Jump to content

Multiple BMMCC & BMPCC used on new Bourne sequel


sudopera
 Share

Recommended Posts

Especially the BMPCC tempts me all the time, but I always tell me not to buy it because there is no such a lens that offers me IS at maximum 50mm FF equivalent while being F2.0 or lower...

Especially for POV they need quite wide lenses due to the crop factor.. how do they keep them stabilized? cant be without rigging?

And in case when the BMPCC used, this means they upscale 1080p to sth like 4K?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably been shot wide... Maybe a 12mm of some sorts (Veydra T2.2 perhaps). Probably just mounted it almost as-is, as they wanted to keep it small and light. Especially mounted to a vehicle (where you can see part of the vehicle itself) any shake will be pretty manageable I'd say. As for the upscale... probably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jase said:

Especially the BMPCC tempts me all the time, but I always tell me not to buy it because there is no such a lens that offers me IS at maximum 50mm FF equivalent while being F2.0 or lower...

Especially for POV they need quite wide lenses due to the crop factor.. how do they keep them stabilized? cant be without rigging?

And in case when the BMPCC used, this means they upscale 1080p to sth like 4K?

Which is why the GX85 is so appealing - all those fast prime lenses can now be used handheld on a small camera, with good 4K video. Sure, RAW is more creative, but not if it inhibits what you can shoot. Which is why the BMPCC was not the only camera used on this movie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really think it would be smart for BMD to make a series of real world tutorials and BTS from movie sets to show us what can be done with those great little cameras, how the pros rig them, what lenses they use etc. Probably most of us don't have access to big productions and sometimes you can research online until judgement day but simply there isn't any info out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to IMDB right after seeing the movie because there seemed to be such a mish mash of cameras there. I saw some extremely clean low-light fly-overs and some very grainy normal light shots, as well as some fast pans that clearly showed rolling shutter.  The site lists the following as being used:

ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format) (some scenes) 
Canon Cinema RAW (4K) (source format) (some shots) 
CineForm RAW (2K) (source format) (some shots) 
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) 
Redcode RAW (6K) (source format) (some shots) 
Super 16 (source format) (some scenes) 
Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Inazuma said:

I went to IMDB right after seeing the movie because there seemed to be such a mish mash of cameras there. I saw some extremely clean low-light fly-overs and some very grainy normal light shots, as well as some fast pans that clearly showed rolling shutter.  The site lists the following as being used:

ARRIRAW (2.8K) (source format) (some scenes) 
Canon Cinema RAW (4K) (source format) (some shots) 
CineForm RAW (2K) (source format) (some shots) 
Digital Intermediate (2K) (master format) 
Redcode RAW (6K) (source format) (some shots) 
Super 16 (source format) (some scenes) 
Super 35 (3-perf) (source format)

 

Bourne s.: http://www.hdvideopro.com/film-and-tv/feature-films/bourne-is-back/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how occasional 0.5 - 2sec shots from crash/pov cams make the rounds on some forums as 'This camera shot the whole movie!'

Not saying that this is the case here, it just tickles me that marketing spin can be very misleading in explaining proportion of 'prosumer' camera footage used these days in big budget features. The amount of people who think Act of Valor was shot entirely on 5DMKII is impressive..overlooking that the bulk of the 'pretty' photography was shot on Arri 235/435 Panavision platinum. Most of the time cheaper cameras make up parts of a quick cut sequence that could include a crayon drawing and nobody would notice any mismatch in quality. Exactly how nobody noticed windup WW2 era Eymos or crusty 16mm cameras when put in crash boxes and intercut into an action sequence in the good old film days.

I miss windup eymo's being used for car stunts....they sure could take a beating.

This is why putting multiple inexpensive cameras close to the action is a must..and why you should keep everyone at a safe distance:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

I love how occasional 0.5 - 2sec shots from crash/pov cams make the rounds on some forums as 'This camera shot the whole movie!

 

I generally agree with you on this but I don't quite understand where did you see such claims in this thread or in the linked article.

