Jean Dodge

Without getting into the technical details, it's clear that the canon d5 Mk2 has an inherent strength when it comes to shooting in low light. Right out of the box, it also produces a grain free, gain free nice image at high ISO ratings that outperforms other DSLRs with smaller sensors. Yes, we can go around and around about the finer points of industry nomenclature, but since this is the first thread to discuss a new pro-sumer DSLR that shoots HD video, I figured I would keep the discussion rather general. Please excuse my generalizations and misuse of proper terminology. As someone wise once said, there's not much point in arguing if the glass is half full or half empty, the real question is, what do you paln to do with the the water you have? The 7D is part of a trend we are seeing where digital still cameras are starting to emulate certain aspects of motion picture cameras. I find it fascinating that the two worlds are combining. Both crafts have a lot to learn from one another. Aspects of presentation, distribution and audience are arising that affect our professions. People are staying home and watching blu-rays and canceling newspaper subscriptions, and where we once might have learned about a new fashion trend or political movement in the pages of LIFE MAGAZINE and from Walter Cronkite and at the local cinema, now we watch clips of Jon Stewart on our laptops and wait for Netflix envelopes to arrive with independently produced docs like TROUBLE THE WATER, or perhaps we check out still/motion picture essays like the UK Guardian's Dan Chung is producing instead. But purely as a cinematic tool to be exploited for whatever advantage it might offer, it seems to me that the 7D is perhaps at best another choice for the budget-strapped indie or experimental film maker to use - and one that offers some interesting possibilities since the sensor is close to the size commonly used with cine lenses. A 7D with the proper lens mount, follow focus and good glass might enable a focus puller to do a decent job of handling a narrative project that could be made for modest means.

Hudson is also working on some Sorbel edge mapping software that may allow for focus assist to be displayed. This is very useful and a good stopgap measure to cover the camera's inability to send a high quality signal to a monitor when it is recording. The Marshall monitor has a similar feature, which is great. The camera reminds me of what it is like to shoot with wide-open super speed lenses and a slow optical finder in low light - you just don't have the ability to judge critical focus. The taking lens out-performs the display method. I'm not sure if this focus assist feature is in the current version or not. But I hope it works. I'm interested in the looks this camera is capable of getting without intimidating the subjects you are interacting with. Shooting on city streets at night is a lot of fun with the 5Dmk2. The magic lantern firmware has really been a marvel to see develop. Sure some features are more useful than others but look at the progress he has made.

These DSLRs that shoot video are interesting harbingers of what you get with a larger sensor -even though they are only reading every third line - still, you get a nice smooth HD image and great low light performance. The canon 5d mk2 has a still camera's "full frame" sensor that lets a lot of light in. Currently it is an envelope-pusher in that regard, and has been used to remarkable effect in short films and music videos, etc. If you were forced to shoot a documentary in a coal mine with only a few candles to light with, you might pick the 5dmk2 over any other camera out there today. But it wouldn't be fun. In most other regards, the camera is crippled for use in most professional cinema jobs. But it does serve to prove what is possible if you build a camera with that sort of "bigger is better" philosophy. A large part of the "dreaded video look" has always had to do with the fact that there was always too much DOF. The 5Dmk2 looks a lot like 35mm film looks to the average viewer simply because the lenses perform in a similar fashion when you shoot for that look. The 7D camera has a smaller sensor, and while there does seem to be some technical advancements - the recording takes place at a higher bitrate, for example, and of course the unit shoots 24p and 25p, the actual performance of the unit is not going to be more impressive at low light levels due to the smaller sensor. So in that regard it isn't a step ahead, it is a refinement of what might work for certain situations. For example it will possibly be suited for adaptation with cine lenses, which means you might actually be able to pull focus decently well when you shoot with the 7D. The sensor's smaller size may also better mimic the look of 35mm film camera's DOF look. So there is some sort of window here to explore. One might hope that makers of pro-sumer camcorders are taking notice. I'm sure that Jim Jannard is taking notice. There's not enough information out there to say much besides speculation as to what this camera can and will do. Someone on another forum called a canon tech support number and was told that the camera would output full HD to a monitor when recording, which would be a huge improvement over the 5D mk2, which has VGA standards exported to any display used. It's probably untrue. We just don't know yet.

