Commercial movies made with 5D or 7D

[Marcello Mazzilli]

Very interesting discussion.. i think the last episode of house was the double episode in which many shots are on a collapsed building, under bricks, etc.. A sort of 9/11 situation... Am I right? Dark light, small spaces.

I agree a full feature is quite long, and syncs can be a problem. For corporate use I have a Zoom Audio Recorder and I feed audio directly into the 5D.. but I agree.. for a feature I would use a slate and syncs for more quality. I also own a JVC HM700 and found some settings where the two cameras (depth of field apart) can look quite the same so maybe this camera can help me too..

Well.. let's see what happens. I'd really like to see some 35mm in a theatre done from the 5D..

By the way. This is an ad (made for national TV) I made with 5D: siRoma

[Ivan Mosny]

Don`t forget, that 5D makes films only HD resolution, while RED ONE a 4K camera with RAW recording.
It deliver uncompressed 4480 x 2304 resolution pictures - near 5 times more pixel information.
This is a really big quality difference.

[Marcello Mazzilli]

I think RED an 5D are almost uncomparable.. resolution, compression, etc... But ... with 5D.. id not lower the price of the camera.... but of all around... the whole process needs less time and less people.

[Charles Papert]

I haven't used it myself but I hear that PluralEyes makes mincemeat out of the sync process.

I think "Act of Valor", the Navy Seals feature that Shane shot, is going to open some eyes. It will be interesting to see how the 35mm and the 5D footage integrate.

I recently shot a half-hour pilot for FX on 1D's and from what I hear, there is a lot of positive feedback on the look. It certainly wasn't easy, particularly switching amongst a variety of lenses (I had a few Canon zooms, a set of CP2's, a set of ZE's and the Ruby 14-24, and every time we changed between styles of lens it was a reconfiguration nightmare for the assistants (mattebox donuts, rod length etc.). Shooting on a submarine didn't help with all that either.

I think that a carefully shot feature made on the Canons would do just fine on the big screen, particularly if it was a character-driven story.

[Chris Barcellos]

Even better than Plural Eyes is the stand alone product they have out called Dual Eyes. With that one, you throw all your footage and your independently captured sound into a single directory, and select either generation of sound clip cut and fit to the video clip, or you can select preparation of a new clip with the sound generated.

I have done some testing with the product, but haven't put it to the full test. I think best way to use it is to shoot the 5D with AGC on (of all things) so the there is adequate sound for the program to compare.

With Cineform, I will convert the footgage first to Cineform, then do the sound matching in Dual Eyes.

[Sean Parker]

I have PluralEyes and really, really love it. It has saved me hours and hours (more like days or weeks, actually) during which I would've been slaving away at manual syncing without it (this was for a feature... probably not Sundance-bound, but we'll see). They gave it a huge post-release update that adds all the functionality of DualEyes as well. Sync worked for over 90% of the clips I sent it, so I'd say the lack of timecode is no problem.

[Bill Pryor]

I think comparing the 5DMKII to the Red or other high end cameras is meaningless. It is what it is. You can get good images with it if you learn the technology. Same with any other big chip camera. If I were going to shoot a low budget feature film digitally and had the money I'd go for the Alexa. On a lower level I'd probably go for the new Sony that's upcoming. On a micro budget I'd go for the 5DMKII at this point. I have seen 5DMKII and 7D footage on a 32' screen. Looks damn good.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Bill Pryor

On a micro budget I'd go for the 5DMKII at this point. I have seen 5DMKII and 7D footage on a 32' screen. Looks damn good.

Yep, you just have to deal with the pain of getting it there. And I'd take the 7D over the 5D on a narrative shoot any day of the week. More flexible, easier focus, usually needs less light.

[Lee Tamer]

Back on topic, James Franco said the 5D was used on his new film 127 hours

[Bill Pryor]

I've read that he used the 1D as a second camera, and the main camera was the SI, but I don't have any way of knowing which is accurate. Most people seem to be using the 5D when they intercut with film because of the higher resolution. But since he intercut with the SI, if that's correct, maybe that's why he used a 1D. Or maybe it was because of low light. I've heard about some movies shot with the F900 where they used the 7D as a second camera, and also about some that use the 5D when intercutting with film.

