Scott Bullock

I know that Vincent didn't mean for this to become an HD vs. film thread and I'm not trying to turn it into that, but I was wondering how many people have seen THE LOVELY BONES. There's a movie where both Red and 35mm were being utilized. All in all, I felt the images blended fairly seamlessly, although it is possible to nitpick the differences. Is anyone familiar with the back story of this production and why they chose to use both formats as opposed to just sticking to one?

That's a very interesting thought. I don't know what the answer is but that is something worth pondering. My guess is that we would find fault with the film images, especially in grain and softness. Regarding Red, are these cameras capable of doing live broadcasts? I'm wondering because, the other night, I went to see a concert that was being simulcast into theaters. They weren't using Red cameras but they were using HD cameras; I couldn't really tell which ones though. Anyway, this confirmed for me that HD technology still has a long ways to go. It was evident that there's no real way of accounting for all of the variables involved in shooting this type of production since there are times when everything is in total black and other times when the image is being blown out by things like strobes and pyrotechnics. The chroma tearing was simply ghastly at times, for example. I don't know if this was because of the cameras, the way in which the images were being projected, or a combination of both, but there were times when I was thinking to myself - wow, this looks really bad. Of course, film isn't a solution when it comes to live broadcasts, but if you want to see an example of a situation where dynamic range is sorely lacking, watch a live concert where the lighting is constantly fluctuating.

Haha!! Broomstick and Velcro... classic! I don't have a lot of experience with 35mm but quite a bit with 16mm and S16 and sometimes the moves between camera setups is virtually unbearable. I haven't done anything significant with the T2i yet but I'd imagine that's another area where shooting with a DSLR has considerable advantages - setup time. And then, as you alluded to, things like production insurance also weigh in favor of DSLR shooting. Can these cameras render film obsolete now or at some point in the future? Honestly, I don't think so, nor do I think that should be the goal. If a production can sustain everything that comes with shooting film, then by all means, go for it. I'm just ecstatic that these cameras are becoming a legitimate and viable source for image acquisition.

Very cool, Patrick. I like that people are embracing these new technologies. I've seen some comparisons between the two cameras and the Panasonic seems to outshine the Canons in certain areas and vice versa. The T2i is too small, too, but when I added the battery grip it really helped a lot. I wish I could afford to shoot S16 on everything but it just isn't practical. Even carrying around my Bolex S16 SBM is a complete pain compared to just whipping out the DSLR. I'm giving serious consideration to shooting a micro-budget feature on the T2i. Once that h.264 material has been transcoded to ProRes, I can see very little to complain about. I suppose Canon and Panasonic are only a matter of months away from addressing some of the video issues these cameras have at present, and then it'll be time to upgrade again. Oh well, it beats going broke trying to shoot film. Not that I wouldn't shoot film if the budget is there because I would, but these new video technologies are making it easier and easier to do serious work at a fraction of the cost, which I think is great.

Wait a sec here, how is it more video friendly than the Canons? The GH1 is using h.264 compression, right, just like the Canons? I've been experimenting with the T2i, which uses h.264 compression, but once that stuff has been transcoded to ProRes, I'm getting some outstanding results. Maybe I'm missing something that's come along with the hack you are referring to?

From a completely subjective point of view, I thought MY BLOODY VALENTINE 3D looked pretty good projected on the big screen. At least, good enough that I wasn't taken out of the narrative (what little there was) by the fact that it was originated digitally. On the other hand, I've seen a couple of less-than-million dollar features recently that were shot on Red (I won't mention titles, since I know the filmmakers) and they looked really bad. From my view, they may as well have been shot on a cheap DV camera, and the second of these features was shot with the MX sensor. I think don't think it's possible to put too much emphasis on the DP behind the camera because that's the person, in theory, who's going to maximize the camera's strengths and minimize its weaknesses. I know that last comment is sort of a "duh" kind of statement but there's something to be said for it nevertheless. I know a local Red owner who calls himself a DP because he owns the camera, but he's simply not getting images out of the camera that are as good as the images that an experienced cinematographer is getting with the same camera. Anyway, having said all the above, there are definitely differences between digital images and film images that I don't think will ever be reconciled, which, from my view, is perfectly fine.

Hi David, Yes, it's absolutely a gross generalization. Then again, our definitions of an indie movie are probably much different. An indie movie to me might be 30K to 100K, whereas to you it might be 1 - 10 million. Format is absolutely a consideration and I never meant to undermine its significance in a given production. Some indie features can afford to shoot on any format they want because the production can sustain it. If an indie film is being shot for 3 million, for example, then it can shoot on RED, 35MM, Super 16, or whatever format they deem to be the most aesthetically pleasing to the project. On the other hand, if one is doing a 30K movie, its probably rarely, if ever, going to be worth it to spend 95% of that money to shoot 16mm. Anyway, that's what I meant by the phrase when I said, "the money is better spent in front of the camera." Again, it comes down to how one defines an "indie film." There probably aren't a lot of 30K indie films venturing into the Jordanian desert, whereas you might see a 6 million dollar film doing that. So yes, I agree, picking the cheapest format possible *isn't* the best plan of attack. I've heard of producers using that phrase ('the money is better spent in front of the camera') stretching much farther back than the advent of DV though. Sean Cunningham said the same thing about the original LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT when trying to decide whether to shoot on 16mm or 35mm. Anyway, I never meant to imply that choosing the cheapest format possible should be the *first* consideration on an indie feature, just that, when money is limited, it's worth exploring what money is being spent where and why.