The small APC size of the sensor means this camera is not really a step forward for digital cinematography. Still, the addition of 24p/25p using the same processor chip seems to suggest that canon could soon produce a full frame model of some sort that is capable of the same useful frame rate. The 7D however uses two chips in a "dual processor" arrangement. The 5D uses only one processor. Looking forward to the day when all companies get on the larger sensor bandwagon. The ability of the 5D to shoot in low light is astounding. Almost everything else about the camera in the context of digital cinematography is frustrating however. This camera is a strong competitor for the nikon D90 - it shoots full HD and is in a similar price range, as I understand it. With luck, maybe this camera proves that the 5d will be able to shoot 24/25p with a firmware update. Any guesses? it doesn't seem as though the task of shooting 24p would be split between two processors when one is capable of handling a faster rate. What DOES the second process do, anyway - is it possible to determine, or speculate?

COLLATERAL of course is a well known film with lots of night time taxi shots GOODBYE SOLO just came out on DVD. A great film told on a low budget - one of the main characters is a cabbie in North Carolina. The faded tobacco manufacturing city becomes a character of its own in the film in some ways. But aside from examples of how to light or shoot car interiors, you also have a "ship" that travels to many ports of call. You could watch anything from The African Queen and TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT to STAR TREK and get inspiration if you think of it that way. And there is the insider/ group of professionals who isolate themselves from the civilians, like in a Howard Hawks movies about pilots or films like MANPOWER (about high line electricians) or films about race car drivers, etc. Try TWO LANE BLACKTOP for the lonely driver motif. But don't limit yourself to car movies. THE OLD MAN AND THE SEA or LIFEBOAT or even JAWS seems as valid as anything. Consider how the story allows you to establish a familiar space but also lets you dole out the details in the order of your choice. You also have a "small set" film akin to stories that take place in a hotel room or on an airplane or submarine. Think of the small details of films like this that make the world of the story seem real and lived in, and the vast difference it makes when the submarine sailors finally get to open a hatch and go outside, how different the movie looks or feels. Or, you can think of the driver as someone who has a job like a bartender or a therapist or priest, always ministering to strangers. DIARY OF A COUNTRY PRIEST might be inspirational, who can say? Try looking over the paintings of Edward Hooper, and the still photography of Robert Frank's The Americans for that feeling of alone-ness that travelers exhibit. I'd give some thought to testing a canon D5 mk2 for some shots - the low light capability of the camera is impressice, and its small size is good for car shots, too. Of course it has many drawbacks but this type of subject plays to the strengths of the full frame sensor. I wish GOODBYE SOLO had used that camera. As far as movies that take place in dark, underlit places you should look carefully at the work of Gordon Willis. Director Hal Ashby's first film THE LANDLORD is circulating with a new print - it looks amazing and they dont call him the prince of darkness for nothing. KLUTE is another good one of his with the city at night. Y Tu Mama Tambien has some of the best car-to-car shots I've seen in a while. Of course CHILDREN OF MEN has some truly great single take car stuff. Finding the right vehicle to shoot looking FORWARD at the rear of your picture car is always a challenge on a budget. A jeep with a fold down wind screen or a low low pre-1974 convertible of some sort is good too like an old MGB. Second best to that is a small car with a sunroof and a short hood. Obviously the topic of "poor mans process" is going to come up. Embrace it - it is your friend and can be a great way to get a lot of dialog work done relatively easily. Get a slider of some kind. Also push for the need to have two identical taxis, one for rigging and one for exterior shots / driving shots, or the ability to separate those shots on different shoot days so you dont waste shooting time rigging and unrigging anything. Shooting poor man's all night and then getting some dawn-for-sunset stuff is a good way to spend a day, but make sure you are ready to leave off the poor mans in time to get to your location while it is still dark. Start asking around to borrow any neon signs you might find - work the product placement angle if you have to. Get the best smoke machine set u you can afford to rent, and if you cant afford much of anything, buy a $30 halloween one at a big box store. Start practicing your fake raindrops techniques now so you are not experimenting on set. Try auto parts store for prodcuts like RAIN-X and car wax and try them on you car's passenger windows to see which one beads up water the nicest for raindrop effects. Buy glycerine or mix in antifreeze for the hell of it. Experiment. 12v to 120v inverters are handy - but so is an extra car battery and a pair of jumper cables. Junior stands with a boom rig of some kind are great to rig "streetlights" to for the requisite shot of the same streetlight effect passing over the windshield again and again, but make sure you have some silicon or WD40 etc to make your spinning rigs quiet. Get a molefan for the same reason. Scout the location you will do the poor mans process stuff carefully and thoroughly at night to make sure you can control ambient and unwanted light. Parking garages and airplane hangars can be great if you can get permission to shoot there. Often they are empty at night and have access to power. I once shot in a gravel quarry for a lonely road at night scene since the excavation created a three sided dark studio with no visible horizon. Start listing your "beauty shots" and figure out which ones are second unit and which can have principal actors in them. Storyboard a zillion ideas to propose, and then organize them carefully into what order is easiest to do in what order. On some productions it makes the most sense to do all the "hostess tray" shots at once, and on other shows the grips work overtime so the actors can play a scene closer to script order. Figure out what sort of show you are making and go all the way with that... TAXI DRIVER was tightly story boarded and shot mostly in Los Angeles!!! Good luck. There's tons of great small lighting solutions but cheap christmas lights and skillful gaffers can do wonders - keep it all moving and remember that sometimes it may be best to NOT light the actors - light the backgrounds instead and use that for effect. With HD, you have a chance to break new ground in low light cinematographic terms. Test, test, test. Scout scout scout. Plan, plan plan.

