looks good. though can i ask if you used any steady/glide rig cause you can kinda tell which clips were hand held and which were fixed. good stuff though.

Impressive shots. The GH1 is very capable.

720p or 1080 24p?

What lens for the low light shots?

Any issues with the camera on fast motion shots, i.e. 'mud' break up?

I know you used zeiss ultra or master primes but which ones? 21,35mm, 50, 85? It seems almost always the same but different camera distances...

Cool! I will look for more primes

You could do a sequel to Slumdog Millionaire with that actor

Was the film shot in 1080/24 or 720/60???

The movie was shot at 1080/24. We used a set Dalsa Digital lens: 19, 24, 35, 50, 85, 100, 180mm. Yes, we used a steadicam rig. We also shot in handheld mode. Bright red can be of concern and to much fast motion can cause the image to have a ghosting effect.

What did you use to extract the 24 out of the 1080i/60 wrapper?

CineForm

Augusto the lens were built for specifically for Dalsa Digital, a high end digital cinema company that recently closed shop. Their cameras and lens were used on big studio movies such as the latest Bond movie, Quantum of Solace. Yes, we did use all our primes.

Some dark shots, but overall very nice. It's rare to see a trailer that actually explains a story chronologically anymore.

I loved it and saved it. (Now my wait for the GH1 is over two months!!!)

This is awesome! Hey Liam, how did you handle audio? Was it recorded separately? Well I'm sure you did, but could you give us any details?

So cool, can't wait to see more! :)

Despite using new technology like the GH1, I went old school with the audio. I used a double sync system. We used the camera's on board mic as a scratch track for syncing dailies. Friends suggested trying to jam sync a timecode device to the camera's audio in port in order to use a timecode slate, but we simply used a clapper and aligned the audio in post. Time consuming yes, but cheap and it works. The sound mixer/boom operator recorded to a digital hard drive recorder (sorry I can't recall the model number). Each night those files were downloaded to the D.I.T.'s hard drive and all the digital files (sound & picture) were backed up three times (one shuttle drive to the editor, one on set drive for the D.I.T. station & one safety drive). If you need to go a little more guerrilla, he's a very good option for a recorder - Zoom H4n Handy Portable Digital Recorder.

I am so very glad for being able to watch this trailer, thank you, Liam! We are also planning a feature shoot this winter for TV, and I was thinking of leaving the usual film acquisition (S16) behind and move on to video, maybe cine-DSLR. However, having seen my share of catastrophic judder, jello, and skew when using a CMOS sensor camera w. the rolling shutter, I sort of feel that one probably cannot make a proper MOVING picture with video gear using CMOS sensor coupled with a rolling shutter. The very first shot of the trailer already exhibited this, followed by the guards running up the stairs at :20, the lady walking into the bldg @ 1:15, and the alley escape of the film's lead at 1:58.

The filmmakers here have obviously invested a lot of talent, time, money, and energy into this great-looking movie. And they rightly thought that making it with a relatively inexpensive $1,500 camera and an expensive set of PL-mount prime lens will be sufficient enough for overall quality, perhaps even for TV broadcast.

But the colors are superb and the resolution is amazing -- you can immediately tell that this material was not shot with that tiny-sensor HPX-300 Panny. Too bad the CMOS and rolling shutter combo sort of kills the faster moving images. We sort of deducted already before seeing this trailer that a CMOS sensor video camcorder or HD-DSLR is not appropriate for any fast-paced chase sequences.

BTW, re. the Panny vs. Canon Cine-DSLR debate, we would use an external 8.4-inch LCD monitor on the rig for focus and framing, so the EOS 5D2's active HDMI output (and input to the ext. monitor) is 100% required. That would exclude the GH1, unfortunately, as I understand it does not have a live view signal output for an external monitor, correct?

I also heard that Nikon is coming out with some new HD-DSLRs that can do a little more than their two, rather lame current offerings.

With respect to optics, we use fixed-focal lenses only in a real bind, otherwise it is zooms all the way, especially the ultra-wide zooms. One reason for us to use an HD-DSLR to shoot video with would be to use the wide selection of excellent and amazingly inexpensive Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. DSLR lenses. I would feel rather foolish using a $35,000 PL-mount lens on a thousand dollar camera body, for instance. We probably shoot the fight and chase sequences on S16 or 2-perf 35mm film, and use Cine-DSLRs for less critical portions, like when there is very little movement by the camera, and no fast anything either by the camera or the actors. No traveling shots, those would have to be on film. Hopefully, this will help to reduce or close to eliminate jello, skew, shakes, wobble, etc.

But the great thing in today's filmmaking is, no two projects are shot exactly alike any more. The new rule is -- there are no rules. ;-))

Bunkofurko-

First of all you ranted about about half a dozen things that aren't true, and you totally miss the point of what Liam and his team are doing.

Let's go point by point.... at :20 and 1:15 these shots are HAND HELD, they are not exhibiting any noticeable rolling shutter effect. 1:58 does, but only for a tiny fraction of a second and during a whip pan! This is to be expected with this kind of rapid movement. It doesn't occur anywhere else in this trailer.

When you said "I sort of feel that one probably cannot make a proper MOVING picture with video gear using CMOS sensor coupled with a rolling shutter."

Then you are saying that over 100 major motion pictures INCLUDING many action films are actually technically improper??? Let me just list the movies off the top of my head, like "The Bank Job", "RocknRolla", "Crank 2: High Voltage", "Knowing" and let's not forget THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING FEATURE FOR BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY ---- SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE!

