Production Camera 4K used in House of the Dragon

Watching some BTS of House of the Dragon, saw what looks like the Production Camera 4K (or 2.5K?..however I doubt that) being used to gather VFX plates for the crowd in episode 1.

Still love and use that camera from time to time, despite all its flaws. That global shutter is yummy.

Production Cam 4K (or 2.5k?) in action :

(at 2:03)

Good eye!
VFX typically use older cameras like the Canon 5D MII, BM cameras , etc for this kind of work. Note there is a depth finding camera on top of the Camera (At least that is what I think it is).

I think its BMCC 2.5k because of the DR. It looks like it was shot on chroma key to add effect of having more people in the stadium and there is no whip pans involve to show the jello, just people standing and cheering
They probably chose it for its Cinema DNG.

I think its the Production Camera 4K. They used it on Game of Thrones as well for the dragon POV fire shots because of the global shutter.

Its also something I would choose for VFX. Rolling shutter is not a pain in the butt only for whip pans.
The 2.5K has quite a rolling shutter...

Good eye!
VFX typically use older cameras like the Canon 5D MII, BM cameras , etc for this kind of work.

Actually VFX plates usually use the highest resolution cameras available (which were mostly REDs in the past) and then global shutter ones if available. 5Ds and such were used as crash cams not for VFX plates.

Note there is a depth finding camera on top of the Camera (At least that is what I think it is).

Looks like a battery to me but I have no clue .

They use the Blackmagic camera to shoot the "sprite" the characters then use to fill out the stadium. It does not need global shutter for those so a BMCC 2.5k will surfice plus it cuts well with the Alexa. I know you want it to be the BMPC4k but it is not. The action scenes such as the jousting are shot with something else and not a Blackmagic camera.

VFX definitely needs global shutter and as high resolution as possible. No sane VFX supervisor would choose the 2.5K over the 4K for this kind of work.

It does not need global shutter for those so a BMCC 2.5k will surfice plus it cuts well with the Alexa. I know you want it to be the BMPC4k but it is not.

And you know its not the 4K how? All we see is the back screen. Its the logical choice too. I know you don't want it to be the 4K because ...reasons...but it most likely is. Also its a VFX shot, it doesn't have to match to anything (Alexa or otherwise).

The action scenes are Alexa 65 probably.

Good eye!
VFX typically use older cameras like the Canon 5D MII, BM cameras , etc for this kind of work.

Actually VFX plates usually use the highest resolution cameras available (which were mostly REDs in the past) and then global shutter ones if available. 5Ds and such were used as crash cams not for VFX plates.
[/quote]

As you can see in this clip they are using a Canon 5D, or 6D on the Mandalorian when the director asked for practical shots of the ship like they did it a long time ago.

I also understand that most CG like in the clip above until very recently are done in 2K because of the processing time required for 4k was massive in comparison and it could be blown up to 4k anyways. I read that somewhere and it made sense to me.

As you can see in this clip they are using a Canon 5D, or 6D on the Mandalorian when the director asked for practical shots of the ship like they did it a long time ago.

I also understand that most CG like in the clip above until very recently are done in 2K because of the processing time required for 4k was massive in comparison and it could be blown up to 4k anyways. I read that somewhere and it made sense to me.

Pretty sure they shot that in RAW photo mode timelapse (think the timelapse is even visible in the actual video you posted) and not in whatever the H264 compressed garbage codec those old Canons use. And in RAW you get like around 5Kish from a Canon 6D.

You are right on the VFX shots being finished in 2K (as was most of the principal photography on most of the movies until recently) and then upscaled to 4K because most of the theaters are still 2K and 4K is more expensive.

But the point is, for green screen work you need high resolution and if it involves camera tracking then global shutter is the way to go. Same for scenery / background plates since you need to scale them and the lower the resolution the worse they look.

I don't agree you need the highest resolution possible..., it makes it easier but not impossible. Just as good vfx have been done with less, and its the camera your budget can afford is the one you use. It's good to hear other opinions as I'm no expert but I have seen a few things on set

I thought the point of OP was to point out that an older camera is being used for modern VFX? I love that show btw.

