House on 5D MKII

which ep was it? 21?

ziggie216 wrote in post #10213687
which ep was it? 21?

I think 22.

I watched it also, and could see the difference from previous episodes. It also made so much sense using the smaller and lighter cameras for that filming environment.

Shows what we all could do with a couple $2,500 cameras, nice lenses, years of experience, a talented crew, and a few million dollars for production costs.

sfaust wrote in post #10218783
I watched it also, and could see the difference from previous episodes. It also made so much sense using the smaller and lighter cameras for that filming environment.

Shows what we all could do with a couple $2,500 cameras, nice lenses, years of experience, a talented crew, and a few million dollars for production costs.

I can cover the first four but I'm a bit short on five...

Very well done episode, i think it shows what these cameras can do as well as Vincent Laforet's stuff

it makes sense for filming in the confined environment, a 5D will fit places that a normal video camera wont, and is a lot cheaper too

Quick question: How does the video on the 5D compare with the video of the T2i?? Just curious

CoolHandMatt wrote in post #10219544
Quick question: How does the video on the 5D compare with the video of the T2i?? Just curious

Two prime differences, are in then ISO performance and the Depth of Field (for the same lens used); both of which were seen extensively in the episode.

RWatkins wrote in post #10219723
Two prime differences, are in then ISO performance and the Depth of Field (for the same lens used); both of which were seen extensively in the episode.

So are you saying the 5D is better? I dont understand...

For low light shooting, the 5DMkII will be better. The DOF between the cameras are no better or worse, just different. It depends on the look you are after.

sfaust wrote in post #10221333
For low light shooting, the 5DMkII will be better. The DOF between the cameras are no better or worse, just different. It depends on the look you are after.

Humm...interesting...t​hat makes me feel better knowing that House could have just as easily been filmed with my T2i as well

Thanks

CoolHandMatt wrote in post #10221753
Humm...interesting...t​hat makes me feel better knowing that House could have just as easily been filmed with my T2i as well

Thanks

I hope you know that there is a lot more to it than what he mentioned. They most likely modified the camera, adding 35mm prime zeiss lenses. They had a hefty rig support for the stabilization, and these guys are masters of any camera and light.

The 5DII blows away the T2i in terms of quality, Depth of field, and mechanics. The T2i couldn't handle what the 5DII. If you are looking for that filmish look, then the 5DII is the camera of choice. The T2i is good for capturing video, but because of its small sensor it won't hold up in the conditions the 5DII does.

Could house have been filmed on a T2i? Possibly. Would it have been presentable for televison? Probably not. The sensor on the camera is just too small, and cramming all that data on a small sensor is not good for presentation.

squiLL wrote in post #10221866
I hope you know that there is a lot more to it than what he mentioned. They most likely modified the camera, adding 35mm prime zeiss lenses. They had a hefty rig support for the stabilization, and these guys are masters of any camera and light.

Based on an interview of the director Greg Yaitanes by Philip Bloom, this is incorrect. They used conventional Canon lenses, with the 24-70mm and 100mm mentioned by the director. He seems to really like the 100mm from the interview I heard. They did handheld or used a monopod connected to a bracket used to hold flags.

With that said, there was a canon rep on site to help them. Also, one would think they have the best in lighting, color correction and post processing to get the most from the files as possible.

Here is link to the interview

http://philipbloom.net …ale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/

Actually (DOF Physics aside), the signal quality out of both cameras is identical. 1080p is 1080p. Both would be considered "broadcast quality" because both "crop" down to 1920 X 1080.

The "filmish" look can be added in post to media from either body but straight out of the box, only the T2i will do 24p. The 5DMkII needs the firmware update to do it...

It's already been stated that they used Canon primes along with the "Brick."

The dSLR form factor is certainly handy for tight spaces but they've had alternatives for years such as shooting off mirrors and flipping the footage in post and there are also some exotic "periscope" lenses that can get in tight spaces. Plus, we're talking sets on a soundstage here so they can always just move a damn wall...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #10222197
Actually (DOF Physics aside), the signal quality out of both cameras is identical. 1080p is 1080p. Both would be considered "broadcast quality" because both "crop" down to 1920 X 1080.

The "filmish" look can be added in post to media from either body but straight out of the box, only the T2i will do 24p. The 5DMkII needs the firmware update to do it...

I agree. They could have used either, as well as the 7D, and all would been broadcast quality with only subtle differences in image quality (ISO, DOF, etc). Broadcast quality covers the specifications of the signal being broadcast, not necessarily the image quality. You can take a VHS tape, cell phone video, P&S video, etc, and make them all broadcast quality very easily.

sfaust wrote in post #10222932
I agree. They could have used either, as well as the 7D, and all would been broadcast quality with only subtle differences in image quality (ISO, DOF, etc). Broadcast quality covers the specifications of the signal being broadcast, not necessarily the image quality. You can take a VHS tape, cell phone video, P&S video, etc, and make them all broadcast quality very easily.

There used to actually be technical specs for what qualified as "Broadcast Quality" but those have all pretty much gone by the boards now.

The advent of more powerful, digital frame shakers that can grab hold of just about any signal and get it on the air have made a huge difference.

Back in the day, engineers actually had the final say and I've been in situations where senior engineers outright rejected something because it didn't meet spec. The fights between the Traffic Department and Engineering were pretty heated at times. Client bought the air time but to some crusty Chief Engineers I've worked for/with over the years, that just didn't matter. If the signal was crap, it wasn't going out over his transmitter!

We used to even have to have engineers pass muster on tapes in mobile units which was really a pain in the butt because with every tape change, we'd have to get on the blower and ask them to talk us into levels and then say OK or not. This was before there were vector scopes in videotape and only the master scope in transmission was "God's Law."