The 7D is, indeed, easier to use than the 5D in terms of keeping things in focus, because it doesn't have the super shallow DOF. But I don't see anything more flexible about it (except for the 720p 60 fps and I like Twixtor better for that to stay 1080p), and it doesn't need less light, unless you're talking about less light to get a deeper DOF, and that's true. I've used both cameras and although I haven't done a side by side comparison with the same shot, it seems to me a 2.8 on the 7D has about the same DOF as an f4 on the 5D. When I had the 7D I got by without a follow focus system, but when I bought the 5D, my first purchase after the first dolly shot with it was a follow focus system. In most of the shoots I do if I need more DOF, I will go from 160 to 320 ISO and on screen sizes where my commercial stuff shows (50" plasma is the biggest) nobody can see the difference. For festival stuff that will go to a big screen, I keep to 160 unless there's no way to do that. Generally it's not difficult to add enough light. I agree that it is more difficult working with the shallower DOFs of the 5D, but once you have some experience with it, it's not a big deal.

It's kind of amusing that so many people work so hard to get less DOF, and with the 5D you are often concerned with getting more. But that's applicable only to low light situations. The upside to that is if you want less you can get there without having to use your lenses wide open.

I moved to the 5D because of lenses and really wasn't expecting the image quality to be noticeable better, but it is. I guess the combination of bigger chip and higher resolution is responsible. I have intercut the two cameras and nobody but me has been able to see the difference. Probably for run-'n-gun type shooting a 7D with a fast zoom lens would be more appropriate; for more controlled things I like the 5D with primes.

Charles' comment about changing lens configurations is right on. I use the Redrock ring gears on all my lenses. Every lens has its own gear that stays on all the time. Instead of loosening and sliding the drive back and forth to accommodate lens length, I usually slide the camera back and forth on the long quick release plate. All my primes are close to the same length, so that works nicely. For the one zoom I have (70-200) it doesn't, but I rarely use the zoom. The only real hassle for me is that my Nikkors focus backward from the Zeiss and Canon lenses. That sorta sucks.

[Perrone Ford]

Bill,

My comment about the 7D being easier comes from a few factors.

1. I tend to like shooting at F2.8 to F4. But on the 5D this is PAINFULLY shallow, especially if we are moving the camera and/or the actors. This is compounded by...

2. The inability to monitor in HD. With the 7D you can put a nice big monitor on it and really see when you are in focus. The 5D really falls down here.

3. In order to maintain some depth with the 5D, you have to close the iris down, so instead of being at F2.8 or F4 where I want to be, I am suddenly lighting for F5.6 or F8. Usually not a problem, but sometimes it really is. Like when I had a shoot over the summer with a GRAND TOTAL of 1 15A circuit available to me for lighting. In a dark warehouse.

Each system has it's merits, but I find the smaller sensor cams to be a bit more user friendly. If I was doing all-pro gigs and we had dollys and other equipment that made things easier, I might feel differently.

[Dan Brockett]

I shot a short form doc last week with my 5D MKII. I agree with the others, if you are shooting for theatrical release, I would use a tool made for that like a RED, Alexa or something else. The 5D MKII is great for what it is, but the workflow for professional film making and the compromises that one has to endure in operating, focusing and monitoring would make it a nightmare for a feature IMHO. I own the AG-HPX170 also, I would use that for a feature film any day over the 5D MKII, the 5D MKII image is not going to hold up well in post without a lot of expensive massaging whereas I have seen my HPX170 blown up to an IMAX screen last year in Copenhagen for a film I shot and it looked surprisingly good, even though it was only shot in 1080i/24pA. Codec matters a lot more for projection that it does for television or the web.

I love my 5D MKII but it is a still camera that shoots video, it is not a cinema camera. It isn't even a video camera.

Just my opinion but if you are shooting something for theatrical release, there will be enough money to rent a more suitable camera for the task at hand.

Dan

[Bill Pryor]

A Beautiful Belly (2010) - IMDb

[Chris Medico]

We used a 7d to shoot sections of the "Fall of the Hunters Moon" movie that is in edit now. It is a feature length independent shot in North Carolina. It will appear in local NC theaters around March 2011. With any luck outside of NC if the response if good.

[John Benton]

Shot entirely on the 7D
Canon 7D Shot SXSW Award Winning Tiny Furniture, In Theatres*11/12/2010 The Phoblographer
I just saw this in the theatre and it looked great
J