ALL MOVIES SHOT ON CAMERAS WITH ROLLING SHUTTERS!

You said "we would use an external 8.4-inch LCD monitor on the rig for focus and framing, so the EOS 5D2's active HDMI output (and input to the ext. monitor) is 100% required."

100% required according to YOU. Not 100% of filmmakers working today. Don't forget that a video tap didn't even become commonplace in Hollywood until the mid 1980s. Before that time is was considered a LUXURY. Last time I checked movies has been made for over 65-years before a "live video output" was even invented.

You said "With respect to optics, we use fixed-focal lenses only in a real bind, otherwise it is zooms all the way, especially the ultra-wide zooms."

Then you really don't know much about optics. Equivalent primes produce a better image than zooms- ALWAYS, they also weigh less and cost less.

You said "One reason for us to use an HD-DSLR to shoot video with would be to use the wide selection of excellent and amazingly inexpensive Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc. DSLR lenses. I would feel rather foolish using a $35,000 PL-mount lens on a thousand dollar camera body, for instance."

If you really feel this way you should feel foolish. I'm sorry- you are both an internet troll, and a fool.

If you think that shooting on DSLR lenses are IN ANY WAY superior cinema lenses than you have obviously never worked hands-on with cinema lenses, and you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

You said "We probably shoot the fight and chase sequences on S16 or 2-perf 35mm film, and use Cine-DSLRs for less critical portions"

Please tell me all about your 2-perf experience and expertise- don't leave any steps out of your post workflow. Explain to me how you are going to intercut your 2-perf with Canon 30p DSLR material, shot with your only monitor being the external monitor and a $500 super wide zoom lenses. This should be entertaining....

You said "there are no rules. ;-)"

OMG Really? If you want something to look good, there are a LOT of rules. Your criteria of "quality" and scenarios for work consideration outlined above are laughable to pros.

Maybe you should troll somewhere else. Or at least stop speaking beyond your level of knowledge. You can always try a student forum and get some help.

Thanks for the in-depth discourse, Jesse. Although I have been involved in filmmaking for over three decades now, one is never too old to learn new tricks, obviously. Also obviosuly, there is no need for name-calling. And like I mentioned at the end of my own comment, the fact is that hardly anybody is ever WRONG in this exciting & ever-changing field. Everybody is doing things somewhat differently, and passions can run high in defendingg one's particular technical or artistic approach. But that does not mean that everyone else is stupid or crazy who is doing things differently, right?

Re. "Rejouer," based on the downloaded trailer, I would say that using the HD-DSLR was appropriate for some parts, whereas for other parts -- whenever there was any faster-than-normal movement by the camera and/or talent, they should have used something else other than a CMOS camera w. the notorious rolling shutter.

As far as what Liam and his team were doing... I had thought that they made an independent feature-length film using the Panasionic GH1 as their primary camera. What else did I miss, I wonder?

I am so glad to learn from you, Jesse, that CMOS cameras with rolling shutters do not, in fact, exhibit rolling shuter related problems. It must be my mistake, rolling shutter artifacts must therefore occur only with CCD video cameras and motion picture film cameras, correct?

Yes, there have been many films shot with CMOS+rolling shutter cameras. As you know, some of these cameras cost up to $250,000 for the body alone, and thus are not exactly in the same product category as a $1,500 Panasonic GH1 would be (including the price of a 10x zoom lens).

Also, most if not all of the films you have cited, perhaps w. the exception of 'The Bank Job," used traditional film cameras as well for certain segments. Whatever is most appropriate for the particular material to be captured, I believe.

BTW, Panasonic had released this informative video about all the serious shortfalls of CMOS sensor and rolling shutters, and the desperate work-arounds that they suggest people should do about it. Like tilt the camera one way to "compenste" for the bent vertical lines in a pan. Like spending up to 180 seconds (i.e. 3 full minutes!!!!) for a 90-degree pan. And like composing the image so the BG is not visible. Unfortunately, even if you end up adopting all of the Panny recommendations to reduce the artifacts, the end result -- a short clip at the end of the how-to video -- is still less than convincing. Check it out!

panasonic.com/business/provideo/flv/rhc_vids.asp?video=vid9

Rearding the "live video tap" issue, yeah I think we first used a B&W tap on an Arri back in the late 90s. What you don't seem to understand, however, is that all Cine-DSLRs have a "video tap." Called "Live View." Take the GH1 as an example. It's video tap is the tiny, app. 3-inch diagonal flip-out screen that apparently was used to follow-focus and compose the image in "Rejouer." Right? If you believe that the "industry standard" for production on-camera LCD monitors should be capped at 3-inch size, fine, that is your opnion. But most serious DPs would shun that idea, opting for a larger monitor. Also, keep in mind that with all film cameras and with some video cameras as well, you also have something quite useful known as an "optical viewfinder," which something that the GH1 does not even have.

You are right, though, that no 8.4-inc LCD is "required." But still, something larger than the tiny built-in LCD screens would be most useful indeed, no?

"Equivalent primes produce a better image than zooms- ALWAYS, they also weigh less and cost less."

Not in my experience, Jesse. For starters, I don't see how any prime, i.e. fixed-focal lens can ever be "equivalent" to any varifocal or variofocal or zoom lens? Especially, since a varifocal/zoom lens can be considered compsoed of an almost infinite number of fixed-focal length primes.

