RED Digital Cinema are in the process of producing the worlds first Digital Stills Motion Camera dedicated to firstly filming and secondly stills. So how does this differ from the HD DSLRs like the Canon 7D…simple…as yet no one at Canon or any other stills camera manufacturer has grasped some simple but important design concepts when producing a hybrid camera that records video.
Everything that has come out of the HD DSLR stable has two major faults…
1. Not one manufacturer has payed any attention to sound. (No sound metering or manual volume control).
2. The ergonomics of the DSLR don’t lend themselves to filming especially the static LCD.
Some people argue it’s “early days”…..SORRY…….What a load of tosh, those who think it’s early days must be stuck in the last century, we have had professional video camcorders for over 20 years with all but none having important design features like hi-rez re-positionable viewfinders, sound inputs, audio metering and control…..need I say more.
That’s why I don’t take this technology seriously because neither have the people who design them ! It’s budget video making at it’s worst…why because every Tom, Dick and Harry can afford this craze but sadly less than 5% are making serious video productions and most of them are ZERO budget pretty pictures anyone could produce.
THE THINGS THEY DON’T TELL YOU…
Glass is important
Don’t kid yourself it’s not film…it’s film like ! The good old depth of field (DoF)… something photographers have been playing with for years in fact contrary to some leading HD DSLR pioneer teachings only the best glass like the Canon “L” series can give you sharp pictures at f2.8 or wider apertures, that’s why they all have a Canon 50mm f1.2 “L” lens and not the far cheaper 50mm f1.4 Canon lens ! I have yet to see any lens review that outstrips a Canon “L” or Nikon “ED” lens.
I have just spent my last week in December with a 30 man crew on a BBC Drama using ARRI prime lenses on a Sony 750 with a 35mm adapter to get the film like DoF. All films are made with very expensive prime lenses, a prime lens has one focal length eg. f=50mm…why…because zoom lenses are not as sharp as prime lenses. Movement in film usually involves a dolly or a jib…not a zoom lens.
The Problems with Shallow Depth of Field (SDoF)
OK so now you have the ability to produce that coveted SDoF at f.2.8…”what do you focus on”…strange question till you look at a subject with a SDoF, your focusing becomes hyper critical, way beyond the abilities of most people even with the coveted “Zacuto” LCD loupe. The reason most of you have not seen this major problem is that you are not viewing a true 1920 x 1080 full resolution screen. Most of you have only seen ‘pretty pictures’ produced on a 640 x 380 72dpi on a computer screen. By the law of physics as you reduce the size of a picture you also reduce the magnification by which you are viewing it…so for example you could film an interview in HD with a wall 4 feet away in focus and the interviewee out of focus…in HD it looks bad in fact unusable but if you squeeze the same HD picture down for the web you can get away with it as so much detail is removed the picture looks fine !
Back to my original question “what do you focus on” if you are filming someones face with a SDoF of f2.8 you have one choice…the eyes, always focus on the eyes but remember you will need to drop down to f5.6 if you want to include the nose.
Getting that all beloved SDoF brings more problems than it solves and remember people being interviewed tend not to stay still making that critical focusing a nightmare. Photographers have always used SDoF but at a cost…for every sharp picture of a moving animal or runner 10 frames either side are out of focus but thats now an easy sacrifice in the digital age of large memory cards.
Removing the lens
During my time with the BBC at the end of last year I was amazed at the number of times the prime lens was changed, we had about 7-9 scenes a day so that would be a minimum of 14 lens changes mainly from wide to tight, strangely enough it made me appreciate my zoom lens as these lens changes were eating into valuable production time.
If you have any knowledge of DSLRs you will know that the more times you remove the lens the more likely you are to introduce dust onto the mirror or worse the filter that covers the sensor itself, this will indeed happen if you are frequently removing the lens to change a shot, try getting a speck of dirt off your sensors filter in the middle of a shoot outdoors ! If you don’t spot the dirt which is highly unlikely if all you are using is the colour LCD you will continue to shoot with dark specks spoiling your unusable footage.
Recording Time
Now let’s see page 123 of my Canon 5D2 manual “After you start shooting a movie, the movie shooting will stop automatically if the file size reaches 4GB”. If you film events like weddings and the ceremony is 25 minutes that good old 4GB limit or 12 minutes could compromise a very important part of your video.
