Act of Valor movie shot on 5D

[Jason McDonald]

I don't know if you've seen the trailer, looks good. I was surprised to hear it was shot entirely on the 5Dm2.

Act of Valor Official Trailer - YouTube

[Ken Diewert]

Bought by Relativity Media for 13 million. Also check out 'Like Crazy' in theatres now and shot entirely on the 7d Like Crazy | Movie Trailer & Official Site | Now Playing In Select Theaters Like Crazy was bought by Paramount for 4 million.

And I thought it was cool to see 'Rubber' shot on the 5d... Definitely interesting. I'm scheduled to shoot a feature in the spring and was going to rent my friends Red Epic for it. Probably still will, but it's great to see doors being opened by these cameras and DP's like Shane Hurlbut.

[Charles Papert]

It wasn't shot entirely on the 5D. The original plan was to shoot just the ops on the 5D and the rest on 35mm--by the end of the shoot Shane was doing more and more on the 5D's but there's still plenty of film in the final movie.

I operated a few days with Shane and the gang on an aircraft carrier out in the open ocean--that alone was a surreal experience. Piloting the Steadicam through the incredibly cramped bridge of the ship while it was slowly rolling back and forth was a whole other kind of surreal. Try to keep it level during the blast of a Harrier jet taking off on the flight deck (with the full-size rig and Panaflex plus gyros weighing in around 80 lbs while wearing the bulky body/ear/eye protective gear)--well, that was intense.

I also covered the DP position for a few days for Shane while he was off an another job; a few of the shots are in the trailer and like the rest of the film were a mix of 5D and 35mm footage.

I just remembered I had posted a pic from the aircraft carrier shoot right here on DVI:
5D Mk. II hits the “bigtime” at DVInfo.net
Holy cow, 2 1/2 years ago!

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Thank you, Charles for the update and information.

Wish I were with you filming aboard that aircraft carrier! Although would prefer calm seas. My stomach goes tight when filming during stormy weather... and it gets difficult not to taste breakfast twice! :)

[Charles Papert]

I get motion sickness in the back of a van, so I was very concerned. I went with the Scopalamine patch and was perfectly fine out at sea, while others suffered a bit.

[Ken Diewert]

Thanks for the insight Charles. I remember you talking about this back then, I hadnt realized it was the same film. Interesting that the 5d matched up with 35mm.

While the ultra low budget/short film festival circuit will continue to shoot DSLR, I think that the C300/F3/Scarlet will bump the 5d/7d out of anything with even a modest budget. The c300 at least, has the small form factor, low light capability, large sensor size, ease of use, and relatively low cost. All the benefits of the 5d, with very few of the negatives.

[Don Miller]

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential. What's the cost per day difference between a 7D and the FS100?

[Tony Davies-Patrick]

Sorry, wrong post.

[Greg Fiske]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential. What's the cost per day difference between a 7D and the FS100?

Depends on what commercial market you are working in. For wedding videographers that dabble in commercial video's for local business's, its great. And the mark III is coming.

Saw the trailer last weekend during mission impossible. I was seriously impressed. I remember telling myself that I needed to double check the technical specs because I couldn't believe it was dslr footage. Goes to show what a tool can do in capable hands. Like crazy, I could recognize the footage very easily. All the highlights are blown out in that movie, and not in a nice intentional way like "mission impossible".

[James A. Davis]

Originally Posted by Ken Diewert

Bought by Relativity Media for 13 million. Also check out 'Like Crazy' in theatres now and shot entirely on the 7d Like Crazy | Movie Trailer & Official Site | Now Playing In Select Theaters Like Crazy was bought by Paramount for 4 million.

And I thought it was cool to see 'Rubber' shot on the 5d... Definitely interesting. I'm scheduled to shoot a feature in the spring and was going to rent my friends Red Epic for it. Probably still will, but it's great to see doors being opened by these cameras and DP's like Shane Hurlbut.

My girlfriend actually took me to see Like Crazy in theaters. To be very honest, it looks like it was shot on film. Unlike DV films of the past like November (DVX-100), Bamboozled or Chuck and Buck (VX-1000), or even Paranormal Activity (Sony FX1 - HD Cam), this film actually looked like it was captured on celluloid. Needless to say, as an owner of a 5D Mark II, 7D, and 550D (T2i) I feel like I have the tools to make a masterpiece now.

[Soeren Mueller]

Have you guys seen "I Melt with You" by Mark Pellington yet? It's sort of an either love it or hate it movie.. I loved it ;) (of course no movie is without flaws) ... but I was totally puzzled once I realized it was shot on 5D & 7D only!
At first it totally looked like film.. but then I recognized some rolling shutter here and there and thought it was shot on RED... and then I catched a glimpse of moire here and there on sceneric wide shots and it sort of hit me...

At least for me this was the first movie where the "cheapo" cameras didn't pull me out of the story at all... nicely done...

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

Or the FS100 or AF100/101

There doesn't seem to be much point anymore of using a DSLR for projects with commercial potential.

Well... there are some advantages to DSLRs, besides the obvious smaller form factor:

- the hacked GH2 has more rez then either the AF/FS100...

- The Mark II is still the only real option for a full frame camera (of course, that will change as soon as the D800 and 1XD hit, which should be in the next 60 days).

