Well,

Unlike some, I've actually shot with the 5D. So my impressions aren't coming from a compressed internet file. I've had the images up on my 42" LCDs and my 72" plasmas, and on a 30ft screen at a semi-private theater. And I've posted it.

There is a lot of truth in what you are saying. On the stabilizer, or a tripod, the footage is passable, as long as there isn't high motion. However, it really does fall apart quickly as the camera moves or the subject moves quickly.

I think you are seeing a trend in the industry that is not going to stop. As pressures mount to shoot movies more cheaply, people are going to be forced into using less and less expensive tools, and the quality is going to change. No one can get the budgets to shoot everything on location any more so chromakey is becoming prevalent. 35mm is becoming more and more expensive to shoot, so even feature films are being shot digitally. TV has all but moved away from film.

So what does a guy do who's put in 5-10 years, but can't step up to something at the Varicam level, but want's "the look"? Like anything else, you assess the client's needs, balance it with their desires, and select the best tool you can to meet that need.

In the case of our short movie, the decision came down to either the HVX100 with a RedRock 35mm adapter, or the 5D. We looked at the lighting package, and went 5D. It was the best compromise for the job. Yes, I would have loved to shoot it on RED, or a Viper, or SI2K, but that wasn't in the budget.

In quiet moments, the 5D is very nice. The footage is easily good enough. In other moments, the breakup, wobble and skew are just... ugly. It was the tradeoff we had to make.

I don't think what we are seeing is the trend of "not caring". I think what we are seeing is the trend of tough economic times, and creative people trying to find a way to express themselves at a price level that's realistic for them. Now if someone tells me that they have a $200k camera budget and are shooting a 7D, I'd think they were nuts! :)

-P

That is more or less what I am actually talking about, there are some feature film productions coming out that have had 50k-60,000 budgets and are using a DSLR simply because of the hype. The footage I've seen looked horrible and wobble all over. The footage was horribly graded, and I can go on and on. Point is, somewhere out there, these people are taking it seriously, and actually using these cameras on films with a budget that could have gotten something/someone way better.

We aren't talking cloverfield situaions, I think that movie did exactly the right thing, or Paranormal Activity, again, thos movies used the cameras the way they should have in the situations they created... but using a DSLR to shoot a feature with 50k or more in the bank... do you actually think you're going to get distribution with a major company that will pay back the 50k you just dumped into a feature that wobbles for 90 mins? Blairwich and cloverfield is one thing... wobble is a whole different ball game, it just looks ridiculous.

I would love to see some new advanced cameras coming out in the $60,000 market that are 2k CCD cameras but thats only because its not a big step from what is already out there, and I think the movement to 2k instead of 1080 is so close it shouldnt be a problem. All of that talk could always swing the balance of prices again... I say lets worry about shooting, let them worry about the cameras that are in a "missing market"

Out of pure curiosity, which side of the line do you put the RED on? And I mean the RED One...

We refer *all* RED discussions exclusively to Reduser.net :: The online Community for digital filmmaking -- thanks everybody,