I don't agree you need the highest resolution possible..., it makes it easier but not impossible. Just as good vfx have been done with less, and its the camera your budget can afford is the one you use. It's good to hear other opinions as I'm no expert but I have seen a few things on set

I thought the point of OP was to point out that an older camera is being used for modern VFX? I love that show btw.

So you need the lowest resolution possible? I don't understand what you're disagreeing with. I said highest possible resolution. If you're a hobbyist you get what you can. If you're a vfx house you usually get a higher resolution camera for vfx than the one your show is shot on for the reasons I said before (green screen, camera tracking, bit depth, plate scaling).

Nobody in the real world would shoot main photography in 4K and then use a 720p camera for VFX work.
That would look gross.

I assumed the ILM people used Magic lantern for that shot...,

Its not the BMPC4k. I have that camera and the BMCC 2.5k and the "sprite" image looks like the BMCC 2.5k.

I assumed the ILM people used Magic lantern for that shot...,

Why would anyone at ILM go through all that trouble. You're overthinking it.

Its not the BMPC4k. I have that camera and the BMCC 2.5k and the "sprite" image looks like the BMCC 2.5k.

Ok, you win. I give up. You somehow know its the BMCC based on that woman looking through that tiny screen (the other shots were from the camera used for bts) when common sense dictates its the 4K since they used that same camera before on Game of Thrones by probably the same VFX house...

Magic Lantern was a pain to use when it was first created, but not anymore. I have a P4K and a P6K and I feel the ML workflow with a 5DMII is about the same. The video quality is actually amazing with n many new features like HDR!

Ok, you win. I give up. You somehow know its the BMCC based on that woman looking through that tiny screen (the other shots were from the camera used for bts) when common sense dictates its the 4K since they used that same camera before on Game of Thrones by probably the same VFX house...

Check the sprite image, its on the video you posted. Then again if you don't have the BMCC but you want that to tell the difference. I know its a bum they have shot something with the BMCC and not the BMPC4K.

Check the sprite image, its on the video you posted. Then again if you don't have the BMCC but you want that to tell the difference. I know its a bum they have shot something with the BMCC and not the BMPC4K.

There is no sprite image in the video I posted. The video I posted was shot with a BTS camera. Even if that shot that looks like the "sprite" was from the actual camera used for vfx, you cannot possibly know from which camera it comes from since its already rec709 and passed through youtube's horrible compression.

I have all BM cameras, starting from the original pocket and up to the pocket 4K (minus the big Ursa and the studio stuff) when I stopped buying cameras and focused on lenses and lighting. I can make all of them look the same in Resolve.

With all that said,

We'll disregard all the evidence pointing otherwise and we'll go with your "trust me bro".
Therefore you're right, its the 2.5K one because you own one and it looks like that

Can we please move on?

Magic Lantern was a pain to use when it was first created, but not anymore. I have a P4K and a P6K and I feel the ML workflow with a 5DMII is about the same. The video quality is actually amazing with n many new features like HDR!

You made me curious and looked up the latest workflow with ML. Could be wrong but you still need to hack it and convert .MLV to DNG and it still has serious limitations on frame rate on certain cameras.

These extra steps are still a hassle in my opinion. Great if you have the time but I doubt ILM uses hacks like these.

The tools are only one part of the creative process...,

To me, the 5DII with ML is a viable option for the original Pocket Cinema Camera and I HAVE the camera. The workflow is not an issue since I have a fast computer but it you are correct it was a hassle before.

There is a thought process propigated by these YT creators who only make YT videos reviewing cameras that influences people to buy expensive cameras and gear when the pro film industry is notorious for saving money. The ML workflow is a hassle to some solo creators but the cost of a MII or MII cannot be beaten from price perspective and you get up to 14 bit video. WHy buy a new *k camera when you get results from a 6-8 or 11 year old camera?

I planning to go overseas soon and the 5D cameras are weather sealed and built tougher for tropical areas where fungus getting into the camera can be an issue.

Great for VFX, it's rugged , and does 14 bit video via ML. I see no other options in this price range.