PUBLIC ENEMIES = fail. 85 million budget, camcorder results in some regards. A nobel experiment that produced mixed results at best. 4k sony projectors in theaters = win for audience, long term win for exhibitors.... maybe. Jury still out. The director of KNOWING mentioned in an interview that audiences are accepting of poor quality picture like You Tube and that influenced him in his choice to shoot Red One. A sad day for cinema. A dumb movie that will be forgotten. Kodak has never made a better product than what they have today (with the exception of nitrate B+W, which has never been equaled) Panavision lenses have never been better. Then again, a careful, skillful and industrious but underfunded indie film maker ought to be able to make something that looks good these days using digital cinematography. That should be a "win" for everybody. Possible parallel story - about ten years ago, a few notable modern "guitar geniuses" were paid high dollar to promote high tech guitars that incorporated electronic components. Ad campaigns were funded, and the marketers went to work trying to sell modern miracle this to the pickers. It failed, and today nearly all electric guitars are made with the same tech you could find in Buddy Holly's time. Tube amps, too are still the most popular. Of course, if the record company executives were picking out the fear for bands to use.....

Take a look at this simple video and you might get a different take on this issue. This is photojournalist Dan Chung's work for the UK Guardian newspaper. "Newspapers" are in flux, too. It's a nice short film and this guy is doing good work combining the feel of a traditional photo essay with the look of motion picture production, and the work appears in a new, popular medium - the internet. In one regard, you have to admit it is good work. The question is, will there really be a market for this or not? Is it better than picking up an issue of LIFE magazine? (When is the last time you picked up an issue of LIFE magazine?) The technology exists, and on SOME level it is beginning to merge motion and still methods and uses. The skilled cameramen are out there. Will there be a market? That may be the real question. The NYTimes tried to charge a premium for their best web content, and failed. They are NOT doing well financially, and neither are most other newspapers - but they all keep spending more and more on their internet sites, adding content such as this while more and more people are canceling their cable subscriptions and getting their news on the internet. There seems to be some expectation that these Mainstream media outlets will continue to evolve towards a niche market, on demand model. People who like Faux news watch Fox. Progressives tune in to Kieth Obermann and Jon Stewart - but increasingly more via their computer.... I saw the ads for this conference and thought it was interesting, but figured I'd wait to read about it later. I'm not sure what anyone can tell us at this point - it's a subject that is so new that even people who are at the cutting edge of it can't yet say what may come. Dan Chung's work is just one example of what's happening, and it is happening because someone is paying him to do it... but it needs to be discussed.

Let me amend that earlier statement - looping out of the Marshall MDMI into component output isnt possible. In fact, getting two monitors to work at the same time with this camera is a real challenge at anything above a composite signal. It has been done, but it isn't easy or fun- converting to DVI seems to be one route. AGain, it points to the limitations of this camera system, which are legion.