Audio nightmares
Ever wondered why their is so much pretty pictures with no lip sync interviews on 98% of HD DSLR footage…sound…sound is the DSLRs Achilles heal. What you get in the camera is a micky mouse mic or a 3.5mm jack input allowing you to record with a better quality mic plugged in but no control of the gain and no metering leading to very poor amateur sound.
To overcome this you need to record lip sync sound externally with a decent digital audio recorder like a Marantz PMD661. This introduces many more problems as you are not in control of your sound as you would be using a professional video camcorder. I will assume a one man crew as many of you will be…
1. You have a directional mic on top of your HD DSLR…is it switched on, are the batteries fine because you have NO indication that you are recording sound on the DSLR, you need this sound all be it crap to sync your PCM sound being recorded on your Marantz.
2. Is the Marantz set up correctly, are you recording external sound or with the in-built mics, have you chosen Mic or line inputs…have you pressed the record button correctly.
3. You need to make sure the audio CF or SD card is correctly labeled and stays with the CF card out of the DSLR all adding to a logistical nightmare.
Editing
Because your HD DSLR does not record the same usable codec as your Sony EX-3 you have to transfer then encode the footage to a usable editing format and that takes time, then for every interview re-sync the sound with the PCM sound further adding time to your edit…possibly time you don’t have.
All for what
A shallow DoF and better low light filming, remember you only get the shallow DoF at the wider apertures and wider apertures means expensive glass…don’t let anyone kid you otherwise.
Yes put in a nutshell all that effort and who is going to notice …a few people on You Tube…you are not making a Hollywood blockbuster…99.9% of you never will or even want to !
Filming with what effectively is a photographic camera does nothing for me, it’s cumbersome, finicky and more bother than it’s worth. These cameras are not built with video as their primary use, as soon as we get a film like camcorder with a SDoF you can bet there will be a glutt of HD DSLRs on ebay.
There is no doubt about it 35mm adapters are on their way out thanks to the HD DSLR and they give bloggers like me something to write about but for now I will stick to my video camcorder and as for my Canon 5D2…that only appears for stills photography as it was primarily designed for.
UPDATE I do wish people would read this article for what it is… I am not anti-VSLR as some people think… I own a Canon 5D2 and will re-assess it’s usefulness when we get the new firmware update in February. Lastly, I do not pretend to make movies for the film industry so as yet have little use for a shallow depth of field, I do take photographs and find the SDoF very useful in the right place.
TAKING THE BULL BY THE HORNS
http://www.hdwarrior.co.uk/2010/01/13/canon-5d2-used-to-film-video-overview-of-sony-ex-1r/
For all your video production needs in Scotland, get in touch with Small Video Company Ltd
73 Comments
If a Canon 5D MkII cost $17,000 USD, instead of $1700, few people would put up with its lack of professional video features. But it’s cheap, so we forgive the huge compromises.
The moment that Canon and Pansonic offer large sensor true video cameras, video DSLR’s will disappear amongst the pros. For those whose priority is cheap, they will still have a place.
Reality is, as long as we are all watching super compressed web video, any camera can look decent.
As a professional DP, I intend to keep using a professional video camera. Unfortunately, many new to production don’t know what that is or what that brings to the table.
Lets be honest here “most Pros” are tinkering with this technology a bit like myself seeing if their is any production value or mileage to be gained by the SDoF and low light features. The BBC have used the 5D2 for their Snooker opening titles at the end of last year.
I have used my hv20 for backdrops and visual effects for the video game industry… getting paid real money for the picture I could create. We are truly entering a new realm of visual media.. the “good enough” generation… when it comes to content tied to products. Interestingly, we also have the “never good enough” high end pushing technology down to the masses. To me, there is no question there are way more people interested now in creating content to watch than there was 5 years ago.. and its growing each day. And the people creating the ineteresting stuff to watch are definitely not doing it for an engineering critique… or to show off their camera tech.
I like your analogy of “never good enough high end pushing technology down to the masses.” that sais it all in one line.
fact is Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, etc. will all have to “eat their young” to a certain degree in order to “compete” with RED… the price of progress
in the interim, they’re all watching as we “play”. I enjoy the innovative uses and applications of pushing HD DSLR.
Very good answer you have it in a nutshell.
I got my 7D a couple days ago. I love it and I love this article.
