The trailer, no.

But that wasn't the idea. No one but a geek would care what camera was used.

The DP said he chose the 5D to be able to easier shoot in a tight space with very low lighting.

The 5D easily beats a $200,000 F35 camera in those respects.

And when you need an extremely small DOF, the larger sensor and 1.0 lens makes that easier too than with an F35, a RED, or any other camera in that category.

For the avoidance of misunderstanding, the DP has no plans to shoot regular episodes with the 5D.

Finally, the rumors of a 5DMkIII are getting more solid and I expect we'll see it this fall. With dual CPUs, full resolution live monitoring, better sound, etc.

I'm excited by this. I do a ton of work with the 5D & 7D and I think this is a pretty big deal. The DSLR's were chosen purely for aesthetic reasons from a DP that could shoot with pretty much anything.

I'm real curious to check out the show in HD tonight. Early reports are that that it looks great.

I'm aware of why they wanted a smaller camera. At times they were shooting in sets as small as 3 feet. One anecdote I've read is someone got good and properly stuck and had to pulled out by their feet.

Take a look at the over the shoulder shot at around 1:02. The DOF is so shallow it's impossible to tell what the fuzzy thing filling most of the frame is. It's visually distracting from the story and why is the camera bouncing up and down. In some of the other shots nothing seems to be in focus or the focus puller is way off. If that's noticeable in YouTube's mere 480p it sure isn't going to look any better in 1080.

As I said this isn't the fault of the camera.

Anyway my Fader ND arrived today. Looks a very handy piece of kit for both my EX1 and for a 5D.

Bob.

Without offending the OP everyone who brings up that "House" was shot with 5D to prove that it's a valid video recording device obviously never worked in network TV environment. Network TV is the most corporate-like field of the creative arts.One should say "if even network TV is shooting with 5D then it's already passe."

From the interview:
"I think cameras like this really have created a great democratization. A lot of talented people have no excuse but to go out and make their dream movie.

A what?????

Democratization happened when HDV was introduced like 4 years ago so people could shoot in a resolution that big boys are using, or was it when 24p camera was introduced (so peps could achieve the frame rate of films) like 8 years ago or was it when MiniDv was introduced 15 years ago...?

Truth is there is no such thing as democratization of a medium because it takes more then a cheap camera. Or even a talented camera op with a cheap camera. Films take lots of resources and even on a super low budgeted you still need an AC, a lighting person, a soundman, actors, locations etc... even a super low budgeter still costs about $50k for a 20 day shoot. I don't know about you but i don't have an extra $50k lying around to make my dream project.

Patryk,
I appreciate the passion of your responses, and yet you are living proof of the theory that a competent workman can triumph over the limitations of his tools. What you have done with HDV and bare-bulb lighting challenges the most expensively produced music videos in circulation. And it is not just the sum of all the resources you mentioned. It is the vision, talent, and motivation that makes the whole greater than the sum of its parts. Food for thought for aspiring producers, posers, and equipment junkies . . .

Footnote: Patryk has some of the most creative, competent, and artistic music videos on the web. Worth seeking out on YouTube.

Footnote #2: Fox has been a bit notorious for "going rogue." Despite its often repugnant political bent, some of its prime time production choices have been provocative, and eagerly cloned by the big three networks.

Footnote #3: I remember when the Arriflex 16 was first used in primetime TV (I Spy and Hawaii 5-0 IIRC). It was considered heresy by many "serious" production studios. History repeats itself.

Footnote #4: For guerrilla docos and virals, which seem to be the big trend these days, 5D and 7D seem to be the weapon of choice. This is not a bad example:
http://vimeo.com/11417386

>>>"I think cameras like this really have created a great democratization. A lot of talented people have no excuse but to go out and make their dream movie.<<<

There will be no democratization until you can walk into B & H and buy some talent/imagination and writing skills. I've been hearing this since around 1997 and most of the people keep forgetting the most obvious; before you get the equipment you should have a good reason for buying it otherwise you'll just end up with a lot of toys and a "What now???" look on your face.

And of course as Patryk said there is a lot more money to be spent making a movie, beyond cameras and lighting ( depends on what kind of a movie it is ).

Celebration was shot on a $1500 of that day Sony DV cam ( would cost $50 today ) and it was a very good movie, but that would not work for a lot of other types of movies. Blair Witch was financially successful, but to me it sucked and handheld cam did not work at all in my opinion. Interviews at the beginning of the movie were funny/good, but the rest was kind of retarded and exactly the opposite of scary, and a lot of that had to do with the way it was shot.

Besides 5D + a really good lens, not exactly cheap. And I imagine you'd want more than just one lens.

It's great to see companies like Adobe and Avid etc. making sure creative people can edit their 5D2 footage and have fun and/or make money! The camera and NLE industry has change a lot this last year.

I have now fully discovered the beauty with being able to edit 5D2 directly.

With Vegas
=========
Day 1: On location with 5D2
Day 2: Struggle with transcoding / crashing Vegas
Day 3: Edit & prerender effects etc.
Day 4: Edit & prerender effects etc.

With PrPro CS5
============
Day 1: On location with 5D2
Day 2: Edit & effects real time super smooth and enjoyable
Day 3: Beach
Day 4: Beach



Lars

Really?

Takes me only about 1/2 a day to shoot and edit with Vegas, sometimes not even that long. Can finish editing while taking a quick bite after the shoot. You know that with Vegas you only need one hand to edit as fast as 2 people on AVID or Premiere ( 8 people on FCP )

Deusx, I'm not sure what you mean.

I was comparing the same project in two different NLE's.

You're mentioning that something takes you 1/2 day. What was the purpose of writing what you just wrote?

Are you saying the 5D2 footage plays back better in Vegas compared to Premiere Pro CS5?

Lars

Good serve, Lars, but I think you need to work on your volley.

Rob

musicvid, thanks for such high compliments!

Lars, even though i agree with you that Vegas is not a stable editing platform you are beating the dead horse to the ground.

Hollywood Squeeze More Out Of Canon's 5D MkII.

Includes a very informative video interview with Rodney Charters, ASC and Sam Nicholson, ASC, wherein they show how they used 5Ds for high end productions, how they plan to expand their use, and how they could be such losers to use the wrong kind of camera.

On exoskeletons, no less.

Also some info about what Canon is working on under pressure from these and other top guys (incl. HD-SDI and more), and the particular reason why Canon is so interested in what's going on in movie production.

Great link, thanks. Exciting times, indeed.

Canon is a good choice here because they don't have much of a profile in the higher end of the market. They won't be cannibalizing existing product lines with their still cameras.

On the autofocus front, I've not been too thrilled with focusing my Panasonic GH1... but one cool thing you can do is set the focus on an object and then the camera will track it around the frame. Kind of like face recognition gut it'll lock onto almost anything and then track it while you record.

Still, I'd like a live HDMI feed out of the camera, or an SDI option for professional versions. And the Bluetooth control interface sounds like a great idea.

The possible problem for Panasonic is that a super-GH1 *would* start to cannibalize their higher end products.

Rob Mack