This topic is in the 2005 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2005Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
p.2 #1Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
molson wrote:
They had Nikon Galss
Like nikon Glass
Found out there was an adapter
Wanted a full frame sensor so no cutoffs
Were frugal and saved money
Burton liked the perpective of the lengths
The directors bother didn't notice the difference....
Pick one or more............Since they likely didn't use anything besides a 60mm f2.8 macro for capturing the stop-action animation, I don't think the selection of Nikon glass had much to do with it.
The 1D MkII has a 1.3x crop factor, so full-frame was not an issue.
Then again, maybe it did... The 60 mm micro could be the best of the best lenses in the that focal range.
Gerald
ajacobs2 wrote
Simply put:They had Nikon Galss
Like nikon Glass
Found out there was an adapter
Wanted a full frame sensor so no cutoffs
Were frugal and saved money
Burton liked the perpective of the lengths
The directors bother didn't notice the difference....
Pick one or more............
The 1D MkII has a 1.3x crop factor, so full-frame was not an issue.
Then again, maybe it did... The 60 mm micro could be the best of the best lenses in the that focal range.
Gerald
Sep 26, 2005 at 10:26 AM
p.2 #2Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Apple has an article on it as well. Appears it was the 1Ds Mk II so no crop factor.
I had no idea there was an adaptor for Nikon to fit on Canon, that's pretty handy. Does it go the other way too?
I had no idea there was an adaptor for Nikon to fit on Canon, that's pretty handy. Does it go the other way too?
Oct 01, 2005 at 05:19 PM
p.2 #3Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Nope, since the canon eos mount is larger than the nikon f mount u can mount nikon onto canon but not the other way.
Oct 01, 2005 at 06:50 PM
p.2 #4Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Low Budget / Nikon Glass Decision
Tim Burton, himself, described the production as "low budget compared to other animated films." Never-the-less, the production budget came in at an estimated $30Million. Thus, already owning $90,000 of Nikon glass would not, IMHO, be sufficient justification to avoid buying new Canon glass if it was deemed appropriate. They must have liked the glass they had.
As a Commercial Cameraman in IATSE 644 in New York in the seventies it was not uncommon for us to use Nikon glass on 35mm Panavision cameras during our shoots. Quality was superb.
Tim Burton, himself, described the production as "low budget compared to other animated films." Never-the-less, the production budget came in at an estimated $30Million. Thus, already owning $90,000 of Nikon glass would not, IMHO, be sufficient justification to avoid buying new Canon glass if it was deemed appropriate. They must have liked the glass they had.
As a Commercial Cameraman in IATSE 644 in New York in the seventies it was not uncommon for us to use Nikon glass on 35mm Panavision cameras during our shoots. Quality was superb.
Oct 01, 2005 at 07:22 PM
p.2 #5Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
It seems the only reason they chose Canon, was because of a quirk in the way dcRAW converted the D2H files. I wonder how it would have turned out if they had made a better software choice?
Oct 01, 2005 at 08:52 PM
p.2 #6Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
I was the one who came up with the idea to shoot the movie digitally.
We started off using Nikon D2H bodies. I was against this, but I was convinced to use the Nikons by a conspiracy of factors which I can go into someday if anyone cares.
I had always wanted to use the Canons (because I am a Canon guy, for one), but mostly due to the superior image quality.
Anyway, we bought 24 D2H's and had all manner of problems with them, the most serious being a severe hue noise pattern in the exposure range of -2.5--3.5 EV. So we dumped the Nikons and bought 27 Canon Mark IIs. (one of which I still use!)
We did not get any special deal from Canon, except for assistance in getting the bodies. We got some from Canon UK, but most from the US through Samy's.
The video cameras that we used were mounted to look THROUGH the eyepiece, by the way, not OVER it, as has been reported.
And yes we used Nikon glass partly because we already owned it, but also because Canon does not provide any mechanism for manually adjusting the iris. Canon's lenses ALWAYS open up between exposures, with Nikon lenses, all you need to do is remove the little pin and the lens will stay stopped down to whatever value you choose with the lens ring. This minimizes the inevitable exposure differences between the thousands of consecutive exposures necessary to make a movie. Most of the Canon lenses we tested were fine, but as you stop down, the problem gets worse. This type of flickering can be easily corrected, but, well, when you have a better solution, why bother!