- the AF100 notoriously hard to "dial in," and handles highlights poorly, while the FS100 doesn't have a proper view finder or built-in ND filters and generally speaking is the most fragile camera.

- The AF100 won't let you "push-in" digitally to achieve focus with 3rd party glass (which you can do with the Canon DSLRs). That's a huge omission.

- The AF100's smaller sensor means that it's not quite as keen in low light as DSLRs (however the FS100 is amazing in this regard).

- Neither the FS100 or AF100 is a rugged as something like a 7D. Generally speaking, DSLRs are going to be quite a bit more tough, as they're first purpose is to be dragged all around the world by photographers.

- Neither the AF or FS mount has lots of native glass to choose from. Worse, neither can be used for any other mounting system - meaning, you're almost certainly going to have to buy lens adapters.

- On the other end of the spectrum, there are hundreds of native lenses for either Nikon or Canon mounts. The Nikons can be used on virtually every other large chip cameras ever made, while the Canon will fit on any mount except Nikon bodies. Not such a big factor if you're renting the body and glass, but it is a big deal if you're investing in glass.

- Cost. The FS100 is $4,700 with a $300 rebate (which ends at the end of the month); the AF100 is $3,850 with their rebate (which ends at the end of March). You can get a brand new Mark II for $2,000 if you look around. Heck, you can get a T2i for $550 - an amazing deal really.

None of the above are deal breakers per se, but it certainly gives some reason to weigh all the options. I've been patiently waiting for the Mark III to be announced (as opposed to buying either the AF or FS100), as I have a lot of Canon glass and generally speaking, I like the smaller form factor...

But if I don't hear something positive from Canon soon (and for me, 3 new lenses plus the $16,000 C300/$6,800 1DX don't get it done), I will likely be picking up a FS or AF100.

[Jeff Troiano]

All Valid and excellent points. I too was waiting for the Mk III, but grew tired of waiting. I picked up the FS100 (and love it), and now I'm happy that a company has come out with a smart adapter for the emount, that allows electronic control of the aperture, use of image stabilization, and I believe electronic manual control of focusing, but no auto focus (which Im not interested in anyways). As soon as more are in stock, I will be picking one up, and adding more Cannon glass to my collection. Im still interested in a MK III, and will probably pick one up, when released.

Sony NEX System : Canon EF Lens to Sony NEX Smart Adapter

[John Vincent]

I love the imagines the FS100 produces - clean, nice grain structure at higher gain, and great low light performance...

I hate the form factor though - a plastic brick w/o a handle or viewfinder and lots of little buttons. I tend to be extremely tough on my gear - and I've never had a camera I didn't drop at least once. The FS100 looks like it would die after about a month with me.

The AF100 on the other hand looks quite robust... but I'm not in love with the micro 4/3s sensor, and I've yet to see any footage that made me say "Wow!" Good solid footage yes, but nothing as jaw dropping as the low light yumminess of the FS100, or the creamy/dreamy quality of the Mark II at it's best.

For my purposes, no 8 bit, 4:2:0 sub 50Mbps internal recording camcorder is worth $5 grand - or even $4 grand. The Canon XF100 records 4:2:2 50Mbps, costs $3,000 - and comes with a built-in lens to boot. Granted, the AF100 is dropping in price, but it's still priced about a grand more than it's actually worth.

[Charles Papert]

Saw "Act of Valor" last night.

I think it will do very well as it will appeal heavily to the young male demographic. It's a well-made film. All the more impressive considering that the Seals are all the real deal and not actors.

Overall the film looks amazing. Shane is an extremely talented DP and he rewrote the playbook on this one. There are many uses of "first-person shooter" techniques that are sure to thrill the videogamers. It certainly places you inside the action. We talked last night about it and he pointed out that he made sure to include wider coverage that set up the geography, as opposed to the Michael Bay super-tight, super-fast cut style of action shooting that tends to leave one baffled as to what is actually going on.

Does the 5D footage hold up? To the critical eye, everything we know about the shortcomings of these cameras can be found in this film. Limited dynamic range, hard lines between bright and dark areas, "plastic" flesh tone rendition (compared to the 35mm film footage), rolling shutter (one night exterior walk and talk has a lot of hot highlights in the background that are distractingly jello'd)--you name it, they are here. Is it distracting? Rarely. Most viewers will be unaware. Initially, the concept was just to shoot the ops on the 5D and all of the storyline on 35mm, but that slowly shifted over the course of the shooting schedule (which was long and sporadic, based on the Seal's ops and other factors). I think that probably some of the storyline scenes should have remained on film as there is more of an opportunity to scrutinize the frame and find issues, and the 5D doesn't really lend anything to the shooting style. Although--I myself was happy to shoot with that camera instead of the Panaflex on one Steadicam scene (which didn't make the final cut) that required me to do a long walk and talk down a ramp onboard the aircraft carrier over dozens of takes--much nicer to do so with the lightweight rig!

During the ops, it's extremely obvious how the 5D made certain shots possible that would never be attained with a film camera, and it's here that it all makes sense, and is truly triumphant.

Having been a small part of the production and knowing what these guys went through (tiny crews and grueling circumstances), the film looks huge and expensive and epic. It simply wasn't, and that should be inspirational to all indie filmmakers.

Interested to see what you guys think.