It seems there are an abundance around here of shorts (and a rare feature or two) shot with:
- Canon EOS 550D/EOS Rebel T2i/EOS Kiss X4
- Canon EOS 600D/EOS Rebel T3i/EOS Kiss X5
- a few Canon EOS 5D Mark II
- and other Canon camera products
I thought it might be sensible to start a thread dedicated to displaying them with the intent of being able to see how each other is using the same tool for different outcomes and maybe/likely swap know-how kinda specific to that line.
With each filmmaker's permission, and in no particular order, I'd like to begin with several I've culled from a forum search (or two ).
One small correction, Stockholm Santa was shot on the 7D. Only the one-scene re-shoot was shot on the T3i.
Thank you, miss D.
Yeah, my dual intention is both A) for users of the same models (and it looks like the pretty much the whole EOS series) to be able to relatively rapidly compare what they're doing to what their "base equipment peers" are doing to exchange techniques through explicit inquiry or passive reverse engineering, and B) for EOS and GH1/2 users to compare and contrast subtle differences between what a Canon APS-C sensor and a Panasonic micro four thirds sensor (M43) is able to output.
Even with my untrained DSLR nubie eye I can see some differences the lenses themselves make.
I hope you guys get to pick up a thing or two from each other. GL!
Then, there's the subway scene from this movie, shot on the 7D (which is basically identical to the T2i, for filmmaking purposes).
Why do I point this out? The more footage I see, the more I've come to realize that lighting is really all that matters, and you can use pretty much any camera you want.
Give me an Arri Alexa, and my footage is still gonna look like crap (or at least not up to Hollywood standards). Give Matthew Libatique (DP for Black Swan) a 7D, and almost nobody will be able to differentiate between his 7D footage and anything else they see. That's because Matthew Libatique is a skilled DP who knows how to light, and I am not.
That's not to say that it isn't worth your time to compare cameras. There are many reasons why you might want one over another. I only mean to say that when people compare and discuss footage, I personally think that their lighting techniques should take the forefront of the conversation, and the camera not so much.
I hope I'm not being a party-pooper. I do think these two threads were a great idea, Ray.
Sincerely, I don't take legit discussion of the elements that go into a filmmaking as being any shade of negative.
Your point about the importance of lighting and the value that it brings to an image is EXACTLY part of what I wanted to root out of the woods, so to speak.
Watching a random short here and there, and vaguely paying a mote of attention as to the rudimentary conditions under which it may have been acquired is not really conducive to any sensible analytical take away.
By lining them up in a big ol' string anyone can go down the list, make their own observations, such as your own, provide observations and (hopefully) engage in a mature conversation that I and many have come to expect from the... frankly... delightful community workshop atmosphere IndieTalk.com provides to nascent filmmakers.
But I thought it most appropriate to begin with the central piece of hardware that we all pretty much define on which side of the lens a problem or effect occurs.
The camera is the pivot point.
It is only a tool I'll concede until the cows come home, but a critical tool at the heart of filmmaking.
I do think these two threads were a great idea, Ray.