Hope that answers the questions, if anyone wants more info I am happy to help.
chris watts
We started off using Nikon D2H bodies. I was against this, but I was convinced to use the Nikons by a conspiracy of factors which I can go into someday if anyone cares.
I had always wanted to use the Canons (because I am a Canon guy, for one), but mostly due to the superior image quality.
Anyway, we bought 24 D2H's and had all manner of problems with them, the most serious being a severe hue noise pattern in the exposure range of -2.5--3.5 EV. So we dumped the Nikons and bought 27 Canon Mark IIs. (one of which I still use!)
We did not get any special deal from Canon, except for assistance in getting the bodies. We got some from Canon UK, but most from the US through Samy's.
The video cameras that we used were mounted to look THROUGH the eyepiece, by the way, not OVER it, as has been reported.
And yes we used Nikon glass partly because we already owned it, but also because Canon does not provide any mechanism for manually adjusting the iris. Canon's lenses ALWAYS open up between exposures, with Nikon lenses, all you need to do is remove the little pin and the lens will stay stopped down to whatever value you choose with the lens ring. This minimizes the inevitable exposure differences between the thousands of consecutive exposures necessary to make a movie. Most of the Canon lenses we tested were fine, but as you stop down, the problem gets worse. This type of flickering can be easily corrected, but, well, when you have a better solution, why bother!
Hope that answers the questions, if anyone wants more info I am happy to help.
chris watts
Oct 02, 2005 at 12:17 PM
p.2 #7Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
By the way, we tested EVERY type of software with the Nikons before we made the switch to Canon, including Nikon's. We found the identical problem in all cases. Nikon was completely condescending at first, intimating that we were having a problem because we were using the LCD screen to expose the images. When I demonstrated the problem to them under controlled circumstances, the became very, very somber and quietly accepted the return of the Nikons.
I could go on about why dcRaw was the best software choice, but I'd probably bore everyone.
cw
>>It seems the only reason they chose Canon, was because of a quirk in the way
>>dcRAW converted the D2H files. I wonder how it would have turned out if they
>>had made a better software choice?
I could go on about why dcRaw was the best software choice, but I'd probably bore everyone.
cw
>>It seems the only reason they chose Canon, was because of a quirk in the way
>>dcRAW converted the D2H files. I wonder how it would have turned out if they
>>had made a better software choice?
Oct 02, 2005 at 12:24 PM
p.2 #8Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
As a long time Nikon man (38 years) I have to confess the new Canon 5D has been looking very good to me as a body for my PC Nikkors. All I need is a Sigma 24-70 2.8 and I am good to go. I'll keep my D-70 for a back up and for non architectural shooting. Anyone know where to find that "neos" adapter?
Oct 02, 2005 at 01:05 PM
p.2 #9Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
watts wrote:
I could go on about why dcRaw was the best software choice, but I'd probably bore everyone.
Actually I'd be interested...
regards,
I could go on about why dcRaw was the best software choice, but I'd probably bore everyone.
Actually I'd be interested...
regards,
Oct 02, 2005 at 01:53 PM
p.2 #10Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
>>Actually I'd be interested...
OK, well I just finished getting married, so maybe tomorrow!
cw
OK, well I just finished getting married, so maybe tomorrow!
cw
Oct 02, 2005 at 03:30 PM
p.2 #11Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
, that's a decent excuse.
Whenever convenient...Oct 02, 2005 at 03:46 PM
p.2 #12Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
OK here's why we chose dcraw:
a) We took a LOT of pictures! Any solution for converting raw files to something more useful needed to be batchable and, better yet, able to be run on a render farm (eg, many frames processed in parallel using multiple CPUs, managed by any number of commercially available packages) A GUI-driven conversion packege is tedious after ten frames, imagine how awful it would be after 160,000!
b) In addition to the debayerizing (demosaicing, whatever) we also needed to apply a very specific color correction to each frame. Simply stated, we designed a 3D color lookup that took a translated raw frame and made it appear as if it had been photographed on Kodak 5248 film stock, processed at Soho Images lab, and then scanned to cineon (log) color space on a Northlight scanner.
Some info on these technologies can be found here:
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/truelight.html
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/northlight.html
This conversion had to be scientifically rigorous, but also had to be a workable part of our production pipeline (and be done with serious time and money constraints!) The Filmlight people are the most experienced in the business (I have worked with them in one way or another since the beginning of digital film) but their technology is fairly self-contained. I needed a platform into which I could integrate Filmlight technology, without the financial and time expenses of software development. dcraw fit that bill nicely, and the price was right!