I need to find myself a good adapter then, since I have a whole host of Nikon primes - every popular focal length from 15mm to 300mm. So far, I've only been using a Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 lens, and the results with that sucker are pretty darned good. I have no idea why it didn't occur to me to adapt my Nikkors until I read this thread. I've been using them on Super 16 productions for a long time. That's cool to know that indie features are being made with these cameras, and really, why not? I agree that the money is better spent in front of the camera.

I appreciate the comments, Vincent; that philosophy makes a lot of sense to me. Yes, the footage definitely looks good and I wouldn't think twice about using the T2i on an indie feature. In fact, I plan to!

Thanks for the reply, David. Do you happen to know the reasoning for the lower resolution? Suffice to say, it's a bit disappointed to hear that it's actually a lower resolution than I thought it would be. I'm still getting some amazing images from the camera though. Maybe I'm just overly impressed with the shallow DOF. Thomas, your software is awesome! I'll see if I can't get some sample footage or some grabs posted in the near future.

I meant to add, I've noticed slight motion blur in some fast action stuff, but as for wobble and jello effect, I've only noticed that when doing whip pans and things of that nature. The images seem to hold tight under most "normal" shooting situations.

Hi Vincent, What Nikon primes did you use and where did you obtain your adapter? The grabs look pretty good. I think doing a feature on one of these cameras is completely doable.

Hi Ram, What lenses have you been using? I've been shooting a lot with a T2i and have been using a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 and a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 for most applications but am wondering if there are some other lenses I should consider renting or adding to the kit. Also, what has been your solution to shooting handheld? I'm considering using a T2i for an entire feature but am still working out a few different things, mainly with camera support, jibs, etc. Any experience with these things using your 7D? The video looks great!

I have one that I'll sell (not interested in trades as I have too much stuff already). I'm asking $900 for it but when you see it you'll know why. It comes with all the original packaging and accessories plus the accessory boom microphone. When I bought it, it was NOS (new old stock) and had never been used before. I've put exactly 6 rolls of film through it, so you can imagine the condition it's in - perfect in every way. Send me a PM if you are interested. Thanks, Scott

I don't think that horror films and "serious cinema," are, or are necessarily, mutually exclusive. There are horror films out there with just as much, or more, subtext and meaning than movies that are considered "serious." But, this is another remake from Michael Bay, so it probably is much more superficial than the original was. Bay has shown time and again that, when it comes to remaking these classic horror films, subtext and deeper meaning have no value, that story barely matters, and that *all* that matters is making money. Okay, sure, this is a business and people go into business to make money, but there are a lot of horror fans out there (myself included) that despise Michael Bay for butchering so many classic horror films.

That's a nice looking commercial, Ram. I've been using that Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 lens and really like it a lot. What are your thoughts on that lens? How did this look projected on a big screen? Also, would you mind telling us your post production workflow? Good stuff!

Sorry folks, I'm not getting notifications of replies for some reason (yes, I checked the notifications box). Anyway, thanks for all of the great tips and advice. Does anyone know what the actual resolution of the 7D and T2i is? Is it a true 2K? I'd heard somewhere that it's actually 1K that's upscaled to 1920 X 1080. Is there any truth to that?

More good info. Thanks, Hal!

Hi Adrian, That sounds like an excellent plan. Thanks for all the good advice! Scott

Hi Adrian, Thanks for your reply. I'll be editing on a Mac with FCP, so it looks like your idea is a viable one. From reading online, it looks like a lot of people are transcoding to XDCAM, also. ProRes might be a better option, I'm not sure. I'm pretty sure (haven't used the cameras yet, still gathering info) that the 7D and T2i use 4:1:1 color spacing, so I think going to ProRes will convert to 4:2:2 (could be wrong on this). What are you using for transcoding? What works seemlessly with FCP? Thanks again!

Hello, I'm looking to do some experimentation with both of these cameras. Can someone please tell me about editing software for these cameras? Do the cameras come bundled with editing software? What about using Final Cut Pro or Final Cut Express? Use the h.264 codec? Transcode for ProRes? Any and all thoughts on how to go about editing footage shot with these cameras is greatly appreciated. Thanks! Scott

Thanks for the responses, folks. Those are a lot of good points. John wrote: "Arri gets it about how we really use cameras." Yeah, decided edge to Arri on that one. Now that the biggest camera rental house in Denver has closed down, I'm not sure if I'll get a chance to use the Alexa anytime soon. There are lots of REDs around though; too many, in fact, for this geographical area.

Yeah, I can definitely see the benefits of that.

Hi John, Can you expand on your comment? I'm not a RED apologist or anything, and I'm a long-time lover of Arri, but I was just looking at the specs for the Alexa and it seems that the Epic specs are just as impressive or more so. The Epic has a 5K sensor compared to Alexa's 3.5K sensor, both are rated at EI 800, and the Epic will shoot up to 100fps compared to Alexa's 60fps (not sure if the Epic will do 100fps at 5K though). Anyway, just looking for some additional details, especially from someone who's seen the Alexa demonstrated. Thanks.

This is great news. I've been working on a project that has a bunch of flashback sequences in it. We were contemplating whether to use 16mm or Super 8 for these shots. I think we're going to have to run some tests with this new stock to see how it looks. Thanks for the information, Tim.