last ten years. The first 15 minutes just has stunning visual storytelling. If you're going to watch and appreciate any of it, watch that first 15 minutes.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342988212' post='14315']
I am glad you like There Will Be Blood.

I do think digital has a harsher look than film - but Axel makes a good point about more care being taken with film. Digital is too forgiving. The differences in aesthetic between a GH2 in its comfort zone and 35mm film are subtle compared to the the differences between handling with care and not.

Using an anamorphic lens on the GH2, exposing for the highlights, catching natural light at the right hour, having the light diffuse through fog or smoke in a real location, handling with care in post, softening the image, reducing contrast with flare, even adding some scanned 35mm film grain - all reduce the electronic digital look and add life.

You really can intercut between digital and film, if done right even you wouldn't notice. The Alexa looks great - I don't mourn film, what I do mourn is the artistic sensibility and care which is being lost in the digital age especially in Hollywood.

It is people who put the digital BAM look into digital not as much the camera itself.
[/quote]

If you look at a well lit shot/scene on film, and then the same shot scene on the GH2 (with adjustments for highlights/shadows), the differences are far from subtle to me. The GH2 does not look like film under any circumstances. Can it look cinematic and fool you into thinking it's 'filmic' with the right lighting/lenses and all that stuff? Yes. But as the Zacuto Shootout showed, it's base image really looked videoey and pretty nasty, at least that's what i felt. Compared to film it isn't remotely in the same ballpark. People who think it is…. i dunno, i wonder what aesthetic taste is coming to these days. Seems it's all about resolution and video looking images.

Do you speak from personal experience when you say the differences are subtle between the GH2 and film?

In regards to Digital being more forgiving and more care being taken with film… What? So a top DP will take less 'care' with Digital? Are you kidding me? I can just hear Emmanuel Lubezki now… "no no, it's ok guys, no need to light like we usually do, we're shooting on digital you see, early finish today!" 'Care' has nothing to do with the camera AT ALL. I wonder if Axel is involved in any top end productions where top end DP's are all going home early that qualify him to say this. Is less 'care' taken these days in general? Perhaps, but i really don't think so. There's always been quality and rubbish, and it's the same today. There's plenty of beautifully shot and produced work going on. People always harp on about the past, they romantically remember the good stuff and forget about all the rubbish.

You can intercut digital and film yes, of course, i've done it myself intercutting 35mm and the 5D! On many occasions you don't notice. But when i see a whole scene, or a particular film that doesn't suit digital's sterility, then it's obvious. Cut in a digital scene to There Will Be Blood or Bladerunner, and it'll stick out like a sore thumb.

Take a look at Boardwalk empire, looks absolutely stunning, what Digitally shot tv drama looks as good as that? Please don't say Game Of Thrones...

I completely disagree that it is people putting a digital BAM look into things rather than the camera itself.

Anyway… let's see what Lubezki does with the Alexa on the new Terence Malick film… Even so, i saw Drive and didn't like the digital (Alexa) look at all… that's just me i guess.

[quote name='Axel' timestamp='1342940113' post='14298'] It is the [u]care[/u] that is invested in big screen cinematography that makes it different from amateurish stuff, not "film".
[/quote]

My point is about the basic aesthetic features of film. 'Care' will never make a GH2 look like film. People compare digital to film because film has a particular aesthetic quality that is currently unmatched by digital, the same way artists may prefer particular paints, and so on. Of course professional film-makers will make digital/film look good. This isn't an arguement about professional/amateur. The fact is, there are no digital films that match the best 35mm films yet from an aesthetic perspective and that is down to the camera. There are some very good digital films, but until i see something matching the filmic look of There Will Be Blood/Jesse James i will continue this point.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342914781' post='14288']
I really think you are attributing far too much to the look of film.

I can put life into a $700 digicam. The right light and the right lenses, the right grading and the right sensitivity of handling in post is all you need.

Film has a nice grain and latitude. The mythology of a cinematic image is not just in film like grain and latitude, it is in so many other aspects of the camera, lens, light, location, actors, costumes and most importantly cinematographer.
[/quote]

The GH2 can not look like The Tree Of Life no matter what. It's ok though, but personally i don't like it at all as displayed in the Zacuto shootout where it was my second worst behind the Iphone before i'd seen any results. Just nasty looking, those were my notes! Different people have different aesthetic tastes, i'm just particularly sensitive to the digital look.

There are plenty of amazing Cinematographers working with digital, i haven't seen anything that looks like the best of film yet. As a working DoP i'm fully aware of what adds up to a great image. The filmic look is far more than grain and latitude. It's the appearance of motion, the colour, the softness, the texture, the range of tonality, and so on. There is nothing shot digitally that matches the best of film, and digital has had plenty of time to do it so let's not suggest it's because Cinematographers, lenses and all that haven't come together yet. Just look at 'Now', Roger Deakins first film with the Alexa as an example. All his films look great until, uh oh, he uses the Alexa for the first time. Not nice. Interested to see what he does with it on Bond. Also, i think Malick is using the Alexa with his latest (God knows when it'll be released though!), if Lubezki is shooting it it'll be interesting to see what he can do with it...