Some might wonder why we went to all of this trouble. Well, after the photography stage, there was still a lot of work to be done- there were a lot of visual effects shots in the movie! The plan was to stick with one VFX vendor, but in practice, shows often expand to multiple vendors. If this happened, I did not want to be in the situation of having more than one recipe for converting raw files. So we developed our own, and did all the conversions in-house. We ended up doing all the work at Moving Picture Company, but in the end it was nice to know that the files we sent out could be trusted as containing all the info that the raw file contained.
c) The dcraw based solution was easily transferable between cameras. We started with Nikons, returned 2/3 of them in favor of the Canons, but used the remaining ones to shoot coverage of the scenes that were already being shot with Canons. Our solution allowed us to remain flexible over the entire production.
Hope that helps.
Anyway, I should close by saying that though I came up with the idea and hired all the people, I went home relatively early in the schedule. Martin Pelham, Rupert Davies, Martin Pengelly Phillips, Sarah Thompson, and Allison Abbate carried on after I left off, and they are the ones who did most of the hard work!
cw
a) We took a LOT of pictures! Any solution for converting raw files to something more useful needed to be batchable and, better yet, able to be run on a render farm (eg, many frames processed in parallel using multiple CPUs, managed by any number of commercially available packages) A GUI-driven conversion packege is tedious after ten frames, imagine how awful it would be after 160,000!
b) In addition to the debayerizing (demosaicing, whatever) we also needed to apply a very specific color correction to each frame. Simply stated, we designed a 3D color lookup that took a translated raw frame and made it appear as if it had been photographed on Kodak 5248 film stock, processed at Soho Images lab, and then scanned to cineon (log) color space on a Northlight scanner.
Some info on these technologies can be found here:
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/truelight.html
http://www.filmlight.ltd.uk/northlight.html
This conversion had to be scientifically rigorous, but also had to be a workable part of our production pipeline (and be done with serious time and money constraints!) The Filmlight people are the most experienced in the business (I have worked with them in one way or another since the beginning of digital film) but their technology is fairly self-contained. I needed a platform into which I could integrate Filmlight technology, without the financial and time expenses of software development. dcraw fit that bill nicely, and the price was right!
Some might wonder why we went to all of this trouble. Well, after the photography stage, there was still a lot of work to be done- there were a lot of visual effects shots in the movie! The plan was to stick with one VFX vendor, but in practice, shows often expand to multiple vendors. If this happened, I did not want to be in the situation of having more than one recipe for converting raw files. So we developed our own, and did all the conversions in-house. We ended up doing all the work at Moving Picture Company, but in the end it was nice to know that the files we sent out could be trusted as containing all the info that the raw file contained.
c) The dcraw based solution was easily transferable between cameras. We started with Nikons, returned 2/3 of them in favor of the Canons, but used the remaining ones to shoot coverage of the scenes that were already being shot with Canons. Our solution allowed us to remain flexible over the entire production.
Hope that helps.
Anyway, I should close by saying that though I came up with the idea and hired all the people, I went home relatively early in the schedule. Martin Pelham, Rupert Davies, Martin Pengelly Phillips, Sarah Thompson, and Allison Abbate carried on after I left off, and they are the ones who did most of the hard work!
cw
Oct 02, 2005 at 05:37 PM
p.2 #13Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Chris
THANKS for taking the considerable time to describe the nuances of the production. Very much appreciated.
I really like the 'non brand-centric' approach you took. Get the best tool for the job .............. and just do-it.
Regards
JohnG
THANKS for taking the considerable time to describe the nuances of the production. Very much appreciated.
I really like the 'non brand-centric' approach you took. Get the best tool for the job .............. and just do-it.
Regards
JohnG
Oct 02, 2005 at 05:54 PM
p.2 #14Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
watts wrote:
b) In addition to the debayerizing (demosaicing, whatever) we also needed to apply a very specific color correction to each frame. Simply stated, we designed a 3D color lookup that took a translated raw frame and made it appear as if it had been photographed on Kodak 5248 film stock, processed at Soho Images lab, and then scanned to cineon (log) color space on a Northlight scanner.
c) The dcraw based solution was easily transferable between cameras. We started with Nikons, returned 2/3 of them in favor of the Canons, but used the remaining ones to shoot coverage of the...Show more →
So, how close was the output between the Nikon and the Canon - did your color lookup make the seperate raw files identical for post-production (except for resolution difference and the noise problem you mentioned earlier)?