Next, some of the 35mm primes weigh in at over 10 pounds each, so pound by pound or kg by kg, they can be rather "heavy duty" as well.

Primes cost MORE than zooms, not less. Where did you come up with that one, Friend? Now, if you would want to shoot your next 'ben Hur 2" with only a single prime lens, then yes, that would cost you probably elss money to buy/rent than if you had picked a single varifocal zoom lens instead. However, once you pick TWO prime optics, or especially three, then the total cost of these will most likely surpass that of a zoom lens.

Finally, re. producing a "better image," just what is that, exactly? If you shoot at 1080p and use sharper-than-zoom primes, your final image may be a tad "too sharp" for some folks. Especially on a small screen -- unless you really want to see every single pimple and nose hair in a CU. We had found that a zoom lens is wonderful in softening ever so slightly the sometime brutally sharp and unforgiving image that some of these HD video cameras produce with these types of lenses.

I have encountered no problem in using unfocal primes on film cameras, however. The results can be very pleasing, indeed.

Also, I never heard of a single finsihed movie that did NOT sell because the DP decided to use a Japanese or British or French made zoom lens instead of a set of ultra-expensive German primes.

"If you think that shooting on DSLR lenses are IN ANY WAY superior cinema lenses than you have obviously never worked hands-on with cinema lenses..." I am not quite udnerstand what you are saying here, Jesse. Which one is "superior?"

Until recently, the rage was to spend thousands or tens of thousands of dolalrs on a "DOF adapter," put it on a cheap consumer or prosumer 1/3-inch or 1/4-inch or even 1/6-inch camcorder, then affix to it some 35mm lenses. Talking about a Frankensteinian contraption, for sure.

Jesse, it you really don't see how affixing a $20K to $35 lens onto a $1,000 or thereabouts camera body is NOT a gross mismatch of components, well let me not be the one to try to explain this to you. But if you recently went through the cinematography track at AFI, NYU, Columbia, USC, UCLA, etc films chools, I think you would have picked up something along these lines, surely.

With regard to "my" 2-perf experience, so far that includes only one film that was shot in this format in the 1970s (I was camera asst. at the time). But today, the wonderful new Aaton Penelope is ready to recruits new users of 2-perf 35mm, especially that at least two post houses in NYC can now do 2-perf film scans to DPX. This is a very good option if you shoot at 2.39:1 AR. For 1.85:1 or less, S16 is still a great alternative.

Note, Jesse, that most of the film cameras of today come with either an Arri PL-mount or a Panavision-mount, so your bold suggestion of using a $500 SLR or DSLR lens on a S16 or 35mm film camera will probably fall on deaf ears by most seasoned DPs. Why, is that what you guys are doing?

I also do not want to elaborate here on how one can intercut scenes shot with a film camera with scenes shot with a video camcorder or DSLR. Safe to say, it is quite possible and is being done all the time. You can usually learn about these techniques in film school, actually.

If you shoot for televisioon, like we do, you would be best to run your film camera at 25fps if you are primarily working form the PAL and SECAM markets, and run it at 30fps (29.97) if you are in NTSC/ATSC countries. Yes, you will be burning up more raw stock, but the results, especially in an action flick, will be much more agreeable on the screen.

Of course, if monetary savings are of paramount concern, you can also shoot at 18fps (the Super 8mm film standard recording speed) or even at 16fps (the normal 8mm film's standard recording speed). You'll save a bundle that way! :~))

Anyhow, to wrap-up with "Rejouer" here.... I am sure that for Internet-only viewing and for the festical curcuit, and even for a limited DVD or possibly BD release, the technical problems evidenced by using the Panny DSLR as the camera would be acceptable. I just don't see how a serious TV network in the US or elsewhere would be able to broadcast this particular film, at least acording to the visual qualiy present in the downloaded trailer. But mircales do happen, you know... :~))

Sorry, Jesse, I thought I had responded to your comments earlier today, and it was up here for awhile, then now it's simply gone. Strange....

CMOS sensor + rolling shutter artifacts are really nasty, and they can occur irrespective whether you hand-hold the camera, have it on a gyro stabilizer, crane, jib, etc. Or even on a furniture mover's dolly. Right?

You can shoot some scenes perfectly okay with CMOS cameras w. the notorious rolling shutters... whereas other scenes should not even be considered to be okay captured that way. I think perhaps you should check web sites such as this one and YouTube.com or zacuto.com. Just type in "rolling shutter," and you'll be surprised about what you see. Nasty stuiff, definitely.

Meanwhile, you may wish to read some of the comments left right here. I guess you had not seen anything wrong in the trailer -- but others certainly have, see?

Re. the ext. LCD monitors, yes indeed, you do not need one that is 8.4-inches diagonally. You just need something a bit larger and much better than that little flimsy flip-out 3-incher that the GH1 comes with, you see.... That thing should really just be a back-up monitor, not the primary.

Moving on to optics, a "cinema lens," as you call it, is probably a lens used on cine cameras. Right? Now, you could certainly put an ultra-expensive cine lens on a really cheap digital photo camera, but believe you me, the result will not look nearly as good as if you had used the same exact lens on an Arri or Aaton or Movicam or Panavision film camera. Really, it would not be. It is sort of a huge overkill, in fact.

