# What camera and lens were used to shoot the 2013 Oscar group portrait?



## CarlTN (Feb 14, 2013)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2013/02/oscars_class_photo_2013_a_h.jpg

I apologize this isn't a higher rez image...but on Jimmy Kimmel, he held up a print that was maybe 50 inches wide, then the tv camera zoomed in on it. Quite high rez, sharp to the corners...and likely not a stitched panorama (I might be wrong on that, though). So I was curious if any of you might know what was used.

I tried to web search, but I'm not going to go through 20 pages of unrelated star glam minutia.

If it actually is a stitched panorama, then it matters far less to me what was used.

If it really is a one shot capture, with many of us finding difficulty achieving sharpness at the corners of very wide angle lenses...it would be interesting to know what it is. I suppose it could even be something really exotic...some $100k wide angle cine lens or something. Maybe that's even likely...they used a 4K or even an 8K (?) cinema camera, shot full motion video at that resolution, then decided of all the thousands of frames, which one was best?

Or perhaps it is a stitched panorama done simultaneously with multiple camera bodies, arrayed, then somehow tweaked in post to remove the perspective-difference anomalies? (Seems unlikely, but the mind boggles).


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 15, 2013)

i doubt its a stitched panorama otherwise the people on the edge would not have been cut out
it doesnt look THAT wide probably only 24mm end of a zoom on full frame
if they had wider available they would not have cropped out the people on both edges of the frame
looks like the flash ran out of juice after a couple of rows too


----------



## agierke (Feb 15, 2013)

looks cropped to me. not particularly remarkable in any way.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Like I said, the full resolution image is pretty remarkable, very sharp...a lot sharper than any 24mm lens I've seen. You can't really tell from this low rez image. As for anyone on the sides being cropped off, it's possible this down-sized version doesn't even show the whole final image.

I guess I'll have to look elsewhere to find out what was used.


----------



## old_york (Feb 16, 2013)

http://www.heart.co.uk/showbiz/oscars/2013-luncheon/#1

This gives a few tighter shots.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Old York, thanks, I saw those as well.


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 16, 2013)

I doubt they used this, but a Linhof Technorama 612 or 617 will give you the panoramic look with fairly good corner sharpness. No stiching required.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Hillsilly, interesting suggestion...but what body would that work on? A DSLR? A medium format? I guess I forgot about speculating it could be medium format digital...Phase One, Hasselblad...in fact, I guess that could be the most likely format. I can't believe I was just thinking about either 35mm format, or some kind of cinema camera.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Feb 16, 2013)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2273573/OSCARS-2013-NOMINEES-Full-line-rivalry-aside-pose-group-photo.html
Lots of people were taking photos. The lighting was exceptionally even. Pretty much any pro camera and lens could have taken those photos. Plenty of room to get back, I'd suspect a 35mm lens myself.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Mt Spokane, thank you for the link and your input. I do disagree with you, though. I'm not even sure a D800 would have the resolution for the print I saw of it on Jimmy Kimmel...let alone the 14-24 Nikon lens (I know that lens is very sharp, but still). It's hard to tell, but to me it looks like the image has no barrel distortion at all...so if that was corrected, then that's even more pixels thrown out. I admit it's hard to tell about the barrel distortion or lack of it...but some kind of pano lens makes more sense to me. And especially, a larger medium format sensor makes sense too.


----------



## acoll123 (Feb 16, 2013)

I remember when I was in high school 25 or so years ago and they had panning cameras for really high resolution for large groups like that. Heck, even the new iOS version on my iPhone has a panorama function.


----------



## dolina (Feb 16, 2013)

16-35 or 17-40 with a full frame body like a 5D3 or 1DX. Off camera lights help


----------



## Hillsilly (Feb 16, 2013)

The Linhof's are an interchangeable lens, rangefinder style, medium format film camera. You can get a variety of lenses. It is a high quality camera. But I doubt they can be used with medium format backs. (Actually, I think there are ways to hook up a medium format digital back, but you are limited to the width of a standard back, which defeats the purpose.) Another negative is that you only get 4 shots per roll with the 617. 

If curious, Stuart Klipper is one of the better known users. He has some photos on hs website - http://www.stuartklipper.com.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Hillsilly, those are fantastic, thanks very much! I recall Pentax had a pano film camera also...in fact I think they had a 35mm and a 120 film version...I could be mistaken. I guess there have been quite a few different pano camera.


----------



## Halfrack (Feb 16, 2013)

With the multiple camera rigs setup for the full 360 viewing of stars, I wouldn't be surprised that someone didn't have an extremely well setup rig that had multiple bodies all on one wired release, then stitched.

Then again a Hasselblad 60mp MF setup would be justified.


