November 3, 2011

See Vincent Laforet's Stunning Canon C300 Short 'Mobius' Here

Behind the scenes after the jump.

More on Vincent Laforet's blog; also, there a several more Canon C300-shot shorts on Canon's Media Gallery page.

Your Comment

43 Comments

Love the video quality looks identical to the Arri Alexa

November 3, 2011

0
Reply

Astounding - considering it's profoundly lo-res, compressed & Flash!

November 5, 2011

0
Reply
HowardG

Um, I have to disagree. I am currently editing footage shot on the Arri Alexa and there's no comparison. I love Canon and have used the 5D Mark II extensively for production but the C300 is no Alexa and the picture is unmistakably Canon. For better or worse.

November 6, 2011

0
Reply
Todd

I fully agree with you. I just finished a 90' tv movie with the Alexa and the result is good!
Two years ago, I bought the 5D Mark II after being impressed by this marvelous short: Reverie. It's was simple and magic. I still work with my 5D as a camera and sometime at night as a camcorder for establishing shots because it's faster to use than the Alexa.
I loved so much Vincent Laforet's work before that I prefer not to mention my opinion about Mobius.
Protman
Director

January 4, 2012

0
Reply
Protman

Link is broken...

November 3, 2011

0
Reply

How is it broken?

November 3, 2011

0
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

Says Invalid URL in the post on my end.

"Invalid URL
The requested URL "/video/31525127", is invalid.

Reference #9.16481160.1320367555.1fed207 "

November 3, 2011

0
Reply

Vincent's blog link is broken fyi

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
joe

It is, but it's actually the right link given that's where the homepage links to. Try this:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/

November 4, 2011

-1
Reply
avatar
Ryan Koo
Founder
Writer/Director

Ooooo dynamic range!

November 3, 2011

0
Reply
Chris

this movie is so bad... shit!

November 3, 2011

0
Reply
maalam

haha i know seriously

November 8, 2011

0
Reply
Leo

Here is the 1080p Version http://vimeo.com/30215350 must watch

November 3, 2011

0
Reply

That looks pretty good i think.

November 3, 2011

-1
Reply

...I really do not like the image quality. It resembles the old HDV Canon flagships. Full of micro jello effects here and there and...Goodness...Look at 0.38-0:40...Look at the car...Look at the car...They improved nothing. The 5D mark II has still a better esthetic. Am I the only one noticing all this? Plus everything looks washed out and the white balance is horrible...

November 3, 2011

0
Reply
Manuel

I personally like the aesthetic. I hate the f3 look

November 3, 2011

-1
Reply

Can't say those things popped into mind upon first look. Lack of rollings shutter did though, or at least lack of major rolling shutter,

November 3, 2011

0
Reply

Too much aliasing. Am I the only one who notice it?

November 3, 2011

0
Reply
Manuel

EVERYONE REPLY TO ME IF THIS MAY BE THE CASE:

What’ I’m thinking is Canon has developed a camera that shoots a 4K image, and compresses it into a 1080p file size. If this is the case, would this mean that our 4K files would be the size of a 1080P file? If so this means we can take our 1080P file, that has 4K compressed quality, and should we decide to output a 4K or even 2K video… we then can scale that footage to either 2 or 4K, without any quality loss. If this may be the case, then that’s awesome in my own opinion. That makes handling 4K material much easier to work with based on the file size ALONE!

November 4, 2011

0
Reply

Bro, the lenses being 4K (the Canon's new ones) doesn't mean it makes a false 4K video... and if it were, after being compressed at 1080p, all that (non existence) extra data will still be lost forever (meaning that it doesn't even get into the CF card)

November 4, 2011

1
Reply
Rafa_Ga

All videos from the canon announcement are available online.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/cinemaeos

November 4, 2011

-1
Reply

Stunningly.... bad film. Another reason why DP's cannot direct. Almost never, excluding Haskell Wexler. No vision, all cliche, dumb boring imagery. Bad move by Canon, always give a promo of a new camera to a filmmaker who can elevate the imagery to art. What we have here is the pornographization of the image, designed to stimulate the erotic ( a big jerkoff) rather than any aesthetic or emotion.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Dan

És o maior tu!

November 4, 2011

-1
Reply
André Luís

Dan: And you are? Please show something you've produced in the last decade please and stop being another jerk that can only critize and never gets their hands on anything to produce anything meaningful...