Using the Marshall 7" on board for the operator and focus puller and then looping out of that to a component HD monitor that is LARGE and placed in the line of sight of the focus puller is best you can hope for. Also, if you take the discs off the follow focus and mark them specifically for each prime lens used that would help, too. The camera's sensor is a LOT better than the form factor, firmware, etc and it's little bit of a diamond in the rough as far as all that goes. IN other words, barely usable in some regards but INCREDIBLY temprting to try anyway. It's living proof that all you need is a big sensor to make this digital cinematography stuff start to be worthwhile. Why it took so long, and why there isn't a reasonable pro alternative with a FF sensor is beyond me.

We're not married to FCP by any means, and we have seen that .avi files seem to understand the camera's codec better.... so yeah maybe AVID is the way to go. If you are curious and have the free time to look at a clip in an AVID system PM me. The clips are on a mac-friendly server but there are ways to get you some footage... if you want to play. Again, this is a cinematography forum and not a post one, but who am I to look a gift horse in the mouth. You are too kind. We originally figured FCP would be the way to go with this "low end" camera DIY philosophy but whatever works best is obviously going to be attractive to end users. There are a boatload of tech issues we have gathered together, and I;ve got at least four FCP users lined up willing to try inventing a workflow for us... just friends and cohorts. I can get you up to speed with what we know and have tried in the last 48 hrs quickly.... which is not a whole lot but might help.

It seem that Final Cut Pro is on the trail of getting this right, too but I'm not sure they are there yet. QT pro 7.6 is said to address some of what was wrong; Cineform is trying too. Obviously, we are searching for a workflow that gets us from "here" ie, what the canon D5 mk2 shoots, to "there," 35mm film out as well as possible. The 30p-to-24p conversion using interpolation in CineTools portion of FCP shows great promise. In the real world of sitting in the theater screening 35mm film, it worked quite well. Preserving color space is the next hurdle. Taking the 8 bit clips into a ten-bit space seems to show promise. Combining the two operations is the challenge.

That makes SOME sense to me. (Mongo only pawn in game of life.) That sounds like two methods that use interpolation, just like the Denver/Cinema Tools thing. Have I got that right? I understand the 15 frame handles, I was suggesting the same thing to our green, rushed editor and he said, "sure maybe next time. Right now, we gotta get to the lab in traffic!" Yes, there is a sizable award already promised to the hacker who can make a 24/25p firmware update. And the rumor mill has it on the grapevine that the crew of IRON MAN 2 has an unpublished firmware update from canon that won't be made public. What a great conspiracy theory that one is.. they are in Morroco! But all that is hearsay, conjecture and unsupported baloney. I have seen the raw code however of a cracked Canon firmware -it's been published and there are several lines that seem promising... What I have in my hands and can see in front of me is what I am concerned with. I can share my experiences and that's all I'd be willing to stand by. This is all new to me. But it seems like it's going to work. I've seen it on the big screen. Thanks for the input... exciting stuff.

That's good news, if by "this" you mean broadcast standards not being baked in. People have reported some sort of success using "Color" inside Final Cut Suite in getting a better image from the H264 files, but that is a mens to take the 8 bit color and set it in a ten bit space. Post colorists have told us face to face that "this won't help, the info isn't there to begin with" but I have seen it work in photoshop by moving a compressed file like a jpeg into a higher bit rate and then having more "virtual" color space to manipulate. The bumble bee doesn't know it can't fly. I've got at least two more final cut users working on this, but we're all working off the clock at this point.... so I have to continually be thankful for anyone who posts good intel... thanks

Thanks to all who have posted.... very helpful and thankful even though I complain sometimes. To consolidate where this thread seems to be going - Shooting with the canon D5 Mk2 is a bit of a pain, but gets great images you can't get in low light with any other camera at the moment. The issues with manual control and 30p seem hackable by using manual iris lenses, certain workarounds and then converting the frame rate via interpolation methods available in FCP, or other methods untested. No guarantees made that it will be 100% artifact free 24p, but it looks usable most of the time. More tests will tell more, but film out is a good smoothing way to hide flaws, and the 1/33th a sec and 1/50th shutter rates look acceptable and fairly pleasing to the eye. It's not excessively smearing or "wrong" to see the slow shutter look of 1/33th a sec. Outputting to 35mm smoothes over some digital artifacts and adds slight contrast, but shouldn't be attempted until one has a full understanding of what the camera is putting out as media, and how to devise a workflow that does two things: 1 ) converts from 30p to 24p, or some version thereof like 23.xxxx etc. without excessive artifacts, or 25p for EU film out. 2) retains best colors, contrast and blacks for color correction stage so the film out is as good as it can be. Having only seen a very brief test, I still think the frame rate conversion is mostly solved. Anything more is icing on the cake. Normal stuff looks normal. Sound sync is still somewhat troublesome but will be figured out. Retaining good colors seems possible, but we are starting with compressed QT files, broadcast standard 8 bit color, in full HD, so don't expect more than you can get from that as a beginning. As for improving colors, now we are marching into uncharted territory, but some basic cc should be possible. How far one can push that is not known. If anyone is wondering about the images themselves and the form factors of working on set with the camera, I can speak at length about that from personal experience. In my opinion it will be a great doc camera that is going to allow for some amazing footage to be captured in formerly inaccessible places with a low profile. I am not a post person, but as a potential producer of films with the camera I am trying to learn more. Again, thanks to all who added to the discussion, and keep it coming.