With respect to my 2-perf experience, this took place way back in the 1970s, when I was camera assistant and loader on a scope shoot using spherical lenses. It was amazing to me that the same camera toll lasted for almost 10 minutes that would be used up with 4-perf at half the time. My own job was cut in half -- every mag I loaded basically lasted twice as long, see? Flash forward to 2009, the Aaton Penelope is now brining back this wonderful technique for those in the know -- and can afford to shoot on 35mm film, see?

BTW, Jesse -- what is your own "2-perf experience" like?

With respect to what can be intercut on the timeline, basically everything. If you are a Hallmark Channel or Playboy Channel prod, you can even shoot on film right at 30fps, since you are going to broadcast at that rate (well, 29.97) anyhow. There is not much use for 24fps in the digital world any more, surely -- unless you just must see motion artifacts to get that coveted "cinema effect."

Hope this helps.

Hmm... Ok bunkofurko, I'm happy to give you a correcting once more.

You may be right that "that hardly anybody is ever WRONG n this exciting & ever-changing field." And that is only because in the final stages when mistakes are made, even the unintentional ones, they are justified as the subjective "look" that was desired.

bunkofurko wrote "I am so glad to learn from you, Jesse, that CMOS cameras with rolling shutters do not, in fact, exhibit rolling shuter related problems."

Not what I wrote.... What I wrote was in response to what you said... "I sort of feel that one probably cannot make a proper MOVING picture with video gear using CMOS sensor coupled with a rolling shutter."

Please re-read what I said....

"Then you are saying that over 100 major motion pictures INCLUDING many action films are actually technically improper??? Let me just list the movies off the top of my head, like "The Bank Job", "RocknRolla", "Crank 2: High Voltage", "Knowing" and let's not forget THE ACADEMY AWARD WINNING FEATURE FOR BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY ---- SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE! "

I think what I wrote stands for itself. Your attempt to put other words in my mouth has failed.

bunkofurko wrote "But that does not mean that everyone else is stupid or crazy who is doing things differently, right?"

I did call you crazy, and I stand by that. I NEVER called you stupid. As I said some people do things WRONG, and then try to justify it later.

bunkofurko wrote "As you know, some of these cameras cost up to $250,000 for the body alone, and thus are not exactly in the same product category as a $1,500 Panasonic GH1"

Actually these days they are. Letters from Iwa Jima, made extensive use of HDV cameras intercut with 35mm film. I'd say that every HDV camera out there right now is making images inferior to the GH1.

As for a product category- I would say that ANY camera used to shoot the images that you are watching next to another camera regardless of wildly different price, if intercut are fair game. Maybe you should take a look at this vimeo.com/5981422

bunkofurko wrote "Also, most if not all of the films you have cited, perhaps w. the exception of 'The Bank Job," used traditional film cameras as well for certain segments. Whatever is most appropriate for the particular material to be captured"

Not so. As a reader of AC, ICG and others, I can report that with the exception of Slumdog (which used a minority of film- about 30%) most used very little or none, such as Crank 2.

bunkofurko wrote "BTW, Panasonic had released this informative video about all the serious shortfalls of CMOS sensor and rolling shutters".

So? Plenty of helpful information for the that HPX300 customer. The HPX300 has the MOST rolling shutter skew of any ENG camera on the market right now. Many ENG shooters who can't always rehearse their shots have deemed the HPX300 UNACCEPTABLE. This video is a desperate attempt to remove those (understandable) fears. Regardless this is a non-sequitur to this conversation, as I thought we were talking about filmmaking and not ENG shooting.

bunkofurko wrote "For starters, I don't see how any prime, i.e. fixed-focal lens can ever be "equivalent" to any varifocal or variofocal or zoom lens?"

This is why correcting people speaking beyond their experience on the internet can be so frustrating- I can only lead a horse to water, despite my best efforts you may NEVER understand. It seems to be first rule of trolling. For the record- there is VAST conventional wisdom in this situation. I typed into google "primes image quality vs zooms" here is the link to the first result-

digital-photography-school.com/prime-vs-zoom-lenses-which-are-best

I would much rather just point you to others who have done it already- take a look at a very fair and balance primes vs zooms discussion here. You will see that in regards that matter for MOTION PICTURE production primes produce a "better" image. This is 101 stuff, that has is in photography schools around the world.

bunkofurko wrote "Primes cost MORE than zooms, not less. Where did you come up with that one, Friend?

Umm... EVERYWHERE, in umm any PROFESSIONAL CINEMA ENVIRONMENT.

A simple example 15-40 Angenieux is about $50K to purchase and about $550/day to rent. A great lens to be sure! However, as set of Zeiss primes that are faster smaller and lighter on the camera, cost is about $30K for a set and rent between $250-$300 in Los Angeles, plus you get a selection of focal lengths. Storage and weight of unused lenses are not an issue, because we are talking about FILMMAKING, not a one-man-band wedding photographer.