Anyway, I should close by saying that though I came up with the idea and hired all the people, I went home relatively early in the schedule. Martin Pelham, Rupert Davies, Martin Pengelly Phillips, Sarah Thompson, and Allison Abbate carried on after I left off, and they are the ones who did most of the hard work!
I'm sure that's true, but the system you developed is really quite ingenious...great job.
b) In addition to the debayerizing (demosaicing, whatever) we also needed to apply a very specific color correction to each frame. Simply stated, we designed a 3D color lookup that took a translated raw frame and made it appear as if it had been photographed on Kodak 5248 film stock, processed at Soho Images lab, and then scanned to cineon (log) color space on a Northlight scanner.
c) The dcraw based solution was easily transferable between cameras. We started with Nikons, returned 2/3 of them in favor of the Canons, but used the remaining ones to shoot coverage of the...Show more →
So, how close was the output between the Nikon and the Canon - did your color lookup make the seperate raw files identical for post-production (except for resolution difference and the noise problem you mentioned earlier)?
Anyway, I should close by saying that though I came up with the idea and hired all the people, I went home relatively early in the schedule. Martin Pelham, Rupert Davies, Martin Pengelly Phillips, Sarah Thompson, and Allison Abbate carried on after I left off, and they are the ones who did most of the hard work!
I'm sure that's true, but the system you developed is really quite ingenious...great job.
Oct 02, 2005 at 06:52 PM
p.2 #15Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
>>So, how close was the output between the Nikon and the Canon - did your color lookup make the seperate raw files identical for post-production (except for resolution difference and the noise problem you mentioned earlier)?<<
They were pretty close, but I can still still tell the difference.
The system in development right as we switched platforms, so the Canon transform got developed to completion, while the Nikon transform stayed at its initial level. So the Canon stuff (IMHO) always looks a little different.
cw
They were pretty close, but I can still still tell the difference.
The system in development right as we switched platforms, so the Canon transform got developed to completion, while the Nikon transform stayed at its initial level. So the Canon stuff (IMHO) always looks a little different.
cw
Oct 02, 2005 at 07:32 PM
p.2 #16Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
The Matrix bullet-time stuff (at least for the first one) was shot on Nikon F5s.
Oct 02, 2005 at 08:07 PM
p.2 #17Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Thanks for your explanation, Chris.
The Internet, after all, is the biggest rumor-mill known to man.
It's nice to get the straight poop on this.
The Internet, after all, is the biggest rumor-mill known to man.
It's nice to get the straight poop on this.
Oct 03, 2005 at 08:10 AM
p.2 #18Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
watts wrote:
>>So, how close was the output between the Nikon and the Canon - did your color lookup make the seperate raw files identical for post-production (except for resolution difference and the noise problem you mentioned earlier)?<<
They were pretty close, but I can still still tell the difference.
The system in development right as we switched platforms, so the Canon transform got developed to completion, while the Nikon transform stayed at its initial level. So the Canon stuff (IMHO) always looks a little different.
cw
Thanks a lot for the info, very much appreciated. I just gotta go see the movie now.
>>So, how close was the output between the Nikon and the Canon - did your color lookup make the seperate raw files identical for post-production (except for resolution difference and the noise problem you mentioned earlier)?<<
They were pretty close, but I can still still tell the difference.
The system in development right as we switched platforms, so the Canon transform got developed to completion, while the Nikon transform stayed at its initial level. So the Canon stuff (IMHO) always looks a little different.
cw
Thanks a lot for the info, very much appreciated. I just gotta go see the movie now.
Oct 03, 2005 at 11:57 AM
p.2 #19Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Not to mention the customization of the bodies before they could be used!
Oct 04, 2005 at 11:23 AM
p.2 #20Nikon vs. Canon Corpse Bride Filmed w/Canon 1dm2
Chris,
Thanks for sharing that story. There's a big difference between taking some hobby shots and running a production line with huge volume and a schedule. Sounds like you found a good, workable solution. Congrats on the innovation and the movie.
Thanks for sharing that story. There's a big difference between taking some hobby shots and running a production line with huge volume and a schedule. Sounds like you found a good, workable solution. Congrats on the innovation and the movie.
Oct 04, 2005 at 06:03 PM