re : Any idea which luminance equation/matrix is built into the camera? A: No. Read the links, and ask an expert, but yes I guess canon wanted to output "broadcast safe" color info and made sure that was baked-in, somehow. Someone remind me again why I became a camera man and not a SMPTE engineer.... my brain hurts.

this is rapidly devolving into a post production thread.... but so be it. What method did you use to convert from 30p to 24p? Ours is outlined here by "Denver, " whom I give all credit (and blame) to. It uses interpolation of frames in "cine tools" section of FCP and retains info rather than throwing it away as many compression-based method do. http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=13...p;sk=t&sd=a the thread begins with an overview, and denver's method is outlined farther down.

I see a clear difference in the two... where are the grey hairs I see on the left? It's better than "horribly crushed blacks" (sounds like an industrial accident in antebellum days) but still there is lost info there. But you seem to be onto something.

I don't know AVID, I barely know FCP. I am a cameraman and I have little experience with digital post or video of any kind. However the article I linked to above discusses this issue, and it has to do with the way the canon d5 codec is YUV not RGB, perhaps. There also seem to be frame rate issues, regarding 30p vs 29.978 etc that are not what they seem. However, regarding anything off a tripod, don't quote me. I want VERY much to use this camera on set and HAND OFF the compact flash cards to an expert. To me that is the job of a cameraman, to get great images and be able to briefly CONSULT with post people in layman's terms and trust them to do their job and not mine. again, the POST discussion starts with this, maybe. http://cineform.blogspot.com/2009/01/full-...m-canon-5d.html And I am trying to learn all this, so thanks to all for adding to the discussion. brave new world... indeed.

Thanks Phil, great work. I'm about to post something to some post-production user sites that specifically address workflow issues - this being a cinematography forum - but I am riveted by your posts... and want to hear more. Mind if I PM you? Where else do you stand by the virtual water cooler and dispense these pearls of wisdom? I was thinking of trying to take the larger issue of feature length workflow to a FCP user forum, or the cluttered and fraught with rumor cinemaD5 forum.... but wary of getting overwhelmed with bad intel, and then being forced to invade Iraq and water-board my neighbors 88 times a month. :P

Check this link for a better explanation of crushed black issue, with examples and waveform etc: http://cineform.blogspot.com/2009/01/full-...m-canon-5d.html It looks like that, and any screen shots I could post are similar. On film, it looks like that only slightly worse due to the small amount of increased contrast. Until we have proper HD footage to load into the Arri Recorder, I'd reserve any judgement on what the 35mm looks like, really. If you have further needs and a legitimate reason to see some grabs, go ahead and send me a PM and I'll try to help you out. This being a cinematography forum I'm hoping to keep the discussion here to on-set stuff for the most part. Sadly, as we've all noticed however the job description of cameraman has now been changed to cameraman-plus-tell-the-editor-how-to-do-his-job-too, sometimes. I am of the opinion that the DIT should report to the editing dep't, not the cinematographer. However I seem to be in the minority....