3 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

Most of the time cheaper cameras make up parts of a quick cut sequence that could include a crayon drawing and nobody would notice any mismatch in quality.

Some quotes from the article - reasons why DP chose BMs (image quality mattered to him it seems):

“One of the most important things when shooting action scenes for any movie is to stay consistent with the established look of the movie, so once you transition to an action scene, there’s no difference to the eye, and it feels like the same scene and style,” explained Meglic. “On ‘Bourne,’ it was especially important because of the particular visceral documentary style of the film.”

“We chose the Micro Cinema Cameras and Pocket Cinema Cameras because of the combination of size and performance they delivered, which in turn helped us match the look and style of the film. I haven’t found another camera that will deliver on those two things: being as light as they are while still delivering the image quality needed to blend in with the A cameras. I always try to extract as much as I can from a camera, so they are dealing with good footage in post, and the dynamic range on both cameras was very good.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I mentioned 'Not saying that this is the case here' - meaning that I'm not countering claims in this thread, or particularly in the linked article but rather when circulated and discussed elsewhere - where the headlines often orientate around how crucial a particular 'affordable' camera model Is overstated in its use on a well known production, often with sponsor links to purchase said camera in a B&H link. It's all marketing that some people buy in to and before you know it, a regurgitated twisting of the facts pop up on forums as 'fact'. Act of Valor is a good case in point...the indie filmmaker buzz around the 5Dmkii use in that film was completely disproportionate to the use of celluloid.

In a nutshell, an article highlighting a product used on a film's production (during its marketing period) should be taken with a pinch of salt. It is most likely going to be a glowing review, when accompanied with promotional stills from said film.

The BM cameras are obviously a great fit for modern production use, especially since shooting compressed raw gives a very comparative quality to even the highest end cinema cameras. They can deliver fantastic images in the right hands. Saying that, at least one of the BM shots in the Bourne trailer sticks out like a sore thumb to my eyes.

Spotting differences in image (even when intercut quickly) is subjective however, if the story is engaging enough no viewer (no matter how camera savvy) should notice any difference...or even care if they do. If it works in concert with surrounding imagery/context...great! 

I love to read and hear about big budget productions using affordable or 'prosumer' gear in achieving creative results, I'm all for it...especially if it enables more dynamic stunts and effects to be captured 'in-camera' safely. But you almost only ever hear the positive quotes and accounts from DP's- which makes my cynical side presume marketing is at play. They should really be directly asking the poor guy or girl who has to match these cameras in the Di or the AC who lost a take due to corrupt media from a camera that was subjected to too much vibration.

But as stated earlier, it's getting a whole lot easier thanks to affordable compact cameras that can shoot raw like the BM models. To this point, the linked article is valid and fairly interesting, just wish more people read past the headlines a bit more and question why we even need to be told this anymore....most of us know that many modern 'prosumer' or 'affordable' cameras are being used in this way. Just as WW2 era wind-up 35mm Eymo's used to be the 'affordable' camera that could be used in dynamic ways, exactly as these modern digital cameras are being deployed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Snowfun said:

Just for interest, which shots?

Quite noticeable desaturation/colour tone shift compared with neighbouring shots...micro shake of smaller camera body in motion...apparent big lift in contrast compared with other footage....has a 'smeary 360 degree shutter look'. These are almost certainly the pocket/micro shots, there are probably a few more that I'm not spotting but those are the ones that stick out as a 'sore thumb' to my eyes.

like I said earlier, if it makes up part of an engaging sequence that by which point the audience is along for the ride (often literally) - then nobody should give a f**k if they intercut technically mis-matched footage. If it works in context, it works.

But my observation is that when a DP says that they are dealing with great footage in post, and imply that these cameras cut in seamlessly with A&B cameras are either a bit blind/ misquoted/ or has concesiously decided that any mismatch will not take the audience out of the experience when cut together (which I agree it should not matter...as long as the shot is cool enough).

