Equipment 5D II

Vincent Laforet's blog

Some additional video clips.

 

mm I not thinking of buying one (Still paying off my 40D, and learning to be a better photographer). I just hate how Aussies get ripped off when it comes to prices of everything :-(.

Offtopic: anyone know of a good place to hire lenses in Melbourne, Australia?

 

niiiiiiiiiice

 

You are stealing my business model now?! I've been the bit tech importer exporter for two and a half years!

 

Where do I join this business?!

 

And in case anyone missed it, those are video stills.

 

Canon has the video sample that those samples came from floating around somewhere. It's VERY impressive video quality. It doesn't have that hollywood look, but that's just because it hasn't been post-processed to hell and back.

 

Quality looks great in those shots.

Also, Firehed most of Hollywood is still not digital....

 

Update.

 

Wow....not gonna lie....makes me a little jealous. And this is coming from someone who owns a Canon XH-A1 full HDV camera....

Its also inspiring me to shoot something artsy. I have been doing such crap (getting paid but crap none the less) recently.

 

I know, but they still tend to do a lot of post-processing. A LOT of films have the colors cooled way down, at least for the backgrounds. Though my understanding is that they tend to shoot film and then scan it in for a digital workflow.

Then again, when you're only using available lighting in the shot, you're almost guaranteed to end up with a very warm shot if you're shooting at night, since you're working almost entirely with artificial lighting and all of the street lamps and whatnot are incandescent.

 

Yeah you are right about shooting on film then scanning it.

Also, did you watch the "behind the scenes" stuff. They did set up some lighting.

 

I thought - from an article/interview with Steven Spielberg a few years back - that the movies were mostly captured with digital nowadays.

Spielberg as the boss, could justify the extra expense of shooting film for his own projects, but for the rest of his companies I understood (but can't find the article) digital was the norm. He said he liked the romance of film . . . but it may have been as important for him that he knew where he was with film . . such as how it would look (which film in which conditions), the greater dynamic range (easier to light) etc, and the preference to edit by slicing for real.

Was surprised to learn however - as said above in the thread - that this isn't the case currently, meaning more movies are captured on film than digital.

-- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_film --
Rick McCallum, a producer on Attack of the Clones, has commented that the production spent $16,000 for 220 hours of digital tape, where a comparable amount of film would have cost $1.8 million. However, this does not necessarily indicate the actual cost savings. The low incremental cost of shooting additional footage may encourage filmmakers to use far higher shooting ratios with digital. The lower shooting ratios typical with film may save time in editing, lowering post-production costs somewhat.

Today, digital acquisition accounts for the vast majority of moving image acquisition, as most content for broadcast is shot on digital formats. Most movies destined for theatrical release are still shot on film, however, as are many dramatic TV series and some high-budget commercials. High-end digital cinematography cameras suitable for acquiring footage intended for theatrical release are on the market since 1999/2000, and have meanwhile gained widespread adoption.


-- 2008 news on digital --
http://www.thedeadbolt.com/news/104562/crystalskullcannes_interview.php
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/04/16/spielberg-resistant-to-digital-theatre-transition/
http://www.cinematical.com/2008/04/20/the-exhibitionist-film-appreciation-in-the-digital-age/

 

Also curious to know the figures on the linked blog http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008...-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/

He claims he can't post video until working out how to fund the 106gb expected download . . . but he claims to have budgeted $5,000 to make the movie, including using a helicopter.

Anyone know the price of 106gb download . . . . surely the bandwidth isn't that expensive to host in the grand scheme of his (Vincent Laforet's) weekend video shoot?

Also his blog reads very warm (biased) to me, perhaps that's why he's a 'Canon Explorer of Light' . . maybe his job is to make the cameras sound better

I'd take his comments with a pinch of salt.

 

I'd take his comments with a grain of salt too, but after viewing the video and hearing feedback from other photogs who have used this body I've got to say I'm extremely impressed even though I wasn't at the initial spec release. BTW, he's got the video posted.

 

3dHeli:

Yeah a lot of films are starting to go digital now, but definatelty a lot still use film. You can usually tell if you see a film in the theatres. It the grain of the film that gives it away usually. Also I am pretty sure there is hybrid stuff too, shot some on film some on digital. I do know that Sin City was the first feature film entirely shot on digital.

 

The raw footage from the camera is now up on the canon site.
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2127

Incredible.

 

Bandwidth through Amazon S3 runs about 10c/GB, which would put that 19TB at just under $2000 in bandwidth costs. That's a lot to spend just on bandwidth when it's just advertising for Canon. 106GB would only be about ten bucks, but that number sounds astoundingly low given how many people are interested in seeing it.

That raw footage does look fantastic though.

 

that is really impressive footage but expected since Canon does have a vid cam dept. I'm surprised no one is crying over the fact they spent R&D on this feature like they cried fowl when the D90 was released... because you know, it was felt it didn't help the photographer out.

Anyhow, Nikon, step it up!

 

I suppose that was directed at me? I still hold my stance on this issue--that video is not necessary in DSLR's--specifically if there is no AF (as in the Nikon D90). The fact that Canon hadn't upgraded the AF in the 5DII is a major disappointment IMO and I would have taken a newly designed AF system over video any day of the week. The only thing keeping me from scalding the feature is the fact that it incorporates some form of AF in live view mode, at least its useful in that respect. In the end it doesn't help out the still photographer, is it a nice feature?...sure, will it get me better stills? No.