Rolling shutter has not been a deal-breaker thus far. The car shots we tested used a 1/30th (1/33 actual) and 1/50th shutter rate and shallow DoF and as such if there were slanted telephone poles out there, we didn't notice them too much. When we did need to stop down to say, f8 to use a 35mm lens to hold focus on two front seat occupants in a hostess tray type setup, the motion blur of driving blurred the background sufficiently so it didn't look like video, where there is excessive DoF. When the car stops, we noted that a cut to a different angle would be best. Odd things like this became obvious after a day or so of shooting. Panning in general is an issue, pan speeds need to be worked out as a table/ guide, much as spinning shutter pan speeds have to be dealt with in film. The wide Nikkors are still in the shop getting rear flanges milled down to fit the canon camera but it's obvious they are horribly distorted, and the barrel distortion effects that can be hidden in a still image are bad in a pan - but sometimes easily disguised in a tracking shot on a slant. We'll likely spring for a newer wide angle lens like the Nikon 15mm f3.5 if we decide we really need a super-wide. (tests not complete here) As for jello-cam, we didn't see any at slower shutter rates and any normal pan speeds. The nikon D90 is much much worse at this. I wouldn't shoot LAWS OF GRAVITY with this system, but so far, so good. (LOG, notoriously HH indie feature from back in the day, filled with whip pans and HH 360 shots. Fun, but audiences got sea sick.) Personally, we liked the car shot stuff - driving 60mph looks like 60mph and has a very natural feel to it. In fact we didn't see any "judder" issues anywhere in panning, but plan to do more tests soon. Also the small size of the camera lets you put it into places you could never get a film camera. The silly thing is wider than it is long, and often operates better as a SLR than with the FF rig and HH stuff. Imagine taking an Arri SR onto a roller coaster and then compare with taking a Nikon. Exposure control work around is a pain in the arse but becomes second nature eventually. With manual iris lenses you can stop down while pointed at almost any light source until you trick the camera into displaying an approximation of the ISO and shutter rate that works for you, and then lock the value with the * button. Getting repeatable results take to take was a concern, but seemed to work out okay in the tests we did. I'm looking into buying one of those cheap photo frames that displays jpegs in a slide-show and shooting a series of grey cards as way to easily repeat brightness values to hold to the lens.... another user forum suggestion I picked up in research. Silly but should be effective. As you may know, the camera uses a combo of ISO and shutter speed rates to control exposure once you take away Iris control as it's third option. At the slower ISOs, 100 and 200, the frame rates are all over the place - up to and beyond 1/160th a sec. ND filters come into play here to make sure you are shooting 1/50th at the f-stop you want, and the camera also has two stops exposure correction available with the thumb wheel. (for 1/50th a sec exposure, always choose and lock 1/40 on the display. 1/50th display can sometimes force a 1/100 shutter in actual practice) At higher ISOs than 200, it is our understanding that the shutter rate is always 1/30th. here's the table we went by. I can't take credit for this, but I can't refute anything in it either: ------------ From tests performed by Jon Fairhurst and Mark Hahn, the following findings have been made: When shooting video with Nikon lenses or any lens where you are setting aperture manually: Rule 1. Camera shoots at 1/33 of a second, any time the ISO is above 100, or above 200 with HTP mode employed. There is no way around this no matter what shutter speed reads out on the LCD. Rule 2. At ISO 100, or 200 with HTP set, you can adjust shutter speeds. The following table shows the LCD reading on the left and the right shows the actual shutter speed the camera will use. LCD -> Actual Reads 1/40 -> 1/50 1/50 -> 1/50 or 1/100 1/60 -> 1/100 1/80 -> 1/100 1/100 -> 1/100 1/125 -> 1/125 1/160 -> 1/160 1/200 -> 1/200 Rule 3. With a non-aperture control lens, even higher shutter speeds than the 200 shown can be attained, despite Canon's indication of the limited shutter speed of 1/125. --------------------------- There is some exposure related speculation that concerns using bayonet adaptors that include an interface to the auto focus/auto iris interface, but we have not chased down that rabbit hole yet ourselves. It seems that without a connected circuit to the lens, the camera's tiny brain assumes a value of f2.8 or f 2.0 and keeps it there, which is enough to work from as a good start. In theory I suppose you could hack that method and gain some more manual control back, but we've been too busy to ponder it. No one said this was easy. But it is hackable, to an extent that the camera's specific advantages can be used and controlled. I think it is best used as spy cam and night vision thing for night exteriors in downtown mixed lighting, and as a way to steal shots inside clubs and museums, etc. For day to day production I don't trust it fully not to overheat or act up, but if I were making a verite doc I'd give it serious consideration over any HD DVX type unit, and I think it also may be better than my beloved s16 Aaton in a lot of ways. The focus pulling won't be fun with Nikkors either, and the 7" 720 line monitor is not the world's best eyepiece, etc. There are clearly many many issues that can be worked out in future camera systems but again, this is an exciting format and a lot of fun to shoot with.