It is possible to grade these tiny cameras to intercut seamlessly, but unfortunalty this DP (and many others on other recent films) seemingly decide to use them as glorified GoPro's - often revealing the slight shortcomings of image quality when exposed to very dynamic lighting and motion. The shots in the trailer I noticed looked like a saturation and slight contrast punch would have been of benefit to match the neighbouring shots. Feels like they left those shots pretty flat - to retain as much shadow detail as possible, yet forgetting that in the flow of a sequence, any contrast or saturation jump can sometimes look way worse than crushing any blacks.

Ironically, a 70year old Eymo wind-up 35mm camera (which I keep banging on about) - would have probably performed way better in terms of being able to match any surrounding shots, as the nature of film can still handle highlight roll off and dynamic exposure manipulation with a lot more grace than most of the highest end digital cinema cameras. 

image.png

image.png

image.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm impressed by those (such as yourself) who are able to spot these things. The ability to detect what are (presumably) minor differences must be a skill learnt with years of experience. I can't see it in the footage even tho' I'm now looking! I just get sucked into watching the immersive experience. Thanks for the detail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think my eyes a bit too sensitive to it...since I work a bit in post production, and have had to deal with matching/fixing shots similar to this in the past. I'm sure these shots work when viewed in the context of the film, even when I notice these things at a screening I often don't care.

But I'd love DP's to not defaulting to 'disposable' digital cameras (as they sometimes regard them) without first considering older compact film cameras (that are now dirt cheap) - that will often deliver better options in post for matching to the main unit cameras. The shots from these crazy stunt/crash/pyro shots are often the ones put front and centre in a movie trailer, so I think it's worth the extra effort to consider quality over convenience IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3 de agosto de 2016 at 4:34 PM, jase said:

Especially the BMPCC tempts me all the time, but I always tell me not to buy it because there is no such a lens that offers me IS at maximum 50mm FF equivalent while being F2.0 or lower...

Especially for POV they need quite wide lenses due to the crop factor.. how do they keep them stabilized? cant be without rigging?

And in case when the BMPCC used, this means they upscale 1080p to sth like 4K?

Canon 35mm f2 IS with 0.58 speedbooster (makes it 58mm equivalent)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<<If you hold a Micro Cinema Camera up to a corner of a room you will see Blackmagic made the body of the camera to be flush with the two walls with just enough space behind the camera to fit a battery. This means one can mount several Micro Cinema Cameras in a row to make a VR system. This is exactly what they did on “Jason Bourne.” The production used Micro Cinema Cameras set up as a four camera array system, all shutter and genlocked together with a single point trigger, the footage captured was then displayed on overhead panels while shooting the corresponding green screen plates with the actors. The Micro Cinema Cameras were positioned to shoot left, right, front and rear, creating a 360º shot of the area. Along with the plate cameras in the vehicles, all cameras recorded timecode so each exact frame of the plate shot would correspond to the lighting environment shot, creating a perfect match up.

In the end, Blackmagic has found a way to make an incredibly small camera capable of capturing incredible footage. I think we’ll see many more DPs turn to the Micro Cinema Camera as a great addition to any action scene they need to capture.>>

My future dream #360VR set up when I upgrade from my GoPro style based set up!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I went to see the film last weekend, as I'm a BIG BOURNE fan I was very pleased with it , nice to see they are still using the TLS Nikon 80-200 that I keep banging on about - Nikons finest hour! their best lens .

Barry Ackroyd (one of my Favourite DPs and President of the BSC) takes over from DP Oliver Wood who shot the first 3 Bourne fims , Barry keeps the same style , all hand held Greengrass wobblecam ! the Athens sequence is intense!!

 

this months American Cinematographer magazine explains it all in great detail -Barry Ackroyd tells how it was made with Igor
Meglic second unit DP.

