Canon EOS 5D Mk. II cameras shoot Act Of Valor

[Chris Hurd]

Most of you are already aware of this due to previous discussions,
but Canon has issued a press release today timed with the opening
of Act Of Valor. More info plus several on-set photos here:

Canon EOS 5D Mark II Digital SLR Cameras Shoot “Act of Valor” at DVInfo.net

Other threads already in progress:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...e-shot-5d.html

...including this one from our own Charles Papert (the hardest working man in show business), who operated on Act Of Valor:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...d-bigtime.html

[Don Parrish]

looks like the seals need a gear update :), but at least canon got their name in there.


http://actofvalor.com/

[Dylan Couper]

Saw it last night.

Worst movie I've seen in the last year, maybe more. I wont go into details but it was OUT OF FOCUS.

The 5D footage ranges from superb to terrible.

I won't even get into how bad the script was (Uve Boll comes to mind), but pretty much guarantee that no film will ever use real soldiers instead of actors again...

Anyone wanting to see a realistic war movie should rent http://restrepothemovie.com/ instead.

[Chris Hurd]

Restrepo was my favorite film of 2010. Got lucky and found a showing in New York; now I own it on DVD.

[Chris Barcellos]

I saw that on HBO, Chris. Fantastic film, I agree. I have posted elsewhere that I thought Act of Valor was pretty good, but also demonstrated some of the issues we had with the 5D in early days.

[John Vincent]

Originally Posted by Dylan Couper

Anyone wanting to see a realistic war movie should rent Home — RESTREPO — A Film by Sebastian Junger & Tim Hetherington instead.

It's currently instant streaming on Netflix for those who want to catch it...

[Chris Hurd]

Shane Hurlbut hosts a Q&A session about the making of "Act of Valor."

See Shooting Act of Valor Q & A | Hurlbut Visuals

[Chris Barcellos]

Nice little interview with Shane Hurlbut.... interesting that in says 70% of film was 5D.. I had thought it was in the 40% range. They really pulled it off pretty well.

Also interesting that the aerials were not shot with 5D. That is consistent with the lack of detail we have all seen in wide panoramic shots.

This film disproves a lot of the doubters about this camera system.

[Evan Donn]

Just saw this last night, what I noticed most about the 5D footage was the inconsistency - there were times I knew I was looking at 5D footage and it was almost indistinguishable from film, a few times it was incredibly bad, and there were shots everywhere in between. I have a feeling that's mostly a reflection of the time it took them to shoot the film though - they were learning and developing the techniques to get the most out of the cameras as they were going, and the camera was evolving along the way as well. I'd guess that starting now, and with a more traditional shooting schedule, it would be entirely possible to produce a film with a consistent look and high enough quality that most of the audience wouldn't notice any shortcomings as long as you have a compelling film otherwise.

[Jon Fairhurst]

As I recall, they shot a lot of it before the 24p, manual exposure firmware update.

Those were exciting times. ;)

[Evan Donn]

There is one short scene where it looks incredibly bad - just two people walking at night. It was clearly shot at 30p and retimed to 24p in post, and very high ISO with heavy noise reduction - things are just smeary and warping and bizarre looking. I assumed as soon as I saw it that it was shot before they could really control things precisely - but it's bad enough that I never would have put it in the film. I assume they simply didn't have the resources or access to go back and re-shoot, but I also don't think there's much chance anyone who knew what they were doing with the 5D today would produce a shot that looked that bad. We've come a long way in a few short years with these cameras.

[Eric Stemen]

I agree Evan that was the only shot I think was really bad in the movie. Nothing else bothered me. I just figured it was a really shaky shot and they weren't using a Steadicam so they tried to smooth cam or stabilize it in post.

[Charles Papert]

I know the shot you guys are referring to. I believe that was Steadicam (not me) but yes, the highlights in the background between the actors are quite distracting.

[Eric Stemen]

Here's a behind the scenes photo of the shot I was talking about.

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/w...ctofvalor1.jpg

It looks like a handheld rig but I could be wrong. What are your thoughts Charles? It looks like he's using a vest so maybe he has a Steadicam type device on, but his hands look really far apart for using a Steadicam style device.

[Jon Fairhurst]

That's the "Man Cam" as Shane called it during a talk at NAB. It's pretty cool. With a handle at the right rear and another at the left front, you pull your hands away from one another and everything feels solid, yet you can use your arms as shock absorbers. I tried a similar cage setup from a different supplier at the tradeshow. It felt really quick and responsive.

I guess it works better when chasing action than when trying to walk backwards smoothly shooting 30p at the best, screwy shutter setting that the camera would deliver back in the auto days. ;)