HurtinMinorKey

Bang up job, Andrew!

So how is this different from any other entertainment award? News Flash: they're all just marketing gimmicks. Add this one to the list.

If you opt for the Canon set up, and are going to be doing mainly video, I'd go with Zeiss primes. They are slightly cheeper, have more consistent color across lenses, sharper, and much smoother focus. In exchange for all that, you lose AF.

from everything I've seen, the fs700 gets taken to the wood shed by the c300 and the F3. The fs700 offers mediocre IQ, but exceptional frame rates, which is cool, but it was definitely designed to have inferior IQ compared to the F3.

^ Yah, because getting elected president as an African American was a trivial accomplishment.  ::) Donkey...

[quote author=richg101 link=topic=797.msg5756#msg5756 date=1338463126] Soon there will be the boffins at magic lantern turning the 5dmk3 into what it is meant to be.  somewhere between the performance of the 1D cinema and the 5dmk3 as standard id imagine.  many suggest the 5d3 as it stands has had some firmware crippling features for product differentiation.  the L glass has a lot more life and value than any 2 bit (in comparison) lenses for the 4/3 system.  eos cinama range, red, and lack magic offering ef mount as standard will continue the value of these lenses imo [/quote] Gosh I hope you are right. I always figured they would sell a 5D-C, and it would be sweet not to have to pay for it.  The current bit-rate on the 5D3 seems way underpowered given its processor. The moment this happens I'll buy it. 

Glidecam, with wrist support.

Longer bodies on Vcams are much more vertically stable.

You shooting that stuff in SF? Let me know if you ever need some help.

If you're that scared, it sounds like you should rent a cam for the wedding.  It won't cost too much, and that way you can test out your GH2 alongside your dedicated v-cam.

Am I missing something, or this test completely confounded by varying effectiveness of the individual teams' post production performance?

[quote author=charlie_orozco link=topic=738.msg5552#msg5552 date=1337619935] [quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5551#msg5551 date=1337616974] [quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5491#msg5491 date=1337391606] Anyway... so what if most people shoot handheld because it is convenient? If it works it works. Not everything needs to be shot on a slider. [/quote] Because usually this convenience has a price, paid for by your audience. [/quote] Really? Everybody hates handheld? I could agree that "The Bourne Supremacy" went too far, but handheld isn't all about shaking the camera all around and making a mess on the audience understanding of what's going on. It can be very beautiful when done properly, and many movies and short films prove that, whether there's a subtle or a strong movement of the camera. And as for the "convenience" of shooting handheld, it can be faster than setting up a tripod, but I dare you to hold a camera still on your hands for hours to properly shoot a handheld scene or a whole movie! There's a lot of skill and effort involved to make that look the way you want or need it to be. [/quote] So I guess that we can agree. If you are choosing it for convenience, that it's probably not the best. On the other hand, if it's inconvenient to use, but you are sticking with handheld,  then at least you know your heart is in the right place!  ;D

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5491#msg5491 date=1337391606] Anyway... so what if most people shoot handheld because it is convenient? If it works it works. Not everything needs to be shot on a slider. [/quote] Because usually this convenience has a price, paid for by your audience. 

[quote author=Andrew Reid link=topic=738.msg5484#msg5484 date=1337380811] [quote author=HurtinMinorKey link=topic=738.msg5477#msg5477 date=1337366303] [quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002] Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy.  [/quote] I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective. [/quote] You are not understanding this. It isn't about effort, it is about choosing the style for the scene. [/quote] You mean making art involves choosing styles? No way?! I got it. I was informally digging on handheld shots because another poster called it the lowest-budget method of all. The truth is, a lot of people use hand held shots because it's a hell of a lot easier (in most cases), and not because it's the best style for the scene.   

[quote author=BurnetRhoades link=topic=738.msg5476#msg5476 date=1337366002] Maybe "misunderstood" would be better.  It's hardly lazy.  [/quote] I'm just saying that, for the most part it takes way less effort to do something hand-held, as opposed to setting up an equivalent sequence of static shots, pans, and dolly shots.  But that's not to say that it can't be just as effective.

[quote author=MANYHANDS link=topic=738.msg5472#msg5472 date=1337345021] Whatever happened to handheld! The lowest budget film-making technique of them all. [/quote] I think you mean "laziest" technique of them all. But it's put to good use in your trailer. What type of stabilizer did you use? I actually watched the clip thinking it was the GH2, and I was halfway to b&h before I noticed it was done on the c300.  I love that camera, but I'm waiting for it to come down in price a bit. As far as 4K projection and RED goes, this 4k nonsense needs to stop. Red can't even do true 1080 (24bit pixels, like our screens). Let's get 1080 done right before we move on to 3K and 4K.

Looks good. Would have looked more filmic if you had used stabilization too. What did you use to grade it?

Not much too it, but nice exposure.

My guess is that they didn't include the 5D because they didn't really want the full frame aesthetic to play a role in the comparison.

Great article!

Maybe this should go in the screening room, but it's not my work so.. http://blog.planet5d.com/incident-on-marmont-ave/ Shot totally on the 5d3. All in all, it kinda sucks. Not because of the cinematography, but because it starts off with 7 minutes of housekeeping.

[quote author=dustatron link=topic=635.msg5194#msg5194 date=1336693673] As video taxes a cmos chip in a different way than stills. [/quote] Please elaborate.

I think it would make more sense if the binning was done by software.  I'm guessing it's just a matter of  telling the processor to read more info for each frame.  Since the 1dC can handle at least 400Mbs (for 4K), with 2 digi 5s , you'd think they could probably double the current max rate of the 5D3 from 90Mbs to 180Mbs. Might generate some heat though... 8). 

[quote author=shijan link=topic=654.msg4840#msg4840 date=1335643035] same story as usual - aliasing, noise, low dynamic range and compression :) [/quote] Yup. The high fps looked cool, but their was nothing stunning about the footage.  All the regular fps stuff looked like handicam.

[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4765#msg4765 date=1335508558] btw don't bore me with David Fincher stories..  if you want to talk about real filmmakers from the heart then talk about Alejandro González Iñárritu and his DP Rodrigo Prieto - raw real world storytellers! not some facebook or redone euro tattoo movies because hollywood wants to make a profit..  boring scripts but there's a sucker born every minute [/quote] I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt untill now, but you just outed yourself as a complete tool.  Rodrigo Prieto was the DP on Brokeback Mountain, which is the biggest cliche storyline ever. Even South-Park was making jokes about gay-cowboy movies 5 years before this movie came out.  He (Prieito) has never produced anything that approaches the beauty and storytelling of Fight Club.  He can have all the "heart" in the world, but he lacks the talent of the best.