Movie Mode and the M10

[danedit28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Dan, I agree with you if you are comparing hand held cameras of any make to what you are used to working with from professionall video. But, do you think it is fair to compare hand held video to what you guys are doing. And, remember you guys use tripods and steady cam supports. By the way, all of that same stuff can be done to the 5DII and it is being done by Lucas Film and the guys at House.

 

Exactly, Rick. On a lower budget shoot, I have loaded up a 5DII with rails, follow focus, matte box & filters, 7" monitor, etc... and at that point you're able to hand hold without micro shakes and you're able to emulate a high end shot, minus the less desirable quality of the video itself (see previous post).

 

But would you want to go through all of that with an M10 for grandma's 90th birthday party? If the answer is NO and you're just interested in shooting some video before she dies face first in the cake then why not just use your iPhone4 so you can upload it straight to facebook?

 

For me, this issue is more a matter of Leica's R&D resources... if any Leica brain cells are diverted from improving ISO capabilities, processor speed, enhancing the review screen, and so on-- to implementing LiveView and video capabilities then I will be very sad. As customers, I think it's a huge mistake to be requesting such superfluous features for a still camera.

 

P.S. I think I remember reading how ILM and many animation houses, for that matter, use DSLRs for animation tests and previews but I've never heard of them being used for the actual movie. Not saying it doesn't happen but I just wanted to point out that DSLRs "being used in hollywood feature films" can be interpreted very loosely.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Studio58]

Video or not M9 and upgraded M10 is not going to help deliver six fold sales growth

 

yes and I am certainly not interested in contributing to that growth personally at the moment. I have sufficient Leica gear to see me through for a while. I mean, to be honest, with any Leica film camera and a set of lenses, any user is set up for life Digital however is different I guess. The M8 & M9 of today will surely be irrelevant a decade from now

Digital has been wonderful in my 10 years of using it. I have made more money than what I would have done had I been shooting film. At this point though, if for some reason we all returned to film... I would not miss digital.

[denoir]

I definitely contend the A77 has more DR than the M9. And better color. And IMO better total image sharpness. The M9 smacks it around for per-pixel sharpness of course having no AA filter. Sony's own NEX-7 head tech suggests that the 24MP sensor in the NEX-7 is matched or slightly better than the 16.2MP one they use in the 5N, which has been my experience with the A77 assuming +1/3rd stop.

! in the first ~30 minutes -- I don't remember the exact time when he discusses it.

 

I posted a C3 vs M9 comparison over at FM a while ago - the C3 uses the same sensor as the 5N and in my experience it was a bit better than the A77 in everything but resolution.

 

Sony NEX-C3 first impressions - FM Forums

 

I have similar test shots with the A77 but I have not bothered to processed them and make formal comparisons. When I say that the IQ is considerably lower than what you get from the M9, I really mean considerably. The difference between a 5DII and an M9 is trivial compared to the difference between an A77 and an M9. Perhaps I got faulty camera but it was pretty close to the 5N/C3 output (with more pixels of course) which is from what I understand normal. It does sport a bit more resolving power - if we reduce the image until there's a per pixel quality match to the M9 I estimate the C3/5N to be ~7-8 megapixels while the A77 is in the ~10-12 megapixel range. In terms of resolving power I'd say the A77 is not far away from the M8, perhaps slightly better.

 

As for the DR, the M9 is bad in the highlights, but the A77 (and the NEXes) are really bad in the highlights. In the shadows they're matched with the M9 showing lower noise levels when you push the shadows. Both are very good in that respect. Colors are a more difficult thing to evaluate as they will largely depend on the profile you use for raw development. It's also question of what you are used to. The Sony can produce quite nice colors on occasion but in my experience it's pretty inconsistent and can be often rather flat. Good greens, not always so good blues and reds.

 

Anyway, if you want a resolution match for the M9, there is one camera - the Nikon D3X. And it will blow away the former in terms of DR and high ISO performance. The M9 has an advantage in per pixel quality but they're pretty close in resolution with the D3X having perhaps a very slight advantage. I have not tried the Sony A900 so I don't know how it compares.

[denoir]

1. DSLRs are NOT being used in high end productions. They are being used in low budget productions or as an extra camera where the crew doesn't mind if they get destroyed in an action sequence. High end productions have real budgets and they use high end cameras like the Arri Alexa or the RED Epic or they shoot on film.

 

RED Epic is not a high end camera, it's a budget choice as well. F35 is the industry standard. But anyway, about 80% of TV commercials in Sweden are shot on 5DIIs and 7Ds - they've become completely dominant in the commercial segment here.

 

 

Here's an article with a couple of examples, ranging from Black Swan to Lucasfilms' newest (Red Tails):

DIY Filmmakers Dig High-Def, Low-Cost DSLR Cameras | Underwire | Wired.com

 

Saying that House MD is not a high end production is nothing but ridiculous. They have a budget of about $5 million per episode.