The tools are only one part of the creative process...,

To me, the 5DII with ML is a viable option for the original Pocket Cinema Camera and I HAVE the camera. The workflow is not an issue since I have a fast computer but it you are correct it was a hassle before.

There is a thought process propigated by these YT creators who only make YT videos reviewing cameras that influences people to buy expensive cameras and gear when the pro film industry is notorious for saving money. The ML workflow is a hassle to some solo creators but the cost of a MII or MII cannot be beaten from price perspective and you get up to 14 bit video. WHy buy a new *k camera when you get results from a 6-8 or 11 year old camera?

But I thought we were talking about ILM. Its great for solo operators on a budget. But why would ILM use a hacked camera with such a cumbersome workflow is beyond me. Its not even concerning the fast computers that we have now. Its the extra step, the conversion MLV to DNG then to ProRes etc. All these things add up when you have thousands of shots. Also rolling shutter is atrocious on the 5D MII.

And yes I've seen youtubers propagate insane workflows. "How to get that Marvel Loki look" then proceeds to do a Resolve "tutorial" with like 25 nodes. That is not something that's feasible on an actual production.

People choose high res cameras for VFX because of the time saved. Its one thing to do a rotoscope / green screen in 30min from a high res source than spend 8 hours doing it from low res even if the end
result are some tiny people in some crowd and the low res looks "good enough". The cost of the camera is offset by the time saved.

I planning to go overseas soon and the 5D cameras are weather sealed and built tougher for tropical areas where fungus getting into the camera can be an issue.

Great for VFX, it's rugged , and does 14 bit video via ML. I see no other options in this price range.

Hence back to the original post. You can't really beat the Production Camera 4K for this type of work.
12 bit log (16bit linear), RAW, 4K, SSD etc and global shutter.. And global shutter matters a lot.

The next option is the Red Komodo. I personally wouldn't use any of the old Canons for any kind of VFX work because of the atrocious rolling shutter.

Even the Pocket 4K has visible rolling shutter compared to the awesome read speed of the 4.6K Ursa.

"Cumbersome workflow" is not a universal opinion.

Old cameras have their place and its more about the operator than the specs. I wasn't speculating on what ILM uses because I have not been there to see for myself , I just showed you the clip when you mentioned that nobody would use a 5D for this kind of work....,

I have been on some big shows (as a crew member) and seen a variety of cameras used for reference, plate shots, and CG, so I go with what I have seen....,

"Cumbersome workflow" is not a universal opinion.

When it comes to ML vs native RAW / prores it truly is. How is it not? You get MLVs that you have to convert to DNG and then develop in some color space that wasn't meant for the camera and then convert to prores for editing and then match with other cameras....

I just showed you the clip when you mentioned that nobody would use a 5D for this kind of work....,

And it isnt. My point doesn't change. There's a difference between Blackmagic/RED/Arri and Canon 5D when it comes to video. The first are RAW/ProRes film cameras, the other one is garbage H264 4:2:0 8bit aliased low bitrate consumer video.

Of course this doesn't apply to RAW timelapse and other RAW functions of a PHOTO camera.

As a FILM/VIDEO camera the 5Ds will never be used for VFX except in rare cases as crash cams or if you want your video to look like VHS (kung fury) and such cases where you want crap footage on purpose...

I am not trying to change your mind and I didn't change your OP extolling the vultures of using older cameras. I was talking about another older camera the 5D....,

I have seen people who think expensive tech / best of the best is the only way to go and they don't end up doing anything in the long term.

I wish you well on your creative / work journey.

I am not trying to change your mind and I didn't change your OP extolling the vultures of using older cameras. I was talking about another older camera the 5D....,

I have seen people who think expensive tech / best of the best is the only way to go and they don't end up doing anything in the long term.

I wish you well on your creative / work journey.

If I though expensive tech was the only way I wouldn't have posted the picture with Production Camera 4K since there are a lot of other more expensive cameras (with global shutter) that they could have chosen and probably had the budget for.

The Production Cam, even if its an old camera nails all the good specs you'd want for VFX:
RAW 12bit, global shutter, high resolution, shoots directly to SSD (which you can directly use for editing - you shouldn't but you could). Its also small enough to be put in weird places. Its a "dream" cam.