Satsuki - yes we've followed the google trail of breadcrumbs to CineForm and ProLost now... Phil.... still exploring other avenues... by DV do you mean DV the little 1/4" digital video tapes???? Or D-5? please expand... I've followed many of your posts over the last two days, and you seem to be deep into this stuff. Kudos for that but here you've lost me. I'm a film guy who HATED everything about video, including the fershluginer video taps we have to deal with. When I direct, I stand on the off side of the camera, consult with the DoP and trust he's getting good floating compositions based on a glance or two at the monitor or a peek thru the eyepiece. Then I work with the actors and try to get the performances and timing right. I trust my DP and also hope he trusts me to do my job. When I worked as a focus puller I learned my lenses and watched the actors and the dolly marks, not the monitor so much. If it got "a picture" I didn't tweak it much. That's my intro to video, besides renting blu-rays and watching them. However, now that "digital cineamtogrpahy" is seemingly on the verge of looking sufficiently film like in certain conditions, it's creepining into my life. I'm learning this stuff reluctantly and also a bit late in the game, I admit. So the learning curve is steep and a lot of it is not second nature yet. My role this last week as we did these tests was simply to build the package, assist the DP and consult with the editor who was doing his own research into the workflow. We rushed to a film-out despite the obvious crushed blacks simply to accelerate our learning curve - and we learned a lot but it's clear we need to keep pushing this little-camera-that-could. Sometimes you have to fail to learn your lessons. I've also read about CoreAVC,a program that works with H.264 and was recommended by the CineForm blogger David Newman. His posts are linked to from the ones by ProLost but here is a good one with things about the blacks and the codec that everyone who shoots with this camera should know: http://cineform.blogspot.com/2009/01/full-...m-canon-5d.html For anyone just coming to this stage, I recommend doing a search on his CineForm Insider blog to read everything he has written using "Canon D5" as your search term. Incorrectly, the night before our film-out on the Arri recorder I had assumed it was the 30p-to-24p conversion that was crushing our blacks and affecting the contrast so badly. (I was in the edit room but only after four 15 hour shooting days. My attention span was clearly not what it could have been!) Now I see it is a simple error in getting the media into a Non linear editor in the right setttings/ standards, but one which is still being sorted out by a vast majority of D5 users. We'll continue our tests now but will probably wait a bit until we do another film-out. We saw in the screening room enough about color and film grain and what the process does to smooth out aliasing and solarization in dull shadow areas - the film helps cover some of the faults of the camera, and in the very low light scenes the stuff looks amazing. I've got plenty to say about working on set with the camera, too but will have to write more later. Again, we're very pleased and excited with the camera. Crippled as it is, it still does some tricks you can't do any other way.

Just came back from screening 35mm film-out test footage from the canon D5 Mk2. No major problems that haven't been discussed elsewhere.... it looks good and adding the film grain to low light shots makes it seem "right" to me, and also covered a few artifacts like solarization and aliasing on a few occasions. Overall we were very pleased with the look. The 30p to 24p conversion we did in cinetool portion of FCP, and it seemed okay. We projected less than 300 feet of film though, and so I can't say these tests were definitive. Non linear editing systems are not importing the files correctly however and the crushed blacks everyone sees after you take the footage into FCP or Avid can be avoided, supposedly by using the right software from Cineform, or something similar. Here's a good link to what I wish we had found prior to the tests http://cineform.blogspot.com/2009/01/full-...m-canon-5d.html All our blacks were crushed and so most of the test was a waste of time, frankly but it was a good shakedown cruise for shooting with the camera. We learned a lot and if anyone wants the gory details feel free to send me a message. The two hurdles seem to be A), getting the footage into a non-linear editor without crushing the blacks, and B ) converting it from 30p to 24p, which seems to have been done a variety of ways and need to be stacked against one another side by side before conclusions can be drawn as to which method is best. Other than that, the camera works quite well. It's full HD, 8 bit color and has a great low light and low DoF look that can't be captured any other way as far as I can tell. We shot with manual focus AI Nikkors and did car shots, day for night and some basic narrative stuff trying to recreate a lot of typical problem shots. I'm a film guy, and can't stand the video look, but this camera comes very very close to getting it right. It would be a delight to shoot verite with. The look is worth the hassle. Getting the right lens package together is next, along with learning to adapt a lot of DVX tricks regarding support and post workflow, but this camera will make a movie that looks better than any DVX film I've ever seen. The overall look of the lenses put the camera in a category above super 16mm and the low light performance is incredible.