 

2. Most of House MD was NOT shot on a Canon 5D. It was documented in several articles that the 5D was used for a few cutaway street scenics throughout the season. Furthermore, they shot one complete episode of House with the 5D two seasons ago and the finishing editor of the show wrote how they saved a bunch of money by shooting with cheap cameras but then they ended up spending all that money in post production to fix all of the compression artifacts of the 5D.

 

I have not kept up to date since the season finale that was shot entirely on 5DIIs, but I remember reading (on wikipedia I think) that they shot an entire season on DSLRs. Don't know where though and I can't find it so I'll yield on that point.

 

As for them spending the money in PP, that's rubbish. Or that it was for budget reasons they did it on a DSLR. Read the interview with Greg Yaitanes the executive producer & director of that season finale of House MD:

Greg Yaitanes “House” Interview transcription | Philip Bloom

 

 

3. If the "look" you're referring to is muddy blacks, blocky compression artifacts, and dirty motion smearing, then yes, super 35 cannot achieve those looks.

 

Shallow DOF and high ISO performance.

 

Zacuto did a great web series with comparisons between different camera systems:

The Great Camera Shootout 2010 - Film Vs DSLR Comparison

[denoir]

But would you want to go through all of that with an M10 for grandma's 90th birthday party? If the answer is NO and you're just interested in shooting some video before she dies face first in the cake then why not just use your iPhone4 so you can upload it straight to facebook?

 

Hehe, funny choice of example - that's precisely what I did some two years ago. I wanted to do a series of interviews with my grandma before she died. That's how I got into video and later photography. This is one of the rigs I used:

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

Well, part of the rig anyway. I had sliders, a crane and of course a proper external audio recording system. And a second camera system to provide a different angle in order to facilitate cuts.

[IkarusJohn]

If the M10 is CMos, video should be a snip.

 

I understand that it distracts from the M tradition, but half the complaints here seem unjustified. On the NEX, there's a second button for video record. The viewfinder is great, and manually focusing a Leica lens while shooting video is interesting. I've shut everything on the NEX down to its barest simplicity. I'd recommend everyone give it a go - it's cheap, small, and take M lenses with an adapter.

 

Electronic view finder, touch screen, video, focus confirmation. Probably well below "professional" quality, but way better than my G10.

 

Resolution drops from 16MP to 2 with video, so I don't have high expectations, but I'm not bothered. Once I've got the hang of it, I'll try the 50 & 21 Lux - could be fun.

 

I won't be buying an M10, and I like the M9 just as it is.

 

Cheers

John

[danedit28]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RED Epic is not a high end camera, it's a budget choice as well. F35 is the industry standard. But anyway, about 80% of TV commercials in Sweden are shot on 5DIIs and 7Ds - they've become completely dominant in the commercial segment here.

Here's an article with a couple of examples, ranging from Black Swan to Lucasfilms' newest (Red Tails):

DIY Filmmakers Dig High-Def, Low-Cost DSLR Cameras | Underwire | Wired.com

 

Denior, with all due respect, you're claims are laughable. The RED Epic cost US-$58,000 for the body only. Is that a budget choice? The F35, as part of the Cine Alta line, has been used in many features but RED & Arri have long since matched/surpassed its specs and quality. And finally, read the link you posted. Some "scenes" from Black Swan were recorded with a DSLR. Probably less than 1%.

 

[quote=denoir;1898111

Saying that House MD is not a high end production is nothing but ridiculous. They have a budget of about $5 million per episode.

 

I never said House was low budget. I'm stating that the DSLR, as a video medium, is generally a low budget solution. So it makes me really sad to hear that the Swedish commercial market is being dominated by it. Shallow DOF and high ISO are attractive but when that outweighs the quality of the image then we have entered a bad place. How would you feel about a Leica M10 if they increased the ISO capabilities of still images but the photographs could only be saved as extremely highly compressed 8-bit junk? This is what happens to DSLR video and this is exactly what you'd get if they implement video into an M10. Frankly, we are quite awhile away before high quality video is going to fit in the palm of your hands and that's why the expensive video cameras are still so expensive.

 

I'll leave you with this..... Here is the closing line from the finishing editor on House after explaining all of the extra post production they had to do in order to make the DSLR footage passable for viewing.

 

"When we had finished the episode, I asked one of the co-producers if he felt that using the Canon DSLRs had cost less, more, or about the same as the 35mm process they normally use. He said it was about the same."

[denoir]

Denior, with all due respect, you're claims are laughable. The RED Epic cost US-$58,000 for the body only. Is that a budget choice?

