Despite his laryngitis Philip Bloom's still talking DSLR filmmaking, this time with the Executive Producer and Director of the season finale of House, shot entirely on the 5D Mark II:

In depth interview with Executive Producer and Director of “House” Season Finale shot on Canon 5DmkII | Philip Bloom (http://philipbloom.co.uk/2010/04/19/in-depth-interview-with-executive-producer-and-director-of-house-season-finale-shot-on-canon-5dmkii/)

Since the BBC will not accept 5DII video there will be no House season finale across the pond. Sorry UK guys.

My wife loves her some HOUSE - which means I watch it too. Very interested in this.

john

Did he ask if they ran into any artifact issues and if so what they did to remedy the situation?

Greg mentioned that they saw some banding in some scenes, but he wasn't sure what the final result was. They're organizing a twitter q/a session with the hash tag #5dfinale:

Twitter (http://twitter.com/#search?q=%235dfinale)

Greg Yaitanes was excellent. It was great to hear such a pragmatic perspective on DSLR film-making. Although he is not the first person to make the comment that this technology is an absolute godsend for up and coming film makers, this is surely one of the most salient points about these cameras.

It was also really cool to hear him talking about the 5D not so much as an attempt to emulate film, but rather a unique aesthetic in its own right. It's interesting that he chose to really push that aesthetic into the space where other cameras can't go by shooting such crazy wide-open apertures. This is a genuinely creative and artistic approach to the medium. One of the things that any artist wants to know is "how far can I push my medium?" Yes focus at F 1.2 or 1.0 must be a real nightmare, but then it comes down to creativity and exceptional skill. I'm a bit of a romantic when it comes to this type of thing. I really like the idea of having to develop that sort of skill rather than having a device that will do it all for you.

Looks like the interview reached it's download limit on soundcloud - anyone got the file so I can throw it on my phone and listen to it on the go?

Since the BBC will not accept 5DII video there will be no House season finale across the pond. Sorry UK guys.House isn't shown on the BBC but on the commercial stations Sky1 on satellite & Five on terrestrial. Judging by the poor quality of some other programmes on Sky1 they will have no problems at all with accepting 5DII video.

Ben is right. This interview points out that the idea that any new tool has to look just like film is a bit absurd. There are some things about film- like crapping out in low light (compared to the 1D, 5D, 7D, and the newest Nikon) and costs of shooting-- that make it impractical for many productions. I personally would never have been able to shoot a single production in this my avocation, if it was not for the digital film making revolution and the reduction in expense costs it brings. (Someone please tell my wife.)

Every day on this forum and many others, the dreamers are accosted by the nay sayers who won't accept that these cameras can be used successfully as a main camera. From resolution, moire and aliasing, it is said it can't be done. Rather that taking into account and planning for its limitations, that make one successful, these nay sayers scorn the thought of using such an "inferior" capture device.

Many of us have said over the last year and a half or more that these camera's were game changers. Pixel counters and number crunchers say no way. This episode of "House" will tell the tale. And without seeing it- because I know know how much a difference this camera has made in my less skilled hands- I am willing to bet the production will floor those who have said it can't be done. And that is because this production group is professional and willing to work within the camera's limitations, as they would with any other capture system, whether it be film or digital, to get their shots --and take advantage of the wonderful imagery this camera is capable of producing.

Even more interesting is that they shot this episode without heavy equipment, just as you and I would... using tripods available from the local camera store, creating a steadicam of sorts from a simple flag pole holder and monopod, (much like my old Steady Stick), and shooting inside relatively small spaces in the same way as we are required in most on locations shoots.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. I live and work in HWood and know that these things are done for reasons far more reaching than the camera can fit in small places so that's why they used it. (or whatever else was implied)

That just doesn't make sense.

This town the camera is hot right now and like everything else in this town they used it to generate interest and publicity for the show. That is all. With all the documented moire and aliasing issues it would make no sense to risk a high budget projection if there were not other, bigger payoffs.

Steve Kahn:

What camera do you run ?

Your commentary makes no sense... Here is the director of the show explaining his choice of the camera, and the benefits it provided, and you dismiss him.

The dp I'm working with now uses a HDCAM. My old dp (an older guy) swears by his old 2/3" camera because of the great glass he has. I have shot my first short on dvx-100 and loved that camera. I have used hv30, hvx, ex1.

But that is not the issue. I, too, was looking forward the DSLR as the new pro go to format for indie work. Like the ex1 with the crazy dof lens adapter setups that were rammed down our throats a couple of years ago it is clearly not.

Perhaps the AG-AF100 will be. I hope.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. I live and work in HWood and know that these things are done for reasons far more reaching than the camera can fit in small places so that's why they used it. (or whatever else was implied)

That just doesn't make sense.

This town the camera is hot right now and like everything else in this town they used it to generate interest and publicity for the show. That is all. With all the documented moire and aliasing issues it would make no sense to risk a high budget projection if there were not other, bigger payoffs.

Your right it does not make sense as there are not enough people in the world who care what the show was shot with to make a tiny difference in the ratings of his show. I think he did it to prove that it could be done and to be the first to prove it on a MAJOR scale. It also cuts his production budget massively and as an Executive Producer that means more money in his pocket. It also opens doors for new tools to be developed and used in all sorts of productions. I think when it's all said and done and people like my wife who could care less if it was shot with an etch a sketch, as long as it looks good and is entertaining, don't notice one bit of difference in the feel of the show (or god knows actually like it better) say "WOW what a great season finally." That his point will be proven.