The 5D only nails a couple of the elements , even in RAW. Namely bit depth and high resolution. Everything else should be a no no for any serious VFX work. As for the internal video...yuck.

I hope you realize I'm talking about VFX in general, not specific cases. Photo cameras like the 5D are used all the time in VFX but not for their video capabilities.

I'm also not saying you shouldn't use the 5D for your purpose. If you find that camera acceptable, more power to you.

I wouldn't use it, even with ML RAW. I can barely stand the rolling shutter on the Pocket 4K (and its miles better than the Canons). Whenever I need to cut fast moving shots between our Ursa 4.6K and the Pocket I cringe a little...

Okay..., now you're just did a "Captain Kirk" by posting after my post
(WIlliam Shatner know for always wanting the last word in a scene).
We are more alike than you will admit!

We are more alike than you will admit!

On using older cameras ...maybe. On using Canon 5D MII video for VFX work...def not .I'd rather chew my foot off.

Back on topic.

BMPC4K rulz.

Check the sprite image, its on the video you posted. Then again if you don't have the BMCC but you want that to tell the difference. I know its a bum they have shot something with the BMCC and not the BMPC4K.

There is no sprite image in the video I posted. The video I posted was shot with a BTS camera. Even if that shot that looks like the "sprite" was from the actual camera used for vfx, you cannot possibly know from which camera it comes from since its already rec709 and passed through youtube's horrible compression.

There is sprite images, you see it in the VFX shot. It blends well with the Alexa. If it was shot with BMPC4K it would blend less well. You are not happy because I said it is not a BMPC4k, a camera that you happen to own? I mean they would use Go Pro if they have to so maybe they have used a BMPC4K somewhere else.

Check the sprite image, its on the video you posted. Then again if you don't have the BMCC but you want that to tell the difference. I know its a bum they have shot something with the BMCC and not the BMPC4K.

There is no sprite image in the video I posted. The video I posted was shot with a BTS camera. Even if that shot that looks like the "sprite" was from the actual camera used for vfx, you cannot possibly know from which camera it comes from since its already rec709 and passed through youtube's horrible compression.

There is sprite images, you see it in the VFX shot. It blends well with the Alexa. If it was shot with BMPC4K it would blend less well. You are not happy because I said it is not a BMPC4k, a camera that you happen to own? I mean they would use Go Pro if they have to so maybe they have used a BMPC4K somewhere else.

No, you actually don't see any of the sprites. Everything in that video is shot with the camera that shot all the behind the scenes stuff.

I gave you a lot of arguments why its a BMPC4K (even told you I own all BM cameras up until the pocket4k and i can blend them to look the same, any decent colorist can), you keep coming up with "trust me bro".

I can't argue with such strong argument and evidence.

You win, its the 2.5K.

Please move on, you keep posting the same thing. Thanks!

Now I'm curious.....,
Do you work in VFX?
You very valid concerns about camera quality seem to be aspirational, and if this is the case I only want to work with Oscar winning actors from now on!

Now I'm curious.....,
Do you work in VFX?
You very valid concerns about camera quality seem to be aspirational, and if this is the case I only want to work with Oscar winning actors from now on!

I'm not sure what camera quality has to do with Oscar winning actors. Please enlighten me. Also what does this have to do with the current topic?

And yes, I do VFX and motion graphics besides color grading. Why does this matter?

My comparison is very basic but you are once again artfully avoiding the point I'm trying to make.
What's the current topic? Once again i bring upi your OP where you talk about the BM camera used for VFX ! Great! If I find one of those older cameras for a good price I'd pick one up. Once others offer their opinions and show you other examples, then you cast your judgment with lots of I'd never use____ and that choice will create terible results. Then when shows a shot of people from ILM using a Canon camera you avoid your comment that ILM would never use such and such camera....,

So in your VFX work do you only get Redraw footage to work with? I know you keep mentioning what you don't use and that I'm okay with using 720p video from the 5D...., You only see your points and artfully miss the point of other people who are sharing their opinions.