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 16, 2013)

Halftrack, I agree on both points. However, if it really was a single shot and not a pano...there is another type of distortion that also seems to be missing, and is even harder to correct...if it can be done at all: Rectilinear distortion (if that can be corrected, I don't know how.) To "correct" it, you could add barrel distortion, but I'm not sure that necessarily corrects rectilinear...and in any case, the picture seems to have neither type of distortion...yet it is quite a wide angle of view. So that almost rules out a single shot wide angle lens in my opinion. That leaves us with either a stitched pano...or single shot pano (which means a film camera).

I agree, there probably is a way to array perhaps 3 or 4 cameras around a point, where there would be very little overlapping distortion to correct for. And again, to take that to the extreme, it's even possible those cameras were shooting full motion video, rather than multi-shot stills. Which also means it could have been an array of 4k cinema cameras...I mean, there is a lot of star power represented in that picture...hundreds of millions, if not billions of box office dollars represented.

So could it be an array of vertically oriented (portrait mode) 1Dc's? Or even higher end cinema cameras? You would have thousands of frames from each one to select the "best" shot. I guess I could be overthinking this, and it would mean an absurd amount of man hours in post. But think about it...even if this particular picture weren't done that way...it is possible to shoot panoramic stills in that way...by arraying several cameras and shooting video with each one at anywhere from 24 to 60 fps.

It's sort of the idea of the circle of motion cameras that would freeze athletes or wildlife like sharks, and then pan around them 360 degrees. Only with a single point array of cameras, you're capturing a panoramic full motion video.

Come to think of it, that's not a bad way to shoot a movie...I just thought of a whole new movie category!! Panoramic movies...let's get to work on one now!


----------



## brad goda (Feb 16, 2013)

you mean like a single capture array of 3X 1DX in vertical position using 24mm in offset shift mode +L 5º center +-0º and -R 5º... could be...

but probably simple as single capture between 24 to 35mm....

if it looks wide with little distortion.... either good 35mm FF wide lens or...

40mm on 6X4.5 digital... should = 24mm on 35mm FF


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 16, 2013)

Whatever was used, it is still a horrendous picture, resolution notwithstanding!


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 18, 2013)

Quasi, what's so horrendous about it?


----------



## wickidwombat (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Like I said, the full resolution image is pretty remarkable, very sharp...a lot sharper than any 24mm lens I've seen. You can't really tell from this low rez image. As for anyone on the sides being cropped off, it's possible this down-sized version doesn't even show the whole final image.
> 
> I guess I'll have to look elsewhere to find out what was used.



could have been a 24mm TSE mk II thats an extremely sharp lens
new 24-70 mkII extremely sharp

like you said its pretty hard to guage sharpness by the postage stamp sized image


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Haha, you're an aps-h fanboy huh? As I said before, there also seems to be no rectilinear distortion of the people at the sides...which kind of says panorama. It certainly _could_ be a 24mm. But given the apparent resolution of the print on the Jimmy Kimmel show, if it's a single shot, it pretty much has to be done with either a D800, or medium format. I guess it really doesn't matter, I just was kind of shocked when i saw the huge print of it on the show. I forget who the guest was, but they were in the picture. These things can be youtubed...


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Quasi, what's so horrendous about it?



IMHO it looks boring and too traditional, although it is a large group shot. There is also a lot of disturbing elements, like the people in front, the carpet, but mostly because of the way people are stacked up in an unnattural pose. In connection with the something anniversary of MGM? They had gathered many of the actors for a similar type of shot, but it was done much more interesting, with their poses, positions and the way they looked at the camera (I don't recall now where I saw that picture, but there was also a short video of the setup). This looks like a type of shot where the photographer had very limited time with all the people and had to throw them in together just to get the shot before they went their way.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 19, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > [This looks like a type of shot where the photographer had very limited time with all the people and had to throw them in together just to get the shot before they went their way.
> ...



Which is understandable, but still results imho in a run of the mill boring shot which will not pass into the history books


----------



## CarlTN (Feb 19, 2013)

Quasi, I think I can agree with you...which points to it being a single shot, rather than a panorama or some other multi-camera arrayed panorama. It's still interesting to speculate. 

In selecting this, it wasn't because I thought it was compositionally a spectacular picture...I was just amazed by the detail.

I'm very ignorant of good portrait technique...but I will say this. Most of the stuff I see, such as on facebook, where local photographers make their own little facebook page, and post family portraiture they've done...it just looks juvenile and stupid to me. Especially where a small family is gathered around, pretending to laugh at something...or the shots where they're all jumping on a trampoline. 

That stuff certainly isn't boring, but it's not what I would define as good group portraiture, even if I did know anything about it.