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342906771' post='14285']
I think the way film is processed and projected in this day and age makes it look more like digital anyway. I don't think it even has much of a classic look to it any more on most film shot big budget features I've seen, it is not much in evidence. Nolan is a good director, but a little over hyped. Better is Paul Thomas Anderson. Never seen someone better at getting the most out of talent that he manages to do. His characters light up the screen... No, they set it alight completely. Burn baby burn.
[/quote]

Sorry to harp on, but not seen anything digital as good as the digital projection of The Tree Of Life. And what a shame it is to lose 35mm projectors. Anyway, much of Paul Thomas Anderson's new film is shot on 65mm, looking forward to it. The first trailer is amazing, and yes, not digital looking at all!
Why compare Nolan and PTA? Couldn't be further apart. What's the point? Nolan has the incredible opportunity of shooting massive projects, and thankfully he's a great director. PTA meanwhile produces wonderful films of a completely different, arthouse type. Thankfully though, they're both shooting film!

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1342880107' post='14242']
Digital HAS beaten film.

I am pretty sure 5K or Super Hi Vision would look more detailed than the best S35mm film scan on IMAX. Would you notice even more resolution from 65mm on IMAX? I haven't yet.
For sure digital has better sensitivity to light with less noise.
With the Sony F65 it also has a wider colour gamut and better dynamic range.

Case closed!
[/quote]


What? Are you kidding me? Do you actually shoot film, have you actually looked at the same shot on 35mm next to an F65 or Alexa or are you just talking from a spec sheet? Digital is more detailed? Who cares! It also looks plastic, sterile and lifeless. What is the crazy obsession with resolution as if that is what actually counts?

Film wins by miles when it comes to the actual aesthetic look. If you're talking specs, sure digital wins, but who cares about specs! I repeat, what digital film looks as good as the best 35mm shot film? To take something modern as an example, what digital film looks as good as The Tree Of Life, or There Will Be Blood? Please tell me, i'm still waiting to see something convincing. Sure Digital can look great for some stories, but Apocalypse Now, Blade Runner, Assasination of Jesse James? No way, not yet.

I'm all for digital, but arguing that it beats film because color gamut this and resolution that is ridiculous. You don't judge it by looking at a piece of paper or internet page, you judge it by actually looking at the two side by side on a cinema screen.

I had the iphone last, then the GH2, then the 7d.
The GH2 looked nasty to me personally. Very videoy and not nice colours at all. I find it hard to understand how some people put it up so high, but different tastes i guess. I had the Alexa first because the image had a smoother feel, with very nice tonal range.

The whole 'most people preferred the GH2' feels like out of context fanboy hysteria. Why so desperate to overstate this camera? Granted, it is amazing that such an inexpensive camera can even be close to the more expensive ones, but did it look as good? Nowhere near to me, and i imagine that would be the same for most Cinematographers with a trained eye.

[quote name='alexander' timestamp='1342820683' post='14211']
I agree with nolan when It comes to 65mm 70mm Imax film but 35mm film is already beaten by alexa and sony f and also red. The only argument pro 35mm film is that filming on it realy is more of an art then flat digital is. Because it makes u think more about the look before actually shooting the scene. But it seems as if all the older directors prefer digital. Do not know wich one it was but one said that he did not wont to die in front of the cutting bench. thats why he is shooting digital... migt have been Scorsese.
[/quote]

Film is already beaten by Alexa, Sony F and RED? Really? How exactly? You mean when you look at the spec sheet?
Honestly this modern 'specs based' attitude is scary. Tell me one digitally shot film that looks as good as Blade Runner, Apocalypse Now, The Tree Of Life?.
The image already hit it's peak artistically back in the 70's. What digital film has 'beaten' the look of these since?
When i look at digitally shot films in the cinema i feel depressed. Most of them look videoy, lifeless, sterile to me. Prometheus looked awful i thought, i mean compare it to blade runner or alien and it just isn't remotely close. Too much resolution! The sets start to look like sets, made out of cardboard. I just recently went to a screening of digitally shot short films (including one of my own) and they just looked empty. The motion in particular just doesn't feel cinematic. Everything felt too real, the sense and feel of the cinematic dissappears.

This is of course based on aesthetic taste but this 'beaten' point is simply rubbish to me. People shoot on 35mm film because it has a beautiful quality to it that digital currently can't create, not because 'old' people stick to it for some stubborn reason. When a digital film comes out that looks as good as the best of 35mm, well then we can say digital has 'matched' the look of 35mm.