It exhausting trying to correct every detail... pleas just do some more reading on-line, I know you don't like hearing that you're wrong, but I just don't know how else to say it.

bunkofurko wrote "your final image may be a tad "too sharp" for some folks. Especially on a small screen "

Stop, stop, stop. You have this in reverse. The issue is about too sharp or too soft on a big screen. I can show you Lawrence of Arabia on a 9" DVD player and a 90' projection screen, and place your eyes at the equivalent viewing experience distance. You are not NEVER going to look at the DVD and say...'oh too sharp.'

bunkofurko wrote "you really don't see how affixing a $20K to $35 lens onto a $1,000 or thereabouts camera body is NOT a gross mismatch of components"

OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. You reinforce this everytime you say something else. You have never pulled focus on a still camera lens! Even with the clever attachments that have been release in recent years, the process sucks. The barrel doesn't move far enough, the direction is usually wrong, and the DISTANCE MARKS ARE ON THE TOP OF THE LENS and the actual DISTANCES LISTED ARE NOT ACCURATE FOR ANY KIND OF PROFESSIONAL USE. It does no good for any filmmaker to have to redo shots because of missed focus. Nothing is more frustrating for a director, dp, or talent than blown focus on a perfect take. There's almost nothing visually more distracting than the reverse shot being wildly out of focus.

I just checked and I have 25 union camera assistants programmed in my cell phone; ZERO, I repeat ZERO would rather pull focus on a still camera lens... wait...what was that number Z E R O.

bunkofurko wrote "But if you recently went through the cinematography track at AFI, NYU, Columbia, USC, UCLA, etc films chools, I think you would have picked up something along these lines, surely."

I think it's really funny you said this- I have actually been a guest lecturer, naturally, in cinematography in THREE of those universities, and others you've probably read about.

bunkofurko wrote "run it at 30fps (29.97) if you are in NTSC/ATSC countries. "

Please stop. You are so very wrong. Shoot 24fps with film, the telecine adds pulldown. Do not shoot film at 29.97 to match 23.98 HD. This is a huge mistake, and if you tried this while shooting a studio movie in the U.S. you would be fired.

bunkofurko wrote "I just don't see how a serious TV network in the US or elsewhere would be able to broadcast this particular film, at least acording to the visual qualiy present in the downloaded trailer."

You are on crack. The download file is less than 90MB, and 1280 x 720. Like every HD file on Vimeo- this trailer was OBVIOUSLY re-compress. Knowing VIMEO's submission requirements, the files has been compressed and recompress, probably THREE generations from what the filmmakers are are working with. YOU CAN NOT JUDGE INTRINSIC QUALITY FROM VIMEO. Let me repeats this YOU CAN NOT JUDGE INTRINSIC QUALITY FROM VIMEO!

This is why I hope no one takes your comments seriously. With each opinion you post, you actually make yourself sound worse and worse. I recommend you quit while you are only 1000 points behind, you are not helping your plight right now.

Thanks, Jesse, I sort of knew that was coming... :~))

Yes, there have been mistakes made. The biggest recent one being the onslaught of the cheaply built CMOS sensor coupled with the rolling shutters. If everyone would vote on the desirability of this technology, I suppose there would not be many CMOS sensor video cameras, D-film cameras, and DSLRs being sold.

Yes, of course, CMOS sensor do have distinct advantages over CCDs, nobody is denying that fact. However, when all chips are down, the hideous line banding, skew, jello, wobble, bent lines, etc characteristics of the ridiculous rolling shutter technology should prevent most folks from buying into the CMOS+rolling shutter racket. The fact that they do not can be easily explained in monetary terms -- CMOS gear is generally cheaper to acquire.

The joke is getting a little thick with the pricier D-film cameras that also sport CMOS and rolling shutters. For me, it would be hard to explain to anyone why I insist on spending to money to buy into the rolling shutter artifacts mayhem, you see?

You seem to be defending the CMOS+rolling shutter onslaught on the merit of "Slumdog," and on that wholly unwatchable garbage called "Quantum of Solace." At this token and line of reasoning, sending US troops to Iraq and Afghanistan was also a great idea, because we did the same thing in WWII in Europe and the Pacific.

Yeah, if you don't mind watching these artifacts and getting a giant headache in the process, by all means, shoot everything in sight with a CMOS camera using rolling shutter, and nothing else. Just don't expect that you are going to be selling your finished product to the same exhibition markets where, for instance, 35mm film acquired productions are heading. You want it done cheap, you have to scale down your expectations. There is no such thing as a free lunch, you know.

"I'd say that every HDV camera out there right now is making images inferior to the GH1."

MY TAKE: That depends. If it is a CMOS camera, that is absolutely right. But if it is a CCD camera with a global shutter, then your statement may not be universally true. Anyhow, I really don't want to be dragged down into the gutter here, talking about 1/3-inch sensor HDV Long-GOP camcorders of yesteryear, if you do not mind. ;~)

vimeo.com/5981422, I must say, Jesse, this was one of the worst "comparisons" I have ever seen in my life. All you could see are some underexposed shots, this is really not a test of comparing three cameras against each other. For that to occur, you usually shoot the same exact thing with all three cameras. Anyhow, you are comparing a large sensor CMOS video camera to two large sensor CMOS HD-DSLRs, no big shake either way. For instance, folks who have spent tens of thousands of dollars on Red One gear will NEVER admit that the little an ultra-cheap Canon and Panny Cine-DSLR can do as good of an image capture, maybe even better, than the over-hyped and underperforming Red contraption can. Follow me here?

I am not following your comments re. the Panny HPX300, either. That is a video camera -- but it has got nothing to do with "filmmaking?" But a digital photography camera that happens to be able to shoot at 24 or 30 frames per second -- that one has everything to do with filmmaking? Or what the heck are you saying, Man? I never heard that a video camcorder cannot be used to make indie movies, and that only HD-DSLRs can be employed for this purpose. I guess there is something new to learn from you by all of us this fine summer, hmm?