On paper you can have all the high quality standards you want. Actors, set design, how the green/bluescreen is set up on set are all factors in the overall quality, you know that but are avoiding my point.

There's a million reasons to use different cameras in VFX, just like there's a million reasons to use different cameras for the narrative creative side.

In this scenario, looks like they are gathering assets for filling into a background. By taking some of their background extras and cycling them through, they can collect a whole lot of background actors and quickly compile an audience of hundreds of spectators when they may have only had ten or twenty background actors.

When shooting in period costumes, it's very difficult to costume hundreds of actors. With COVID they likely we're able to even have that many people on set either.

I did the first season of The Great pre-covid and they could only do twenty "royal court" background costumes and that was with six full time costumers.

So, you cycle through say ten actors. You have them doing different actions, waving cheering etc. Then you rotate to the next one. Meanwhile that first actor is changing into a different costume, new hat etc, and you rinse and repeat. Pretty soon you can have a few hundred variations, and put them all together to build a large crown from only ten actors.

For a scenario like this you don't need a high resolution or fancy camera. The footage you're shooting is going to take up less than 0.5% of the image, so it makes zero sense to shoot at 8K or even raw for example even though it's a green screen.

Of course if it was main cast then you moist likely WOULD use your main camera package camera.

Often these assets are collected as a side project top the main unit. Main unit os over shooting the main headline actors doing stunts and scenes. These scenes also require the same background actors to help in their work too.

So now you're trying to shoot two things at the same time. The main cast with background actors, AND collect enough VFX elements and assets while you have all those background actors there and dressed correctly.

What's likely happening here is that this VFX splinter unit is STEALING resources from the main unit where they can and trying to shoot adjacent without impacting main unit.

The VFX vendors will often bring their OWN equipment like cameras. There's no point in using a high value camera and 150K lens on something that is going to be visually so messed with anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if this was being shot ProRes.

I think what you're seeing here is a VFX vendors own camera, likely bought to just shoot this kind of work and this collection of elements is likely not even supervised by the main unit DP or director.

JB

There's a million reasons to use different cameras in VFX, just like there's a million reasons to use different cameras for the narrative creative side.

In this scenario, looks like they are gathering assets for filling into a background. By taking some of their background extras and cycling them through, they can collect a whole lot of background actors and quickly compile an audience of hundreds of spectators when they may have only had ten or twenty background actors.

When shooting in period costumes, it's very difficult to costume hundreds of actors. With COVID they likely we're able to even have that many people on set either.

I did the first season of The Great pre-covid and they could only do twenty "royal court" background costumes and that was with six full time costumers.

So, you cycle through say ten actors. You have them doing different actions, waving cheering etc. Then you rotate to the next one. Meanwhile that first actor is changing into a different costume, new hat etc, and you rinse and repeat. Pretty soon you can have a few hundred variations, and put them all together to build a large crown from only ten actors.

For a scenario like this you don't need a high resolution or fancy camera. The footage you're shooting is going to take up less than 0.5% of the image, so it makes zero sense to shoot at 8K or even raw for example even though it's a green screen.

Of course if it was main cast then you moist likely WOULD use your main camera package camera.

Often these assets are collected as a side project top the main unit. Main unit os over shooting the main headline actors doing stunts and scenes. These scenes also require the same background actors to help in their work too.

So now you're trying to shoot two things at the same time. The main cast with background actors, AND collect enough VFX elements and assets while you have all those background actors there and dressed correctly.

What's likely happening here is that this VFX splinter unit is STEALING resources from the main unit where they can and trying to shoot adjacent without impacting main unit.

The VFX vendors will often bring their OWN equipment like cameras. There's no point in using a high value camera and 150K lens on something that is going to be visually so messed with anyway. I wouldn't be surprised if this was being shot ProRes.

I think what you're seeing here is a VFX vendors own camera, likely bought to just shoot this kind of work and this collection of elements is likely not even supervised by the main unit DP or director.

JB

You're quite correct. I think they used the Production Camera on the original Game of Thrones for the dragon fire (seen it in bts footage) because it was easy to set up on a high pole and probably could take the flamethrower heat.