There are huge limitations to these DSLR bodies. People used to video cameras handling everything for you will be confused why it is all so hard. I was planning on getting a Scarlet this last Summer but Red was late so late that they will probably be Fall 2010 before I can get an S35 or FF35 scarlet and have real video and audio capabilities. I used a 35mm adapter for a while and now I am using a Canon 7D. When Red announced a Canon mount for the new Red bodies I thought it was probably an alright plan to use a 7D and invest in glass and then replace the 7D with a Scarlet or the next Canon or whatever comes along.
I have tried to tell my friends about the limitations but words can only do so much against Skywalker Ranch camera tests.
The one major plus for RED is they can show Canon and Nikon how to produce a video camera and stills camera rather than stills/motion. I have no doubt that Canon will bring out better equipped HD DSLRs I just hope they get more video like and less stills looking.
I guess but it is so small. Having a little better shape would be nice but It is just a little bigger than a sensor and lens mount with a battery. That leaves it to be as small or as large as you want using rails and whatever supports you want. Red is going to be the same, it is just a little box which is even less ergonomic. I have a JVC HM100 which is really small. So small you need to hold it into your body to keep it steady at longer focal lengths. This is an area where the current body would work if you could get the screen to point up.
Wow what a sour outlook. Not to mention insulting. All the above (of the article) is painfully obvious and thoroughly considered by most of us buying DSLRs for their cinematic qualities. And I don’t shoot dogs to often. I shoot people with their ears out of focus and the effect is georgeous to anyone on a SUBCONSCIOUS level. What common viewer undertands why SDOF helps produce the emotional effect of Seeing your images – come on. Anyone waiting for an independent filmmaking tool as powerful as the 7D is completely justified
Maybe if you shot more dogs you would get a better understanding of how limiting your focus is on your DSLR.
People are easy…don’t always take the easy route. The 7D is a photographic camera that has a video facility, you choose to use it’s limiting video facility…tell me… if I sent you out out to produce a 3 min drama how would you film a shot from floor level with a 7D and pull focus at the same time ?
Obvious
Whithout an external monitor or WiFi feed to a monitor it can’t be done.
Contd.
…justified in their excitement and are grateful!
24p HDSLRs are a Godsend for those striving to make meaningful productions on their own terms without the luxury of a large budget. I loved my redrock too but the 7D is a quantum leap for anyone who understands 35mm cinematography and low budget filmmaking.
I don’t have any issues with low budget cinematography in fact the 7D was made for this what I do object to is the major hype on certain blogs making out that this is the only route to go and God forbid if you don’t join or like the club.
Dogs provide the only opportunity for inapropriate use of SDOF and the only one I will or have encountered??!! Your inference of other shooters inexperience is presumptous.
I’ve only heard this kind of exageration from doc and ENG types who find it threatening. The exact same thing happened in the ninties with DV. The reaons for the backlash are transparent. Same old same old.
It’s about your personal pallette incidentally. The truth is in your defense, historically deep focus was often the holy grail of cinematographers first and foremost with Greg Toland and of the director Sergio Leone for instance. But it’s the dreadful stigma of small chip camera deep focus that is aesthetically difficult to overcome. The deep focus of a small chip camera is a whole different and pedestrian feel.
And you adapt to what works for the situation.
Dogs, floors whatever, with a focus puller on hand or not, floor or not, what’ the cinematic vocabulary or “writing” style you choose? If SDOF is the basis of your language and you’re a lone shooter you make the appropriate shot choices working with the shortcomings that come with the result of your primary emphasis. It’s a tradeoff like all creative decision making.
It’s true for the inexperienced or experienced who don’t utilize certain optical effects towards their look there are only problems offered by DSLRs but luckily it is the range of our styles that dictate our camera choices not dogma based on one shooting approach or shooting schedule.
I own a Canon 5D2 why should I feel threatened by something I already own or it’s limited video capabilities. You are either into SDoF film look or not. I write and have written for a number of years on new digital video technology…moving away from digital may threaten me but I see camera’s and camcorders for what they are good and bad…you see this is where some bloggers get it so wrong once you start having adverts on your blog you feel obliged to toe that party line I have witnessed very good forums go stale because you dare not mention anyone but advertisers. I have deliberately avoided advertising so I can have a free opinion about any HD product…good or bad.
Adverts? You lost me.
And I hope your other writings are less DOGmatic. It would be a shame to bury your many important points in the same bias you accuse others of.
I gotta get back to work… shooting cine-esque SDOF crime dramatizations for a broadcast show with my 7D, without a focus puller.
Thanks for the opportunity to post and all the best to all of you with whatever you’re shooting with – enjoy, there’s nothing like it!