----------



## Quasimodo (Feb 19, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Quasi, I think I can agree with you...which points to it being a single shot, rather than a panorama or some other multi-camera arrayed panorama. It's still interesting to speculate.
> 
> In selecting this, it wasn't because I thought it was compositionally a spectacular picture...I was just amazed by the detail.
> 
> ...



I hear you


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 4, 2013)

Freelancer said:


> Quasimodo said:
> 
> 
> > [This looks like a type of shot where the photographer had very limited time with all the people and had to throw them in together just to get the shot before they went their way.
> ...


+1
I make a lot of group photos at my office and I always find it is very challenging than a majestic landscape ... dealing with people, getting them to smile/look the way you want is not an easy job, it is an art in itself that stretches beyond the science of photography ... I find it very difficult especially when the people I am photographing are CEO's, Ministers and the like who can only spare a few seconds for the shot. So I can understand the possible challenges faced by that photographer.


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 6, 2013)

Rienzphotoz said:


> +1
> I make a lot of group photos at my office and I always find it is very challenging than a majestic landscape ... dealing with people, getting them to smile/look the way you want is not an easy job, it is an art in itself that stretches beyond the science of photography ... I find it very difficult especially when the people I am photographing are CEO's, Ministers and the like who can only spare a few seconds for the shot. So I can understand the possible challenges faced by that photographer.



Good point. I've never had the ability to make people do what I want them to, I guess that's why I don't do much portraiture!


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

CarlTN said:


> Rienzphotoz said:
> 
> 
> > +1
> ...


Yeah, people photography especially group photos are a nightmare ... the last group photo I made on 28 Feb 2013 was so bad that I tell people it is not made by me :-[ ... coz 4 (out of the 35) people were hidden behind someone else, 2 guys had their eyes closed, one guy for some reason was looking at an imaginary planet, another guy decided to squat ahead of the front row at the edge of frame (making him look twice as fat as the fattest guy in the group) and while I was trying to get them all to look at the lens and visible to the camera, our Senior most Operations Manger was getting increasingly impatient that I was taking so long to make that photo ... the end result was an embaressing group photo. I much prefer making photos of landscapes, animals, birds or anything else for that matter, even though I am not very good at it. ;D


----------



## skangerland (Mar 8, 2013)

There's some exif on this much larger version of the image:

http://www.cinemablend.com/images/news/35533/_1360077899.jpg

It names the photographer as Greg Harbaugh. I assume that this is the guy:

http://www.linkedin.com/pub/greg-harbaugh/5/7a3/5a5

His name is also on this version of the image:

http://www.pukmedia.com/Wenekan_Geleri/66121022013_image8.jpg

Although it's smaller that version has more exif data and identifies the equipment as a Nikon D800 with a 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8. The full details are as follows:

Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model: NIKON D800
Lens: 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8
Image Date: 2013-02-04 16:30:57 -0800
Focal Length: 35.0mm (35mm equivalent: 35mm)
Focus Distance: 5.01m
Aperture: f/13.0
Exposure Time: 0.0050 s (1/200)
ISO equiv: 100
Exposure Bias: none
Metering Mode: Matrix
Exposure: Manual
Exposure Mode: Manual
White Balance: Manual
Light Source: Flash
Flash Fired: No (enforced)
Orientation: Normal
Color Space: sRGB
GPS Coordinate: undefined, undefined
Photographer: Greg Harbaugh
City: Beverly Hills
Sublocation: International Ballroom, Beverly Hilton Hotel
Province/State: CA
Country: USA
Copyright: ©A.M.P.A.S.
Title: 85th Academy Awards, Nominees Luncheon
Caption: Nominees for the 85th Academy Awards® pose for a group photo at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' Oscar® Nominees Luncheon in Beverly Hills, California, Monday, February 4, 2013. The 85th Academy Awards will be presented on Sunday, February 24, 2013 at the Kodak Theatre at Hollywood & Highland Center®, and televised live by the ABC Television Network
Instructions: ©A.M.P.A.S. All rights reserved. No reproduction allowed without prior written permission. 310-247-3000.
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Macintosh


----------



## drolo61 (Mar 8, 2013)

case closed ;-)


----------



## EchoLocation (Mar 8, 2013)

skangerland said:


> Camera Maker: NIKON CORPORATION
> Camera Model: NIKON D800
> Lens: 24.0-70.0 mm f/2.8


got a good laugh from the outcome of this investigation. the 24-70 2.8G is an awesome lens. every time I use mine I cant believe how good the pictures look.


----------



## Rienzphotoz (Mar 8, 2013)

Good work skangerland, thanks for sharing ... but I think your revelation might make some Canon fan boys jealous ;D


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 9, 2013)

Thanks skangerland! I knew it had to be a high megapixel camera. 

Frankly I'm surprised that Nikon lens could go that sharp, must have been a good copy. ;D


----------