 

$58,000 is not for the body only, it's for the complete kit with EVF, disks, external monitor and a bunch of other stuff. The body itself cots $40,000 - and yes, it's a budget choice. To rent a F35 costs about $3-5,000 per day, and that's just the camera.

 

And finally, read the link you posted. Some "scenes" from Black Swan were recorded with a DSLR. Probably less than 1%.

 

Probably, but what of it? A large budget production isn't going to use DSLR just for the hell of it - but to get something that they can't get with a full pro digital film camera. So we're talking when a large camera is impractical or it's dark or you want shallow DOF effects.

 

 

I never said House was low budget. I'm stating that the DSLR, as a video medium, is generally a low budget solution.

 

No, what you said was:

DSLRs are NOT being used in high end productions

 

So, which is it? Is House MD a low end production or are DSLRs after all used in high end productions?

 

 

So it makes me really sad to hear that the Swedish commercial market is being dominated by it. Shallow DOF and high ISO are attractive but when that outweighs the quality of the image then we have entered a bad place.

 

The quality of the image is more than good enough for broadcast HDTV. Do you really think a consumer can tell the difference. Could you? I can show you mixed Red One and 5DII footage and after grading I would be willing to bet any amount of money that you can't tell them apart.

 

How would you feel about a Leica M10 if they increased the ISO capabilities of still images but the photographs could only be saved as extremely highly compressed 8-bit junk? This is what happens to DSLR video and this is exactly what you'd get if they implement video into an M10. Frankly, we are quite awhile away before high quality video is going to fit in the palm of your hands and that's why the expensive video cameras are still so expensive.

 

Meh, that's just typical complaining that you get from the people in industry working with post processing. You wouldn't by any chance be involved with that? DPs, directors and actors tend to love it and the viewers don't care one way or the other.

 

Yes, a raw codec would definitely be desirable, but you can work around that by the use of picture styles. It's not that much different from picking a film stock. And there are of course a bunch of other things that are not ideal as it wasn't designed as a film camera. What it is however is downright amazing that in such a small package and at such an insignificant price you can create prime time HD broadcast quality footage.

 

 

I'll leave you with this..... Here is the closing line from the finishing editor on House after explaining all of the extra post production they had to do in order to make the DSLR footage passable for viewing.

 

Why not quote the the entire part.

 

We recently finished the season finale of House on DS 10.3 - the episode was shot entirely with the Canon 5D and 7D.

 

It airs Monday night on Fox here in the U.S.

 

We finished this season of House in 4:4:4 using the DS and a Nucoda coloring system, using DPX files in-house until we produced the final HDcamSR masters out of the DS. We captured all the h264s from the Canon DSLRs directly into the DS and made dailies "reels" which were then colored by a dailies colorist and synced and downconverted to standard def for offline editorial like a normal film-style show.

 

After much testing, we used the "legacy graphics" setting in DS to import the Canon files, and we always use the Rec 601/709 settings when importing and exporting DPX.

 

When shooting video, these cameras only capture 8-bit color, so there are banding artifacts. We added grain to all the footage using the Foundry FurnaceCore plugin set, just enough to obscure the banding and I ran the grain plug-in through a keyer so it was only applied to mid and hi luminance portions of the frame that needed the treatment; this kept the dark areas from looking too grainy and was a better solution than "debanding" plug-ins.

 

The grain also helps the picture out of the Canons, which is a little soft and tended to look a bit "inky"-we thought it looked a lot like reversal film.

 

The Canons are challenging for focus pullers, some shots were processed with aggressive sharpening applied to faces.

 

When we had finished the episode, I asked one of the co-producers if he felt that using the Canon DSLRs had cost less, more, or about the same as the 35mm process they normally use. He said it was about the same.

 

-Derek

 

OMG, they had to add noise to hide the banding!! That must have been such a traumatic experience and must have completely blown the budget Come on.

 

As for the cost, this is what the executive producer had to say:

It’s testament to Katie Jacobs, who’s one of my partners here, the fact that we showed it to her and her company owns this show and she was like, “Yeah, these look amazing, let’s do it.” Everybody got on board with it because it was going to be a one-off, we didn’t know necessarily what we were going to do on Season 7 – if we were going to take the show digital in Season 7 – and it was the end of the season, we opted to not completely change our post-production workflow. I think money saved from not shooting film went into the fact that we still had this intermediate step and we still used a lab and we still did the more traditional things.

[stunsworth]

This is one of the most baffling justifications against movie mode I've seen yet. Look at the amount of quality footage produced from a 5DII. Why would we have to use an M9 handheld all (or even part) of the time. Look at Denoir's slider setup he used for Ulrik castle

 

I'm talking about why _I_ wouldn't want video mode, that's _my_ opinion. Others are free to disagree, and hold different opinions - as you do. I'm responding to Rick's statement earlier to put me down as a 'maybe' when it comes to wanting video on a future M. The reality is that I have no interest what so ever.