I see cable TV in Canada is no better than the cable TV station I used to work for in Scotland…productions with little to no budget !
The 5D Mark II (and soon the 7D) cameras do have better audio options than most of the HD DSLR cameras. I’ve written the Magic Lantern firmware for the 5D that adds on-screen meters, manual gain control and headphone monitoring so that dual-system audio isn’t necessary. Comparisons of the 5D with a good pre-amp are very favorable to high-end audio recorders.
My firmware also adds lots of other film making features like crop marks, zebras and waveforms, and I’m working on adding support for external devices like the Viewfactor Impero to allow remote control of the camera functions.
Trammell thanks for entering the arena, you must know these cameras backwards, I have been following your reverse engineering with great interest…at the last look on your web site I thought it was a case of download and install at your own risk, that might just frighten a few people, has the install feature got any better.
The risk level has come down considerably since the early days of the project. There have been several thousand downloads and I’ve received emails from several hundred users who are successfully using the Magic Lantern firmware. It still isn’t an official Canon product, so there is some risk, but no one has reported any camera failures yet.
The new autoboot patches (coming soon in a stable release, already available in beta) also make the install much simpler. With an autoboot CF card the camera will load Magic Lantern at every boot, reducing the workload to using it on set.
As before, nothing is written to the camera’s flash memory so there is no “uninstall” procedure. Instead you just turn off the camera and the Magic Lantern firmware is flushed from the RAM.
Exactly.
Perhaps you would then consider that 24p HD DSLR’s are wonderful for no-budget productions (or cable stations) looking for a cine-like aesthetic.
Writing them off as stills-only cameras with novelty-only video capabilities is glib and cavalier. If you’ve somehow found yourself on the BBC gravy train, more power to you but don’t condescend to the rest of us who for example may have proven skills but choose lesser prestigious projects that offer full creative power.
Possible Evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/user/sheldonnorton2
One 7 day stint with the BBC does not give me any status other than I learned a lot about lighting for period drama, I am well passed thinking I am God’s gift to the video industry. As for your clip I presume the old man was shot with your Canon 7D, I must add if you stood further back with a 2/3″ video camcorder, framed a tight shot it would have a similar DoF, but you do need that extra space that the 7D takes care of. I will assume the pics were done in post. If I have to be critical I would say your opening shot lacks the smoothness of a video zoom lens, personally I would have mounted the pic about a foot in front of the old chap and done a pull focus father than that awkward pan and zoom. Just out of curiosity what camcorder did you use before discovering the 7D ?
Ironically every effect is in-camera EXCEPT for the zoom you speak of which was in done in post (therefore digitally perfect) and CC. The lens was an old F1.4 screw mount pentax 50mm prime from the 70′s(impossible to zoom).
I have a brand new 2/3″ HD sony 16×9 camera at my full disposal and haven’t touched it once since it arrived over a year ago. It’s absolutely impossible to get the shallow depth of field with the background compressed as seen in that shot with even the 7D (which is the same as super 35 BTW). This was a redrock on an HDV which approximates a full academy 35mm situation (that offers much more SDOF) The major advantage with the HD 2/3″ camera is the sharpness.
Where do all these things come together for me in an affordable form? You guessed it – the 7D. The tradeoff of audio shortcomings and the scary jello effect I’m personally good with. It’s well worth it as per my personal pallette.
Some of the shorts on my youtube channel were done with HD DSLR’s some with an HDV with a redrock and others (supporting your camp) were achieved with a 1/4″ PD-150 with a 24p effect added (but for my money – holy cow it’s hard work getting anything out of a camera with anything less than APSC).
I’ll leave it up to you to guess which works are with which. And I realize that’s a little unfair looking at SD youtube footage but most of the intended “feel” as designed with each optic remains intact.
I forgot to list a couple of the other formats used for two of the videos on my youtube channel. ..
Before the Redrock came out I built three different rough versions of 35mm adapters. One video is shot with a toilet plunger arrangement coupled with a handmade ground glass. The other is a video shot with an adapter built from old Pentax macro tubes and another handmade ground glass.
Again (if interested) you can guess which are which.:
By the way HD WARRIOR this your reel at; http://smallvideo.co.uk/ ?
If so, I really only see one or two examples of “video” SDOF in your work there. It would appear you’re not too interested in a look beyond that of industrials. If this is false forgive me and link me to other samples of your work that back up your theories.