 

quote:

Second-unit cinematographer Igor
Meglic, ZFS — whose history with
Ackroyd began on the 2012 crime thriller
Contraband — added other cameras
beyond the Alexa. “The reason I usually
have to go to different cameras is because
we either need a lot of them or they’re in
harm’s way,” says Meglic. “Once you start
to bring in six or eight additional cameras,
it’s a cost thing.” Red Epic Dragon units
were used mainly for plate photography in
vehicles, with Canon’s Cinema EOS
C500 used for other vehicle and handheld
work. For applications requiring an ultralightweight
camera, such as helmet
mounting, Meglic opted for Blackmagic
Design’s Pocket Cinema Camera fitted
with Kowa 8.5mm glass. “It’s a pretty
amazing little camera,” he notes. “Weightwise,
it was little more than an iPhone!”
The 2nd unit often recorded
internally — particularly in the case of the
XT and Dragon — while external Codex
recorders were sometimes used for the
Dragon, C500 and Pocket Cinema
Camera. “When needed, we did it both
ways,” says Meglic. “We did vibration
tests, [and] I was a little nervous, but it
turned out we never had a problem.”

Vegas car chase, up to 28 camera bodies
were available for use — although that
many never rolled simultaneously —
predominantly fitted with the same kind
of lenses used by the main unit. Meglic
notes, “A couple of times [during the
London portion of the shoot] we did ask
if we could borrow a lens or two, and they
were always very nice about that!”
Given the chosen style, it’s perhaps
no surprise that Ackroyd describes
himself as “a zoom person.” He singles
out the “beautiful” Angenieux Optimo
24-290mm (T2.8) zoom, noting, “It’s
like my eye, my brain. When something
takes your interest from across the street,
you don’t see it in the same way as when
you’re close to something. You can
exclude things and concentrate.”
The extensive lens package also
included Angenieux’s Optimo 15-40mm
(T2.6) zoom; Fujinon’s 19-90mm (T2.9)
Cabrio zoom; True Lens Services’ 80-
200mm (T2.8) Morpheus, a rehoused
Nikon stills zoom; and Panavision’s
Primo 135-420mm (T2.8) zoom. The
35mm-format prime-lens package
comprised Arri/Zeiss Ultra Primes
ranging from 20mm up to 180mm (all
T1.9) as well as Zeiss Super Speeds from

18mm up to 85mm (all T1.3). The
production’s Super 16mm cameras were
paired with Canon 8-64mm (T2.4) and
11-165mm (T2.5) zooms.
Any concerns about matching the
various cameras and lenses were
subordinate to ease of handling, Ackroyd
says. “I’ve never been one to get too hung
up on the technical side of what the lens
may or may not do. Of course, if you were
making a movie that was highly glossy
and intentionally stylized, you’d have to
pay more attention to that.”

looks like they used Canons on Vehicles and BMs so its going to be hard to tell which is which ...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/3/2016 at 2:34 AM, Hans Punk said:

Act of Valor is a good case in point...the indie filmmaker buzz around the 5Dmkii use in that film was completely disproportionate to the use of celluloid.

? They used about 70% 5dmkII, I'd consider that very proportional. You can see the full frame aesthetic in several scenes (also the little artifacts).

http://www.thehurlblog.com/film-education-online-shooting-act-of-valor-q-a/

Q: How much of the film was shot on the Canon 5D Mark II?

A: 70% 5D, 20% film, and 5% F950 for aerials.

I think what IS disproportional is someone claiming otherwise.

15 hours ago, Hans Punk said:

The shots from these crazy stunt/crash/pyro shots are often the ones put front and centre in a movie trailer, so I think it's worth the extra effort to consider quality over convenience IMHO.

Doesn't work like that. You can't just willy nilly replace a BMCC (or anything small) with an Alexa.

"micro shake of smaller camera body in motion...apparent big lift in contrast compared with other footage....has a 'smeary 360 degree shutter look'"

The smeary 360 degree look is an operator error. You can see that happen in any film where they hand off the camera to someone who is used to shooting with a potato and who likes a shitty aesthetic (Michael Mann anyone?). Also you could say that the contrast lift is also an operator error but this time in post. Granted, microshake and the jello coming from it is harder to avoid, but every camera makes jello these days so there you go. I've seen all of those mistakes in films shot with any other cameras.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...