This is not meant as a flame/insult/ or instigation. Just my take on why he did it.

Panny and Sony both have announced large chip cameras that will be more film camera like in the next year. In the meantime, they way I looked at this camera when I bought the 5D a year a ago was that it was a very cheap course in use of large fromat imaging, and was surprised after I got it just how amazing an image you could get to the screen with it. I had no doubt back then that someone with a bit of oomph in the business was going to use it for just what happened.

On a big production like House, cutting out the cost of working with film is a smaller percentage of the budget than most people think.

Panny and Sony both have announced large chip cameras that will be more film camera like in the next year. In the meantime, they way I looked at this camera when I bought the 5D a year a ago was that it was a very cheap course in use of large fromat imaging, and was surprised after I got it just how amazing an image you could get to the screen with it. I had no doubt back then that someone with a bit of oomph in the business was going to use it for just what happened.

Not only is it a crash course in this style of shooting - if you make good gear choices now you can upgrade the camera body (or brain as the RED folks call it) and still have some great cine gear to use with the new camera. So it's not like getting a 5D or even a 7D means buying a crap load of proprietary gear that will only work with that camera...

Sounds like some comments are being made here by people who didn't listen to the 1 hour plus interview.

Greg said they did have a Canon tech there for the shoot. He also said he didn't set out to shoot the 5D. Apparently the particular episode dictated the need for a very small foot print for the three cameras, and they didn't have the luxury of tearing open sets for shots. Not sure why, but thats why they ended up going this way.

He also stated that they tested shooting the 5D next to their film cameras on another episode, and sent it all to their editors for clearance. They did not push the issue with the networks, and only cleared it at their in house owners level. When they saw the test results, were impressed, and they okayed the project.

I did not get the impression that Canon had money coming into them. In fact, I think they had an inhouse deal with Panasonic, and they had to keep a bit quiet about the use of the 5D. As a consequence they did not even let it be well known that the shoot was being done that way, until after the fact.

Lest you think there were no problems, Greg indicated there will be some focus searching apparent in shots. But he said that is a style that goes with this territory. He also said they has some "banding issues" they have had to deal with in a couple of shots.

Their set up was to shoot two cameras with various forms of hook up for directors etc. to monitor, and a third was shot roving a bit, and that shooter was told what was needed and then left to his devices.

Focus pullers were challenged a bit, but as true professionals, they managed to do a great job.

Greg was very clear that it was the situational shooting required for this shoot that drove them to this choice. He loved the feel of the shallow depth of field. He made no bones about the fact that he was not trying to emulate film. Shooting at F1, on some shots created a lot of problems. But it was depth of field shallower than even film camera's afford that he was looking for in this larger senser. He explained to Phil Bloom that is why they did not go with the 1D or the 7D, among other things.

Knowing the cameras weaknesses, avoiding those weaknesses and using the cameras strengths.

Are the weaknesses so important they override the strengths ? I guess for some users and some types of shots the answer is yes. I think the opposite is also true.

A couple of links which seem to some things up.

8 Reasons NOT to Buy a DSLR for Video | Poet Zero (http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/04/8-reasons-not-to-buy-a-dslr)

8 Reasons to Buy a DSLR for Video | Poet Zero (http://poetzerofilm.com/2010/04/8-reasons-to-buy-a-dslr-for-video/)

On high end productions the current DSLR cameras are specialised cameras, there are limitations, so you need to decide if they are appropriate as A cameras. Once the EPIC becomes available, size will be less of a reason for using a DSLR.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. I live and work in HWood and know that these things are done for reasons far more reaching than the camera can fit in small places so that's why they used it. (or whatever else was implied)

That just doesn't make sense.

This town the camera is hot right now and like everything else in this town they used it to generate interest and publicity for the show. That is all. With all the documented moire and aliasing issues it would make no sense to risk a high budget projection if there were not other, bigger payoffs.

Seriously Steve. I am in the fortunate position to be in direct contact with the House team about this...

Let's look at the facts

House is the most popular show on the planet. They don't need publicity about some geeky camera being used for finale. This will not increase their advertising revenue, will not make one jot of difference to the 99.999999% of people who watch and they really don't need the extra few thousand geeks like us who will be watching it due to it being shot on a DSLR!

Now if they had Angelina Jolie in it that would be publicity and gain lots of extra viewers. Shooting on a DSLR? not so much!

Is there any kind of information about what picture profiles they used on the set? Were they shooting flat or trying to get as close to the look as they could in camera? This being a fairly religious topic surrounding DSLRs, I'd be interested to know what they did for this shoot.

Is there any kind of information about what picture profiles they used on the set? Were they shooting flat or trying to get as close to the look as they could in camera? This being a fairly religious topic surrounding DSLRs, I'd be interested to know what they did for this shoot.

sharpness was off. everything else straight down the middle!

Interesting. Sharpness all the way down?

Will be very interesting to see this episode.

Interesting. Sharpness all the way down?

Will be very interesting to see this episode.

Doesn't mean they didn't sharpen in post remember. Pretty much everyone should be shooting with sharpness near nothing because of the moire/stepping.

Doesn't mean they didn't sharpen in post remember.

Of course, I just found it interesting (since this debate goes back and forth) that they didn't shoot totally flat with the contrast and saturation dialed down as well. I keep going back and forth in my tests, just good to hear how they did it. No matter what I adjust I always keep sharpness all the way down.

Remember they're shooting on a soundstage with complete control over lighting - presumably they can light to whatever ratio they want so the contrast setting in the camera is less important.