Which brings me to the point that the old back- up- and- zoom trick, used with camcorders of any kind is a cheap substitute for what is true large format SDOF and its cousin foreshortened background compression. You simply can’t match that with distance and zooming to the same field of view. And if you think you’re getting the same effect you perhaps don’t understand the subtleties of genuine cinematographic communication. It would be akin to comparing the wording used in a children’s adaptation to the original writings of the novel.
The audience will feel the difference and respond accordingly. The sum of the subtleties are what make great work great.
And even as a modest director (director\shooter) if I was interviewing a cinematographer, for an important production, who revealed they don’t clearly understand these differences I would politely thank them for applying but would explain that I would not be needing their services.
This opinion needs to be stated here.
If I were a young person wanting to practice filmmaking towards a career and I read the above article I would have been seriously misguided.
If you’re looking to make a great living and maybe owning your own company working on corporates, training films and industrials for 25 years plus, and you see a 7D run the other way – fast. And then memorize the article above.
If you’re looking to seriously impress a director of independent films, movies or high end commercials and you see a 7D put your $3500 down and get to work learning the disciplines of 35mm cinematography and the workarounds.
I’ve shot plenty of 16mm and even a 16mm\ 35mm blow up and hours of 2/3″ and small chip professional “sharp” video. NONE of it’s on my reel. It’s doesn’t’ speak the language of motion picture aesthetics.
Not misguided…educated…I think as a young person looking to “break” into video/films I would like to know the pitfalls first…I am not saying “DON’T ENTER THE VIDEO OR FILM INDUSTRY” anywhere in the above article I am pointing out serious pitfalls if you are thinking of buying into the HD DSLR club.
Personally I don’t adhere to your philosophy of having to buy a 7D to impress anyone in this industry and lets be honest here there are far more jobs in video than ever will be in film…it always has been and always will be for the forceable future.
A semi pro video camera is far closer to the design and ergonomics of a film camera than a 7D. The 7D is not an officially recognised tool within the film industry, granted people are experimenting with them including the BBC but not for Hi end Drama.
Why don’t you write an article for HD Warrior all about the 7D with some pics or You Tube examples.
It sounds like you’ve got a vendetta against VSLRs, and that this is seriously clouding your judgement. No one wise will say that VSLR’s are better than the RED or film. But to try to argue that the VSLR revolution hasn’t brought with it tremendous tools is foolish, in my opinion. I can’t afford the RED right now, but when I can, I’ll be all the better for having shot with the Nikon VSLRs right now. New and exciting tools are now at the fingertips of highly creative people. This is transforming the entire cinematic landscape as we speak.
Likewise, your argument that the dilemma of shallow DOF is actually a barrier to success using the new tools is laughable at best. How many people are really shooting a scene when they need 5 inches of DOF to include a dogs full face? I know it’s just an illustration, but it’s a poor choice, and a major stretch for the context you put it in. If I need more DOF, I stop down. Simple. How about with the HD Camcorders? You don’t have these basic options. And stating that we need better, more expensive glass in order to get GREAT sDOF is kind of stating the obvious. And yet, in the context you’ve put it in, it’s misleading—even cheap lenses can provide better DOF than most HD camcorders.
Audio Nightmares? Only if A) you need audio, and B) you are too stupid to realize that good audio doesn’t happen in camera. Didn’t happen with film. Doesn’t happen with digital. Duh.
Claiming that the best results someone can expect from the current crop of VSLR cameras is only good enough to become youtube fodder is highly biased and short-sighted. People are shooting real things in the real world with VSLRs. Of course, because the barrier of entry has been all but eliminated we will continue to see an influx of crap. That’s only to be expected. But to claim that this is an indictment against the technology itself is like saying that using a computer to write is for amateurs because there are so many crappy bloggers. This perspective is backward thinking.
Embrace the pros of the new technologies, and make do with or avoid the cons. Otherwise, I think you’ll find yourself slipping slowly into obsolescence.
Ron that was a great response.
Here’s my deal: I come from a photo background and have wanted to get into motion and film for quite some time. My barrier has been money/mulah/dinero. After a year of looking and watching my roommate work with his HVX200 I decided to get an hvx200 myself a few months ago for close to $5000.
I was following the 5DmkII but no 24p at the time. As soon as the 7d came out it was a no brainer!
The best part was I already had lenses!