Regarding the use of unifocal lenses versus varifocal lenses, if money is an issue, I agree with you that you should stick with the unifocal "prime" lenses. But once you are able to afford to purchase or rent a so-called varifocal or variofocal or zoom lens of sufficient quality, there is no going back to the 1890s area of simpleton fixed-focal lenses, you see? ;-))

I am not sure what you might be calling a "better image," anyhow? Better for whom -- you? If you had watched the HBO miniseries "John Adams," you'd know that in-your-face primes can sometime have undesirable effects, especially in extreme CUs. And that thing was shot on 35mm film, I believe. Combining 1080-line digital acquisition with ultra-sharp prime lenses and especially with human face CUs would give ME a most undesirable, brutal, harsh image. I would either need to soften that up with the use of a filter or perhaps stocking pulled over the lens' front element, or else use a zoom lens, that takes just the right amount of harshness off of the captured image to make in more palatable for most viewers. But again, if all you've got are unifocal primes, you have to work with them the best you can, I suppose.

Re. the 15-40 Angenieux, yes I am familiar with it. That one has a 2.66:1 zoom ratio, so in the world of real zooms with 10x and larger magnification (zoom range), that ain't much to speak of for $50,000, eh? Heck, I guess a deep pocketed fool is being born every minute, hmm? ;-)

A new set of Zeiss Ultra Primes costs right at $100,000 over here in the East Coast, so if you can indeed get the same exact set of lenses for only a bargain price of $30K in Los Angeles, you are saving some $70,000 in the process! Now, that's what I would call a "good deal," Jesse! Go for it, Man!!!

Re. "viewing distances" and how image sharpness can be a negative when that becomes too harsh, did it ever occur to you, Jesse, than you would be sitting farther away from a 90 feet cinema screen than you would be from a 9-inch LCD screen to get the comparable viewing experience? Think about it for a second, and why wouldn't you, really?

"You have never pulled focus on a still camera lens!"

MY TAKE: If YOU say so. But come to think of it... probably nobody had ever done that in the history of the world, either, hmmm? But hey -- don't let me stop you or even slow you down, Jesse, as you are obviously on a (blind) roll here, Buddy.

With regards to shots being out of focus -- well, in this business, you have to live with it. Over the years, I must have seen thousands of feet of soft-focus or OOF footage done by really pro camera crews. Including at least one crew where the DP was an ASC member. Soft focus. And out of focus. Really. And none of that was shot using an SLR lens, BTW.

Also, I hope you are not suggesting that the way to get the proper subject distance is by shining a laser beam from a Home Depot laser distance measuring tool onto the face of the actor, as is demonstrated in the "behind the scenes" clip here?

You are complaining about everything but the kitchen sink re. lenses, Jesse. That bad, hmmm!? Let's see now.... "the barrel doesn't move far enough." Are you talking about the 90-degree focal turn vs. 220 to 270 degrees? I guess you never heard of them newfangled DSLR lenses with which the focus barrel can turn more than 90 degrees or so, hmm?

"The direction is usually wrong." Nonsense. The direction is never "wrong." Some lenses you turn left to go to infinity. And some you turn right. There is no "right way" and "wrong way," just different way. I guess you never drove on the vehicle on the left (i.e. "wrong") side of a motorway anywhere, either?

"DISTANCE MARKS ARE ON THE TOP OF THE LENS and the actual DISTANCES LISTED ARE NOT ACCURATE FOR ANY KIND OF PROFESSIONAL USE."

MY TAKE: Ain't life a regular bitch, though? I bet that your own private posse of "25 UNION camera assistants" (ha-ha-ha-ha) would readily agree, hmmm!?

"I have actually been a guest lecturer, naturally, in cinematography in THREE of those universities."

MY TAKE: Good to know. So, you must be an ASC member as well. BTW, you must then lectured on both US coasts, right? I mean... since I happened to mention TWO East Coast universities, TWO West Cost universities, and ONE West Coast institute. And the fact that you had lectured at THREE UNIVERSITIES out of this five-strong list. Right? Right. You are definitely bi-coastal if nothing else, I must say that. So funny... :~)

"Shoot 24fps with film, the telecine adds pulldown. Do not shoot film at 29.97 to match 23.98 HD. This is a huge mistake, and if you tried this while shooting a studio movie in the U.S. you would be fired."

MY TAKE: Nonsense, Sire. You are talking stale techno-garbage again, Friend.

For starters, telecine does not automatically "ADD pulldown" -- where did you come up with that fantasy? You can do a 3:2 if you want to, but for instance if you shoot at 24fps and your outlet would be RTL or ZDF in Germany, you would need a 25fps version, not a 29.97 one.

Also, I am not sure if you had heard of this latest development, Jesse -- but "telecine" is sort of D-E-A-D. It's called "film scanning" these days, and you can do this at HD, 2K, 3K, 4K resolutions. Film to computer files -- in one swift move. Previously known as "datacine." Telecine to tape = sort of dead, you know. Like I just said.

I knew many projects that shot for NTSC SD with 35mm and 16mm film cameras at 29.97fps, BTW -- but hey, if you say that it has never been done, I guess it must be so, too. I am not sure who would be firing whom, BTW? Like maybe the TV network that told the producer who in turn told his/her DP to shoot the sucker at 29.97? Oh, well... whatever.

"The download file is less than 90MB, and 1280 x 720."