[Rick]

Steve, are you sure you don't want to be in the maybe column? How about if I just pencil you in really lightly? You sound like you are sitting on the fence.

[-ph-]

 

For me, this issue is more a matter of Leica's R&D resources... if any Leica brain cells are diverted from improving ISO capabilities, processor speed, enhancing the review screen, and so on-- to implementing LiveView and video capabilities then I will be very sad. As customers, I think it's a huge mistake to be requesting such superfluous features for a still camera.

 

The catch is - all the improvements we all want on the photographic side of an M10, would be basically enablers for live view/video. As soon as you have a fast processing chain, video is available. Most current smartphones can full HD video, why should a Leica camera lack the cpu horsepower?

The M9 has really not much CPU power, but that was not a technological limitation per se. After all Leica did create nice custom processing hardware for the S2 themselves. The problem with the M9 was, that not only the Leica financials were a bit worse at that time, but most prominently that they only planned to make like 20 thousand M9 altogether. So the R&D and more importantly the production cost of the sensor board would have to be paid by that small amount of cameras. If they had known back then that they would sell 3 times as much cameras, they could have put in some more exciting electronics for sure.

 

Peter

[spylaw4]

Nope - no video - is that clear enough?

 

If it's incorporated 'cos there's a CMOS sensor I would still never use it so as far as I'm concerned it's a useless add-on.

 

Naturally, YMMV.

 

There are other features tho', that I would like to see.

[Ellie]

Well, Leica has to rewrite the M-system Philosophy "No unnecessary electronic trickery" for video imho.

 

 

The new non-M camera between the X1 and M could have video though

[Sp12]

Well, Leica has to rewrite the M-system Philosophy "No unnecessary electronic trickery" for video imho.

 

You mean, like autoexposure? That line (in context) clearly refers to post work used in other camera systems. And really, that's not a big concern. Look at the clear violations of the M design philosophy.

 

And Denoir, we'll have to agree to disagree. My personal experience (though limited with the A77) and online tests have led me to the conclusion that the NEX-7 is superior to the M9 in many image quality parameters, while yours has led you elsewhere.

[swamiji]

No Video, No viewfinder other than optical. No infernal threads trying to rewrite the M-system Philosophy.

 

I am convinced that any video on a "M" camera would be mediocre at best. Not up to Leica quality.

 

A X2 with a modified "M" lens mount for video makes sense.

[Sp12]

You mean, like autoexposure? That line (in context) clearly refers to post work used in other camera systems. And really, that's not a big concern. Look at the clear violations of the M design philosophy.

 

And Denoir, we'll have to agree to disagree. My personal experience (though limited with the A77) and online tests have led me to the conclusion that the NEX-7 is superior to the M9 in many image quality parameters, while yours has led you elsewhere.

 

Actually, I made a huge mistake here. Leica applies the most electronic trickery of any camera manufacturer out right now with their lens corrections required for many of their wide lenses.

[swamiji]

To all those who want all these bells and whistles added to the M. I really hope someday that Leica will make a camera to make you happy. However do not expect it to be labeled as a "M". When Leica published the M-System Philosophy, they meant it, and they interpret it, as the M9. Don't expect the M10 to break the mold, just the bank.

[danedit28]

OMG, they had to add noise to hide the banding!! That must have been such a traumatic experience and must have completely blown the budget Come on.

 

This statement alone exemplifies the ignorance of the entire issue. I've enjoyed our conversation but perhaps we should stick to discussing our love of Leica photography.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Sp12]

To all those who want all these bells and whistles added to the M. I really hope someday that Leica will make a camera to make you happy. However do not expect it to be labeled as a "M". When Leica published the M-System Philosophy, they meant it, and they interpret it, as the M9. Don't expect the M10 to break the mold, just the bank.

 

1. Interesting effective double post.

2. Leica has basically trashed the "M-philosophy" when they came out with the M8 and M9 without designing them to be ideal for digital.

3. I personally want an M without a meter, RF, or digital review so it can be as simple and perfectly in tune as the old M philosophy is. Until that point I want them to continue with the "frankenMs" with as many logical features and conveniences as they can fit. Luckily, I'm getting that second wish with the current M8/9, and will probably get that in the M10 under Leica's new management if they want six fold growth.

4. For those who want a halfway M with halfway features, they can keep the current M9. It's a decent compromise between the old M philosophy and modern tech.

[AlanG]

I think it is pretty funny to consider that a tiny $200-$300 smartphone is several generations ahead of a $10,000 electronic camera (M9 with lens) when it comes to processing speed and numerous features. Of course all of this is justified by maintaining a tradition or a philosophy of some sort. I liked the "philosophy" of the mechanical dial telephone.