Sherlock Holmes SI-2k = more hope for 2/3"

[Brennan Klensch]

according to IMDB, the primary shots for Sherlock Holmes were shot on the SI-2k, which is a 2/3" sensor. Now, I just got back from seeing this (and highly highly highly recomment it, fyi) and was amazed at the quality of it. While I could tell it was digital, there were a couple of times that I wondered. It looked amazing. All that to say, there's another movie to add to the list of amazing quality images coming from a 2/3" sensor, if indeed IMDB was correct. Also, all that to say, at the very least, I'm pumped for the Scarlet

[Sean Finnegan]

I shot a short film or two with a guy who owned an SI-2K mini and the whole experience was a total nightmare. The workflow is terrible. The SI-2K mini isn't much more than some cables, a rail system, and a mounted lens. The cable system runs into a Windows based laptop and throughout our entire shoot the laptop was overheating or we'd get RAM buffering issues where in the middle of a take, the camera would reset and then start recording in a new take - effectively ruining any takes that involved creeping dolly moves. How much of my experience is related to firmware issues, computer issues, or what have you I have no idea. It might have even been just the SI-2K mini is not as good as the SI-2K - I wouldn't know.

In the end the footage was good, but not great. I'd much rather have shot something else. As for Sherlock Holmes, it was pretty good. I'd like to ask Philippe Rousselot or Guy Ritchie why he used different lenses (or a softer filter or post technique) to soften all of the women's closeups and singles. It's something I noticed throughout the whole film.

But yes, there is hope for 2/3" chip systems - they are capable of some really great footage at the hands of a skilled cinematographer.

[Brennan Klensch]

indeed. sorry to hear about the crappy experience with the SI-2k mini. I couldn't tell you one way or the other about why or how that happened to you, but about Holmes, I didn't really notice that about the soft focus at first viewing, but you're right. I was most impressed with the way it caputred a lot of the very dark scenes very very well

[Sean Finnegan]

It's not soft focus as much as it is a softer frame, but yeah, it's definitely there and for some reason its only in the closeups or singles for the females in Sherlock Holmes.

[Stephen Matthews]

haven't seen the film, but from the sound of it they are trying to mimic film style of early cinema. I've herd that old actresses would have in their contract that if they were shot in a close up or medium a diffusion filter (or a stocking or something even gel) was placed over the lens to soften wrinkles. weather or not that was in their contracts it was done quite often. Perhaps Richie was trying to do it to add to the nostalgic look of the film, doesn't sound like something I would do but then again I have never made and sold a movie so...

[Kris Anderson]

Plenty of old films do the soft focus on the starlet thing. Then they cut back to the guy and it's hard and crisp. I've even heard of vaseline or stockings stretched out on the lense.

[Sanjin Jukic]

Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is shot mainly on film by Philippe Rousselot, Academy Awarded French cinematographer.

"Okay. One last thing. Was this shot digitally or on film?

Ritchie: Film.

Did you ever think about doing it on any of the digital cameras?

Ritchie: Sure. I would have done but Philippe Rousselot likes to work on film and I’m not opposed to working on film, but the last film RocknRolla I shot digitally.

I have to wrap with you. Thank you so much for your time today.

Ritchie: My pleasure, sir."

LINK>>>

"Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes is primarily a 35mm film production.

For many action sequences both the SI-2K and the Phantom HD were used alongside contemporary 35mm cameras."

LINK 1>>>

LINK 2>>>

Curiosity is that Take 2 Film Rentals from London still doesn't have any RED1:

Take 2 films rental London UK>>>

Postproduction mostly at

My Therapy>>>

[Filip Orlandic]

according to IMDB, the primary shots for Sherlock Holmes were shot on the SI-2k, which is a 2/3" sensor. Now, I just got back from seeing this (and highly highly highly recomment it, fyi) and was amazed at the quality of it. While I could tell it was digital, there were a couple of times that I wondered. It looked amazing. All that to say, there's another movie to add to the list of amazing quality images coming from a 2/3" sensor, if indeed IMDB was correct. Also, all that to say, at the very least, I'm pumped for the Scarlet

I have read that si2k was used only for one sequence! I will post that text later.

[Mitch Gross]

Sanjin is correct. It was mainly shot on film. Si-2K and Phantom HD were used for a number of sequences. Guy Ritchie has used both before to great effect. There is an excellent commercial for Nike that is a helmet cam rig extended POV of a soccer player's rise to fame that was directed by Ritchie and chiefly shhot on the SI-Mini head with one slow motion shot on the Phantom HD and some background plates (for compositing) captured with an ARRI D-21.

Sean, sorry to hear about your disappointing experience with the SI-mini. Sounds like someone was using an inadequate computer to interface with the camera. The SI-2K with the integrated CPU is a far more stable platform and a properly configured laptop can work quite nicely with the SI-mini. I actually think the SI delivers a very pleasing image, with a naturally "organic" rolloff of highlights that feels quite filmic.

Ritchie really knows how to use the Phantom.

[Brennan Klensch]

wow, coolio, thanks for the info guys. A bit dissapointing in a certain sense, but at the same time, it's not considering his past work with digital looks good and considering I didn't really see much of a difference between the shots with the phantom, the si-2k, and film. I know RocknRolla was shot on the D-21. Or maybe thats misinformation too. I don't know. WHere is a better place to check out technical specs for movies, other than IMDB, since that's the 2nd or 3rd time they've been a bit unreliable with that kind of thing?