The Scarlet introduced what i wanted, a digital still motion camera. I do not want a camcorder. After working with the DVX and HVX I am done. Another partner got an EX1 with a letus adapter, there is no way I would buy that thing. It’s a price to performance ratio.
I want basically what the scarlet and HDSLRS offer: a chip in a box. I can build my rig around it depending on my needs and use all my old lenses! As for audio, I got my H4N zoom for $250 and it serves many other uses. My whole kit cost around $2500, including another lens.
What camcorder for less than $5k gives me shallow DOF and looks as good as the 7D/GH1/5DmkII
Yeah the HMC40 resolves a little better, but not that much better, and its got no good stills, and no shallow DOF.
My 7D spanks my buddies HVX.
We could talk about the EX1 but were getting into 5k territory.
I shoot like a photographer and know canon DSLR’s very well, so it was easy for me to get into.
This is about convergence. The 7D’s faults have been beaten to death already. What you are not giving in the piece is the big picture. Things are changing though. This should be a crazy year…
That is the truth…I think that Philip is talking like the evolution has stopped on the HDSLRS. It has just started, I own a FILM/TV production company and a few years back we produced around 300 TV commercials a year. We worked 24/7 and no budget limit to buy cameras or any other equipment. So we had the best money could buy. We still have 17 HD cameras that after we bought the first 5D/7D/GH1 have been “resting”. Why? Because as referred above the DSLRS can be simple light cameras to shoot handheld or can become huge BEASTS when geared up with the i.e. fabulous Movitube PR by Kinomatic. It is actually featured on the Zeiss website. In many people´s opinion it is a work of art. I don´t use RED ONE anymore. I did side by side comparisons and couldn´t justify keeping spending money on RED. We work everyday with DSLRS…obviously there are some things that we have to work around but still everyday things are working better. The worst part of the investment namely lenses is done. I will not have the need to buy anymore for a few years. All our lenses are full frame and we will be receiving the Zeiss compact primes2 as soon as they come out. So the chip in a box is the right way to go. Forget the pompous crews that have their brains filled with Brands and names and start doing proper work with these new tools. The future is here and this is the way to go. Some take the train and some keep complaining…I made my choice….
You must be producing your footage outside the UK as most broadcasters won’t accept HDSLR material in the UK. Alister Chapman has some very sobering thoughts on HDSLRs you might care to read.
I don’t envy your extended workflows and extra editing but then as you say you made your choice.
A vendetta is it now…I think you will have more of a choice than RED when your time comes. I do like your choice of VSLR that is a lot slicker than HD DSLR. I thought the whole point in shooting with a VSLR was to achieve a SDoF and yes I do point out if you care to read my blog carefully that in order to include the dogs nose you would need to stop down to something like f5. If you work in a professional environment you must always reach for the best and Canon “L” glass is as good as you get though Mr Bloom has used Leica glass, slightly better again but expensive. Agree, if you don’t need audio then the VSLR will possibly do the job. When you have been a professional in the video world for as long as I have you get jaded with a large influx of “Wannabees” and “Cowboys” people who pretend to be professional who turn out substandard work. I have no problem with people who genuinely want to film and learn with a VSLR but at the low entry pricing we are going to introduce a large number of people who will charge good money for very poor work and that tar’s all of us with the same brush ! I prefer not to “make do with” when it comes to my profession…would you be saying the same to a surgeon who is about to operate on your brain !!!
“if you work in a professional environment you must always reach for the best and Canon “L” glass is as good as you get though Mr Bloom has used Leica glass, slightly better again but expensive.”- It’s a price to performance ratio again for the newjacks. I feel my old Nikkor primes can really perform well on the 7D without dropping loot on zeiss and L glass. I lovem!
The thing that bugs me about your article is this
Some things your saying (like the shallow DOF for instance) is great info for beginners to learn.
Other things like about switching lenses is nonsensical and borderline comical.
Some things like editing audio, and the recording time limit(JUST PRESS THE BUTTON AGAIN AFTER 12MINS IS THAT SO HARD?)is misinforming.
My question to you is what are the other alternatives right now to the 5d/7d?
I have no problem with Nikon ED or equivalent glass and good for you if they work on the 7D. What is you problem with switching lenses you are not telling me that on a days filming you are going to use the same lens all day ! If you have a very interesting interview and the person tells you something that he or you weren’t expecting to hear and this happens in between stopping and starting you have just lost what might have been the most important part of the interview and you think that’s not limiting !