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Marcel

totally agree. and dan, you don't need to shoot something as marcel said, to use your opinion. this movie really sucks. it's bad pornography!! ;)

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
maalam

Right, but if you want people to value your opinion you've got to back it up with something (anything). That typically means giving specific examples from the thing you're criticizing or letting us know something about your subjective taste. I might listen to a film critic who doesn't justify his or her judgments provided that they had demonstrated on multiple occasions that their taste is consistent with mine. Absent that, I at least need evidence that they watched the whole movie.

I didn't love this movie either, but I wouldn't claim that my feeling about the movie alone says something about directors of photography in general, or about "vision," or about Canon's marketing.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
cows

@Dan

Heheh... so, am not the only one noticing this?

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Tang

Hey Dan how about a link to your work. I would like to compare this with yours. List the specs. Thanks

November 11, 2011

1
Reply
James W.

@Marcel

Dude, Film critics can't shoot a simple home-movie and the AUDIENCE don't know shit about making a movie, yet they're the one DECIDE if the movie is good or not. You can make all the art movies you want but no one gonna see it.

This is not to say the movie here was good, but hey, if the MASSES likes it and they will then it's a 'good' movie.
I don't like it but that don't mean I can do better.... Kapish?

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Tang

I had mixed feelings about this short. The image was awesome the story was BORING and confusing. Try and watch it and don't think about who directed it. Having Vincent Laforet Visuals on anything will make people think it is a work of art! I'm not bashing Vincent just trying to have a unbiased approach. After that then I thought about how anticipated or how expectations are so high when you give someone first time use of this kind of equipment etc. you better make a decent short

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
joe

Making any movie is a complex, very challenging task. Making a great one is even harder. I've tried and it is not easy by any stretch. But of all the themes in the world, why on earth did Vincent, a highly respectable and well known person have to choose death, murder, hate stuff? The world has enough of this bad shit.

I know he was to show off and produce evidence of marvelous skin tones, dust, light, shadows, no rolling shutter issues, latitude and extra fine detail which he did exceptionally well and many will watch it for this purposes alone. Certainly applauded, but a theme like this? For Canon? Reverie set Canon up for the 5D for life due to it's simplicity and love theme and features of course. But for this film which obviously took a lot of work, regardless I was depressed after watching it instead of blown away as in Reverie. Good camera, techniques and results but a terrible choice of story.

As Gale Tattersol and other great directors have said: Give me a good cast, a good story and a good director and that will win every time - (good equipment or not). ET proved the point precisely.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply

Dan,

It's a camera test. An elaborate one, but a camera test nonetheless. Reviewing from a narrative point of view isn't appropriate.

I think it looks great, by the way.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Stuart

The movie wasn't bad, if you watched it the whole way through then you get the title. Some nice visuals. The dust cloud in particular. I think this movie actually shows him growing somewhat as a filmmaker in fact, as evidenced by the presence of an actual plot for once.

SPOILERS:

I thought the character was pretty stupid to discard his enormous heavy telephoto lens but not the body, leaving a card that could be hidden upon one's person (or buried) way easier. The cartel dudes could have still picked up his camera and gotten his card through torture or whatever, but evidently having characters that think about stuff is still too much work for ol' Vince.

While I'm on the subject of stupid characters maybe you take some guns of your own when you roll out to snap a few stills of an execution.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
Justin K

Koo, keep them coming... as I see it: we are all at different learning curve levels, with numerous choices in technology to implement. Why not learn from each other without the negative bias. Who among U are perfect? WHO

November 4, 2011

-1
Reply
Cal Living

I knew with a name like "Mobius" something halfway-predictable was going to happen, but I liked it anyway. Is anything really "original" anymore, especially in this "OH-SNAP-INCEPTION"-type genre? And anyway, I'm pretty much a layman when it comes to cinematography, so I have nothing to complain about as far as the image quality, but nothing to cheer about either. Could the T3i not get similar results with some color-correction?