Here's the package we had for the tests. The wide lenses have a flange that protects the rear element we're having to mill down a bit, to clear not the mirror but the housing around the mirror. Hopefully the fact that these flanges were to stop stray light in Nikon bodies isnt going to be a problem, but who can say until we test it.... 20mm Nikkor Auto 1:3.5 No. 476940 NOT TESTED 24mm Nikkor Auto 1:2.8 No.337571 NOT TESTED 28mm Nikkor Auto 1:2 No.317324 NOT TESTED 35mm NIKKOR -N Auto 1:1.4 35mm Nippon Kogaku Japan No. 350150 50mm Nikkor Auto 1:1.2 No. 390746 85mm Nikkor Auto 1.1.4 No. 202947 105mm Nikkor Auto 1:1.2.5 No. 525188 135mm NIKKOR -Q Auto 1:2.8 135mm Nippon Kogaku Japan No.192131 180mm Nikkor Auto 1:2.8 No. 330918 I've used almost all these lenses for years and that's another plus - it's like meeting an old friend each time we put one up. The 135 has always done well, too and the 24mm is something I've always been very comfortable with - I can find my shot with it almost without looking thru the viewfinder I've made so many stills with it in the past.

Shooting tests this week for an indie feature that may use the D5 MK2 for some scenes, with manual focus AI Nikon glass. First impressions after one day is that the camera is a lot of fun in low light - and the no manual control issues are a real drag and a definite headache on set. I'd not complain one bit if you had to do a headstand and recite the greek alphabet backwards however, if only it would shoot 24p and 1/50th a sec at ISO higher than 200 after some trickery. It's a fatally crippled camera in that regard, but "soon come," like the rastamen say. I'm assisting for a DoP from Europe who has shot commercials, music videos and even part of a TV MOW with the D5 Mk2 and he knows less about the camera than most people on dedicated indie user forums, but it doesn't matter. That's part of the charm - the darn thing shoots good footy without much learning curve applied. Considering the cost, it's a cool tool. The form factor stuff is "okay" not great compared to Panavison, et al, we're using mostly zacuto. Lost time every 2 hours when the mounts and sliders, etc work themselves loose, but nothing a good machinist couldn't fix in a day or so - this stuff is all straight out of the box right now. The follow focus stuff is okay - if it were machined better and cost more it still wouldn't improve the major bottleneck - the limitations of still lenses being pressed into use for cine work - witness marks on top, short thread-throw, tiny markings, etc. I hope to make up a set of discs to match the lens set and rely on that somewhat when shooting. Looking forward the 35mm film-out test most of all. The proof is in the pudding! (I'll try to post my impressions.) Many, many performance issues with these lenses being adapted for cine use - barrel distortion much more noticeable on anything 35mm and shorter being the most obvious. There is better glass, no doubt but for instance the 85mm Nikkor f1.2 is a beautiful piece of glass for close-ups with this camera. It was beautiful back in the day, and it still is. Putting together a set of primes will be fun, as you can pick and choose between canon, nikon, leica, etc glass and even throw in my lensbabies, and funky russian glass, too. There were some "greatest hits" over the years in various formats. As for the codec we have "Judder" issues as well on pans, rolling shutter issues, etc. A lot of this CMOS stuff has already been discussed by Red Users elsewhere, and there are forums for this camera so I won't go into detail on that here, just now. As for the glass, all the way back to the 1970s the strengths and limitations of Nikon glass has been well known. I remember using these same lenses on Eclair camflex cameras for steadycam work - it was a light body that some steadycam owner operators liked to own. Again, consider the cost. There are going to be some cool docs at sundance next year I predict, shot with this system. The real area where this camera should shine is low light, low PROFILE work for delivery on low fi platforms, ie, not film-out but for certain effects and uses it ought to be a new and interesting way to get some good stuff previously not possible. It's practically a spy camera when you walk into a bar with it. I kept finding myself throwing on the 50mm f1.2 and doing simple focus pulls with the FF as we would walk around the shop, or in the car, etc. I felt like Albert Maysels after about ten minutes practice! (All apologies to the real verite pioneers! YMMV!)