Hence why I said its probably the same camera, since its probably the same VFX house that did Game of Thrones.

With all said (ignoring the fact its a BM camera), I'm 99% sure it would have never been shot in 8bit 4:2:0 like some people here suggest its ok to do for some weird reason.

Sorry VMFXBV..., but nobody suggested 4.2.0 8 bit but YOU and that's a bad idea which is correct.

With all said (ignoring the fact its a BM camera), I'm 99% sure it would have never been shot in 8bit 4:2:0 like some people here suggest its ok to do for some weird reason.

I've seen some pretty strange choices made by VFX vendors. I've seen them shoot live elements with GoPros.

Like all of us narrative creatives, there's a lot of reasons why we make certain equipment, lens, codec choices. Sometimes I shoot whole scenes on different cameras that don't have VFX, because you need something that's smaller or slow motion. VFX it's the same and you're also getting a range of good and bad choices there as well.....

JB

With all said (ignoring the fact its a BM camera), I'm 99% sure it would have never been shot in 8bit 4:2:0 like some people here suggest its ok to do for some weird reason.

I've seen some pretty strange choices made by VFX vendors. I've seen them shoot live elements with GoPros.

Like all of us narrative creatives, there's a lot of reasons why we make certain equipment, lens, codec choices. Sometimes I shoot whole scenes on different cameras that don't have VFX, because you need something that's smaller or slow motion. VFX it's the same and you're also getting a range of good and bad choices there as well.....

JB

I've seen GoPros shots in The Hobbit.
I have never seen GoPros or 5Ds used for green screen work (or anything serious besides reference or photos).

Since you're a known DP around here, have you?

Sorry VMFXBV..., but nobody suggested 4.2.0 8 bit but YOU and that's a bad idea which is correct.

You're arguing semantics my friend. You said 5Ds are used in VFX. I gave you reasons for why they're used (RAW timelapse photo mode). If you ignore this then whats left is the internal video. And that is 8bit 4:2:0, aliased from pixel skipping garbage. Even if you add ML to these old cameras, its still pixel binning extreme crop garbage. And no self respecting VFX house like ILM would use that.

Here's a good read if you think I'm talking nonsense : https://www.hollywoodcamerawork.com/is- ... ly-hd.html

As you can see in this clip they are using a Canon 5D, or 6D on the Mandalorian when the director asked for practical shots of the ship like they did it a long time ago.

This was probably shooting STILLS that would be animated, not in video mode

JB

Which is why I assumed they used Magic Lantern on that canon camera. 12 bit stills in 1080p or there abouts is more than enough to be finessed in post.

I’m not sure why they would choose to shoot ML over regular stock canon raw stills.

JB

The burst rate (6fps) is a little low for vfx I would think, especially because the Razorcrest shot in the video i used to show that the canon camera was used is a flyby using a model on a gimbal and a track for the camera. I guess the old school controller they used for the motion contorl system could be adjusted.

The burst rate (6fps) is a little low for vfx I would think, especially because the Razorcrest shot in the video i used to show that the canon camera was used is a flyby using a model on a gimbal and a track for the camera. I guess the old school controller they used for the motion contorl system could be adjusted.

I’m sure they don’t shoot as fast as 6fps for a “take”

JB

Thanks for your input Mr. Brawley!

As a former lighting guy that is looking to move "above the line" I look to improve my knowledge in many aspects of production so when it comes to paying for this stuff I know what I'm talking about, and I not make assumptions or put my personal bias on equipment or workflows that could be better or save money for other parts of production.

What focusing on this post made me realize is there are shots of the ILM crew using a motion tracker on the same rail system they put the camera on so it is easier to merge the practical and post effects. I have seen rigs like this for Unreal engine that you place on the camera. It involves having another person on set with a laptop and time to calibrate the sensor and the things for capturing the movement would save a tonne of time in post.

(the camera is moving fairly quick in the passes they do on the model in the aforementioned video clip as they show it in the video. Wouldn't that introduce a lot of motion blur you can't control?)

Thanks for your input Mr. Brawley!