November 4, 2011

0
Reply

@Marcelo! I watched it this morning at my desk were I work at a patent office in Vienna pushing pencils for a living hoping that someone some were will recognize my genius in the sciences. Later I felt bad that I had harshly critiqued a wildly successful DSLR camera operator with a huge endorsement fee from a major camera company so I decided to go home and slit my wrists in a bath. Before I killed myself I vimeo'd it to make sure that indeed it was shit as I remember it. A camera swoops over a dead guy in a desert,sound FX stings, y'now that cliched whooshy sound when something really bad is going to happen? We are inside a truck, in the desert, A Mexican news flash on the radio, subtitles ( kinda teeny bad type as well), oy vey bad ass drug traffickers on the loose! Truck drives past prop skull, movies with bigger budgets get the cliched lizard wrangled.... it took two screen writers and a director to get me this far.... lotsa dust, a mild car/foot chase, a canon camera C/U endorsement and then the guy taking pictures of another dude getting capped like turns out he snapped his own death? I dunno is that it? I'm really slow on the uptake with plots. Big Michael Bay visuals, "muscular cinematography" as critics are want to describe bad brawny movies these days collide with a really atrocious music scores. Imagery? I have a hacked Gh2 176MBs dude!, an AF100, Nikon primes and Zoom H4N that could snuff this! Hell my GH13 could whack it outta the park with my shitty CCTV lenses. Godamnit Marcelo I've made an award winning feature on S16 that had at least real grain! For film references check out an Argentine film with similar name Mobius, I didnt make it but it's very good and La Jetee a sci fi short that's kinda brilliant about a guy who see's his own death. I didnt make that film either.

November 4, 2011

0
Reply
dan

hahahaha that entire comment was very amusing

November 4, 2011

1
Reply
haha

It seemed like the darks were really grainy. Anyone else see this?

November 4, 2011

-1
Reply
Neil

So... lots of unrealized filmmakers that probably are not going to produce a movie as half as cool as this one in their careers, because they are too worried about pleasing an unreachable sense of aesthetics that doesn't actually exist... only in their text books.

I think some critics were solid, but a good part comes from people that didn't understand the movie, that doesn't like tragedy (as a personal taste it's ok, but leave it at home if you can't back it up with intelligent arguments) or who are too cocky to see value in others works... overall critics motivated by this coward inner voice that feels challenged whenever it sees a decent job without any kind of Hollywood high-budget glow around it. Or perhaps if it's supposed to be independent why it's not surrounded by that other glow? You know what I mean... the euro-trash / film-art thingy.

Of course you would do it differently, that's what film is all about... one's vision. If you really think you can make it better, and I hope you can, by any means do it. But don't expect any compassion or thoroughness from those bitter fellows above.

I'm not against criticizing, but the motivation of all this vomit above makes me sick.

About C300 itself, it's far from impressive in my opinion. Hoping to watch some less produced footages to actually see how it behaves with lower production values and where it is its cracking point. Still don't feel like a huge leap from 5D level, the main improvement was the reduced rolling shutter and perhaps higher data rate and sampling (wich we cannot see on vimeo).

November 4, 2011

1
Reply
mauborba

Spot on post, those that can do,those that can't do teach, those that can't teach are critics .

November 11, 2011

0
Reply
James W.

It's a very amazing idea!
It's the shame that I have already had it!
I'm so sorry having to say this, but "Mobius", undoubtedly, is a clear plagiarism of a multiple-award-winner short entitled "Click" I made in 2002 (imdb.com/title/tt0449877/).
My short is available on youtube since 2006 and recently also on my new vimeo page: vimeo.com/31226266
It's not just a matter of coincidences. Everybody can see it.
Mr Laforet added new elements but the core of the story is still there (even the final photographer's glance at his alter ego with the camera).
I'm very glad he appreciated so much my work that he thought to do a remake, but I think he should have asked me before doing it...
(btw, the only real coincidence is that my short was filmed with a Canon camera too, the XL1)

November 28, 2011

1
Reply
Andrea Traina

'it's a short movie and easy enough to follow!'
I think Mr Laforet did a bloody good job, he worked some great angles and brought a strong sense intrigue & drama to the final output, this works because he worked at it working.
Anyone willing to slag it should put up or shut up! (what a bunch of prissed up bitches there are out there dreaming of being great directors when in fact they could direct themselves taking a dump.

HH

July 23, 2012

1
Reply

Another unwatchable piece of garbage from Vincent LaForet. Terrible performances, bad film school grade story and over-indulgent shots. Total crap.

October 6, 2012

1
Reply
dorfneheimer