MY RELATED QUESTION: Yes, it is, Friend. So what? I mean.... do you really telling us, Vimeo's esteemed bloggers and readership, that skew, jello, wobble, bent lines, and flash banding are the direct results of FILE SIZES and RESOLUTION, nothing else? I would have though that the rolling shutter would apply to a 160x120 4:3 AR image just as much as to a 2048x1080 1.85:1 image, hmmm?

I was referring to the DOWNLOADED .MOV file, anyhow, not what you could see by playing straight off of the Vimeo server. And no matter how many times you compress and decompress something, the rolling shutter induced artifacts will NOT get any prettier. Or much worse.

Anyhow, someone with no fewer than 25 UNION!!!!! camera assistants on his/her/its Rollodex, you must know all of these technical things so much better than the rest of poor Mankind. Correct, Jesse? Say it ain't so!

bunkofurko, you change the questions, or rather answers questions un-asked, try to spring "gotchas" on me like declaring the price of Ultra Primes... if you once bothered to check, you would know that Zeiss also sell much less expensive cine lenses, and that I never mentioned the incredibly expensive "Ultra" primes.

You put words in my mouth, bring up movies I never referenced (Quantum of Solace shot on 35mm film by the way) spread mis-information, half-truths, distortions. All the while having contempt for ACTUAL professionals and professionalism, who make movies that actually are seen -->in a theater by a paying audience.

continued...

You're a real piece of work. You can not help but lecture me about technology new or old, which as a veteran professional and educator I find both amusing and insulting at the same time.

Even if you manage to get a simple fact of one of your kitchen-sink topics correct, you continue to get ALL the surrounding details so incredibly WRONG that I think you are nothing but a truly astounding internet troll in every sense of the word. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)

I could go through and pick apart everything you have said yet again, refute your distortions and attempt to make sense of your jumbled logic and non-sequiturs, but I see now that it serves no purpose. It is impossible to rationalize with you- Because you think you know something, and clearly don't. It's why you come off so bad.

I think that after your last post you have sufficiently discredited yourself, and that anyone interested and level-headed enough to pursue salient factual information about any technology that you or I have referenced will actually seek out genuine authorities on the matter. There are well known kind hearted professionals out there willing to help, if one only asks.

My only hope is that people don't read posts like yours and think that self-aggrandizing trolling crack-pots are actually legitimate sources of information.

Jesse, whatever you are blaming me with was unintentional, trust me. Or to put it another way -- none of it ever happened.

And yes, I did notice immediaterly that you had "never mentioned the incredibly expensive "Ultra" primes." I found that rather strange, actually. That would be the only reason to use a unifocal lens in our production -- when you do need to open up to T1.4 for some weird reason. Like when the fuse just blew and you have no light. Zooms just cannot go that low. But short of that, spendintg $30,000 in US currency for a set of ordinary T1.8 or T.19 or T2.0 PRIMES is plain crazy, in my view. But hey, I guess the glass part is like $5,000 total, and the remaining $25,000 is for the coveted PL-mount, hmmm?

But I tell you what, Friend: YOU take the primes and I stick with the zooms, how about that now, Opto-Pardner!? How many of those do YOU have to call your own, I can only begin to wonder....

I understand that YOU had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the Bond flick disaster "Quantum of Solace." So wonderful for you, msot assuredly. Isn;t it, Jesse?

Friend, we have only YOUR WORD to the hard-to-imagine fact that your are an "ACTUAL" film and/or video and/or DSLR "professsional." But hey.... if YOU say so, it must be so. You won't get any argument out of me on that one, Pardner.

It's just I find it somehwat shocking that YOU should know everything under the Sun inside the Solar System -- and that everyone else knows nothing but squat. But so be it, My Dear Jesse "The ACTUAL Pro" Huerell. Say, you say you live in LOS ANGELES, do you now? In the DSLR Capital of the World!? Heck, one would have never guessed this, based on your insighful comments.

Yeah, I certainly would not waste MY MONEY making movies for the theater. Why, is that what YOU do, perhaps? Not much money in it for the producer, you see, unless you are a Clint Eastwood or Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver, don't you see that even, LA Amigo? As for me, I stick with television and home video.

Do you hate me know, really you do?

I suppose you are a "professional" because you have a lot of UNION!!!! production assistants in your Rollodex or mobille phone roster? Or how is that, exactly? Tell us, tell us all, bitte.

BTW, why are you a "veteran" exactly? Because of your age, military service, or...?? As far as lecturing, I thought it was YOU who had stated that you were a lecturer at no less than THREE!!!! Ivy League universities. Oh well, whatever.... It's a Saturday evening, after all. I should get a life, too, hmmm!?

Finally, it is very, very interesting to me how you asked me about my own 2-perf 35mm experience, but when I asked about yours, you had said nothing. Nor have anyone reading your comments learned about any aquipment, camera or otherwise, that YOU YOURSELF might have actually employed on anything. Like ever.

Here is what I think. You must have lectured at Santa Monica Community College or some place like that, been on some shoots as PA or camera assistant whatnot, and now try to convince the entire blog universe of VIMEO -- and probably other sites as well -- that YOU and only YOU know anything and everything, and that everyone else even remotely incvolved with the cinema and world of video must thus be a fraud.

I guess it takes one to know one, hmmm, My Dear Illicit Cine-Comrade!?

BTW, we are to crew-up this November for our next production -- what is your monthly rate? And do you also have an attractive semi-annual rate, Mr. La-La Land Man!?