As a former lighting guy that is looking to move "above the line" I look to improve my knowledge in many aspects of production so when it comes to paying for this stuff I know what I'm talking about, and I not make assumptions or put my personal bias on equipment or workflows that could be better or save money for other parts of production.

Usually they want deep stops (like F22+) for miniatures or the DOF just looks wrong (or they focus bracket but also means they wouldn't shoot real time or even 6FPS. They just don't need to shoot in real time, and they then don't have to have massive amounts of light (melting the often plastic / acrylic model) if they treat them as individual regular photos.

JB

(the camera is moving fairly quick in the passes they do on the model in the aforementioned video clip as they show it in the video. Wouldn't that introduce a lot of motion blur you can't control?)

One of the great innovations of Star Wars and by extension ILM was the creation of "go motion" or stop motion that had both the camera and the objects on animatable and repeatable rigs. The speed isn't really so important and in fact by MOVING the rigs during even long exposures, if you do it right you can also add motion blur to taste. Something you WANT for the illusion but in the right amount. That's why I think they are for sure shooting still photos not ML or low frame rate passes. Likely these are rehearsal takes to check the move.

JB

For 3D tracking you often would take a stills camera and shoot a row of surveying images which you can use later on for a 3D solve.

(the camera is moving fairly quick in the passes they do on the model in the aforementioned video clip as they show it in the video. Wouldn't that introduce a lot of motion blur you can't control?)

One of the great innovations of Star Wars and by extension ILM was the creation of "go motion" or stop motion that had both the camera and the objects on animatable and repeatable rigs. The speed isn't really so important and in fact by MOVING the rigs during even long exposures, if you do it right you can also add motion blur to taste. Something you WANT for the illusion but in the right amount. That's why I think they are for sure shooting still photos not ML or low frame rate passes. Likely these are rehearsal takes to check the move.

JB

I'm glad he's at least listening to you because apparently whatever I said above regarding 5Ds on Mandalorian is me being judgemental instead of a logical vfx discussion... . Hope at least he believes you...or maybe Jon Favreau should directly pitch in.

I keep saying I understand your point but I don't agree with it fully...
I proved one of your statements was incorrect and then you started shifting your arguments...,

I'm here to get information. Sometimes I just read the threads and sometimes I offer my opinion. You appear to find people with differing opinions are not logical, okay. You must make some amazing content! All the best to you!

I keep saying I understand your point but I don't agree with it fully...
I proved one of your statements was incorrect and then you started shifting your arguments...,

I'm here to get information. Sometimes I just read the threads and sometimes I offer my opinion. You appear to find people with differing opinions are not logical, okay. You must make some amazing content! All the best to you!

You have one of the best DPs tell you the exact same thing I told you and now you accuse me of shifting arguments? Which point of mine you proved incorrect?

Besides the little subtle mockery pointed at me regarding last words, aspirational camera quality and hollywood actors now the little jab at the quality of my work I wonder what's next? How tall am I?

I'm starting to believe you know absolutely nothing about vfx, film cameras or anything related to how to blend these together.

Good luck to you too.

You said ILM would NEVER use the Canon camera, and then when shown evidence in a video you said they would never use it while looking at the video.

Is that not what happened?

Furthermore from your passionate responses to this issue, you must have an exacting and perfectionist perspective when it comes to vfx. That's not me obviously as I liik at it as one part no more important than the rest of production, If you want to take my comments as some kind of jab that's on you. I don't get spiteful for people I never met in person...

You said ILM would NEVER use the Canon camera, and then when shown evidence in a video you said they would never use it while looking at the video.

Is that not what happened?

You keep ignoring I said it was used for Stills and not for its Video capabilities. And I stand by that. ILM would never ever use that compressed aliased like skipping garbage video the old 5Ds have for anything.

You saw that motion control rig with a photo camera and immediately came to the conclusion they are shooting video with it (since you kept bringing ML into the discussion), when it was clear as day it was used as a timelapse / stop motion device.

You then proceed to cling to the "never" part in my statement like you "didn't understand" what I meant.

What's next? You'll show me how ILM gathers CGI textures with a 6D? Something that's irrelevant to the discussion about film / video cameras used in VFX?

Its funny as hell.