"I have 25 union camera assistants programmed in my cell phone; ZERO, I repeat ZERO would rather pull focus on a still camera lens."

Jesse, I just wanted to dissect this focus-pulling-for-a-DSLR business for a sec, if I may.

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but making movies with DSLRs is a relatively new business, no. Like maybe it started only six to nine months ago, huh? So.... how come that you yourself have already 25 IATSA blokes there who have worked on movies shot with DSLR cameras AND regular SLR or DSLR still camera lenses? Sounds like a high number, you know... But they all must have done this for you, all two dozen plus one of them, since according to you, they all would much prefer NOT to pull focus on a "still camera lens." Right?

Amazing fact, surely. This takes me to my next question: whatever happened to the DSLR camera operator's LEFT HAND? I mean, a person operating a tiny little ultralight like one of these HD-DSLR jobs could simply use HIS/HER LEFT HAND!!!! and adjust focal setting that way, w. or even w/o a follow focus knob, hmmm?

I mean... using a $1,500 camera to amke an indie movie -- and then pay UNION SCALE!!!! to a focus puller on the thing sort of defeats the idea of low-budget independent filmmaking, in my opinion.

BTW, the many projects you had worked on that ended up in the "theater" -- were all of them shot with Cine-DSLRs using union crews, or were some of them shot using the Panasonic HPX300? Thanx.

Without doubt, It wasn't a Teaser...
It was a very long Feature !!

Looking good. What's the story about?

I think it's about some guys who make a trailer and put it on a site to spur two commenters into writing book-length dissertations about the history of chip imaging

Okay, Michael, guilty as charged. You hit it right on the head. I just hope that our mutal friend Jesse of Hollyweird, California agrees with your humor here. ;-))

Liam Finn, very impressive!
Can you tell me which editing software has been used?
Avid?
And is this software compatible whit the files the GH1 shoots?
Thanks!!

Great filmmaking Liam!

and to throw some water on the fire (or maybe it's gas?) - instead of concentrating on what these new DSLRs CAN'T do, please concentrate on what they can:

1 - Really high quality imaging for an amazing price
2 - The freedom to shoot as many tests, takes and as much coverage as you want without paying for film/developing
3 - A workflow un-encumbered by a legacy of bizarre, proprietary and ancient tech that burdens many video cameras.

These three things mean that filmmakers can make FILMS -they create opportunities that are affordable, creative and have good production values.

These cameras will change, get better, and do it quickly. These cameras (plus their bigger brother the RED) have already put a boot up the a$$ of the Business as Usual school of filmmaking.

Everyone acknowledges these cameras have shortcomings, and that they are not ARRIs or Grass Valley Vipers - but who cares? Concentrate on what they can do, and what filmmakers/photographers/artists are doing with them.

Cheers

andy

Let's not forget about what is, in my opinion, the value of the STORY of a film. The audience, for whom films are ultimately made, DOESN'T CARE about hardware. A lousy story can't be fixed by ultra prime lenses, six-figure cameras and big budgets.

René Borroto

Hi Liam - sorry, what I should have written was "instead of concentrating on what these new DSLRs CAN'T do, all of us should concentrate on what they can" – sorry about that.

I've been watching this convergence for a while now, and am amazed with how fast it's moving - I'm trying to rally still photographers to realize that this is happening, and to concentrate on it being an amazing creative opportunity. I'm also (in a very small way) trying to convince the motion side that the cameras and workflow can be much cleaner and simpler - currently with drawbacks, but it doesn't take much crystal ball gazing to realize that probably at this time next year, the camera industry collectively will be presenting us with new hybrid cine cameras - taking the best parts from existing video cameras and mingling it with the chips and processors from digital still cameras.

This point is going to be a watershed moment for filmmakers of all sorts - if you have a good story, you can make a good movie, not just a good story that looks bad because you couldn't afford a decent camera.

cheers

-andy

Andy, I would love to say that your predicition will happen in the ambitious time frame you are envisioning here, but I am just not so sure.

"At this time next year, the camera industry collectively will be presenting us with new hybrid cine cameras - taking the best parts from existing video cameras and mingling it with the chips and processors from digital still cameras."

Maybe in 3-4 years, if we a re lucky. Until then, the big boys (Panny, Sony, etc) will have too much invested in keeping the status quo with 1/3-inch. 1/2-inch, and 2/3-inch sensor video camcorders, as well as with the much pricier, larger sensor sized D-film cameras.

Then there is also the size of your overall budget. Persoanlly, I would feel rather foolish paying $50K to $100K to my lead talent and then shoot him/her with a $2,000 DSLR. It's just not a good match, pecuniary wise.

I would say the HD-SLRs for the next 2-3-4 years will be used almost exclusively in micro to low budget shoots only. If you are spening more money on a project, say $500K and up, you really need to have better assurances that everything will be pristine and trouble-free. No matter what you shoot with, your finished show will still have to pass some serious QC muster later.

Jesse, Bunko...did you guys consummate the marriage yet? You guys need to make a movie together.

@John Lanford, I am bunkfurko. Now, that sounds like a good idea.

Now, just tell me this: who the heck is "Jesse?" I though he/she/it had long ago retired from the legitimate scene, no? ;-)

I don't think hand held at 1080p works with this camera.. even though the images are nice the jello is too distracting. Maybe try the new jello removal plugin?