Nikon 300s…Nikon 3Ds…Canon 1D MkIV…Panasonic GH1
HD Warrior, that is a valid point RE: time limits on interviews. You need to film with two cameras with alternating start times, (and an external high-capacity audio recording device such as the microtrack II) or you will miss out on potentially critical stuff. That much I completely agree with you on.
Also, I appreciate your logical tone in your response to me. It shows you are not a whack job as is so often the case with the rest of the internet. I believe my arguments are strong, and you have acknowledged that.
And to re-iterate, I myself am not a seasoned professional in the film/video world. I am a pro photographer of almost 20 years, and believe I can bring a lot to the table when it comes to film. And that’s why I look at the glass as half full rather than half empty. I am extremely grateful for the opportunities the VSLR shakeup has afforded me. If I still had to consider getting an hd cam with a DOF adapter, I’d be doing just that: considering it. Instead, I’m actually shooting—and making waves. Case in point: I’m one of Nikon’s top 50 finalists and a potential candidate to win their $100,000 contest.
Again, I’m not the best filmmaker, but I’m on my way, and much thanks to the incredible Nikon VSLR cameras and the look they afford.
(in case you’re curious: http://bit.ly/nikonfilm )
Very interesting your film work is almost the direct opposite from your stills work, very refreshing and a lot of thought gone into the making of your film. Be careful that you don’t use the jerky film technique in all your jobs it’s very appropriate for that one film but I have seen so many people adopt what they think is their style not realising they are becoming stale and boring.
Do you have sound of 35mm film?
An education for the corporate shooter interested in getting a job and avoiding the hard long road of cinematography? Absolutely. But as you point out that’s not who the 7D is for but the why write it off or pay it any mind at all?
Also I’m personally only concerned with the end product not matching the ergonomics of even a Panaflex OR needing a falic symbol on my shoulder to impress a client. If a client has so little faith in your abilities that the size of your camera is an issue for them and not your end product then I think there’s some reconsideration of priorities in order. The people I shoot for don’t give a crap if I have a toilet plunger, LOL, attached to my crappy mini-dv, which I’ve done (see above) because they know what they’re paying for and don’t care how I do it.
That said if a certain client seems only impressed by a news camera look and you’re simply trying to feed your family, by all means cater.
My philosophy concerns only results. I don’t care if you shot it on a cell phone as long as you’ve captured my imagination and expressed something fresh or genuine. BUT if you want the surest way (if movies, commercials or dramatic TV are your goal) of ensuring that a director is confident in your creativity and skills, make it easy on yourself by avoiding formats that make it extremely difficult to express yourself cinematically. And in my own opinion the 7D is the surest way of doing that economically.
If you have access to a pro35 and a 2/3″ camera with a set of cine-primes – then shut my mouth.
Oh… if you haven’t already you may also want to write about the high compression aliasing and moiré issues of HD DSLRs as well. If you’re shooting a lot of shingles, tiny patterned table cloths and test patterns they’re a nightmare. I’ve yet to throw away a shot based on this issue but I will eventually find one I’m sure within a few years or so.
P.S. Thanks for the offer to post on your incredibly resourceful website but I can hardly find the time to update my own reel. However I have felt very compelled to spend time on this topic. You won’t find my name on many threads or blogs but you really struck a nerve with me regarding the pitfalls of HD DSLRs in light of their power.
1.) If you have a smaller sensor, then focus becomes less critical. Most HD cameras are 1/3″ or 2/3″, R1 is S35mm, while the new Canons are full frame 35mm.
2.)The RED has made a smart move by moving the protective filter away from the sensor. That way dust is likely to be invisible.
3.) Not true for TV production. All the ones I worked on were capturing directly to camera – mainly for ease of use, and to speed up the editing.
4.) R3D has become a standard by now. I edit on a laptop, no need for RAID unless you need 4k realtime.
5.) But only as B-cameras or crash cameras – or because of special circumstances. No DP of name would use a SLR as the main image capturing device.
A lens change should not take more than 20 seconds with a well-oiled camera team. Usually it should not even be noticeable, as it should happen during camera move, re-lighting, wardrobe check, make-up touch up and the like.
Heck, I can change my primes on our R1 in about 10 seconds without an assistant.
In reality it took no more than 30s to a minute to change lenses and it was done at the end of each scene, lighting was changed etc. it just felt like it was eating into production time although in reality it wasn’t.
The best results come from ANY camera in the hands of an Artist, Lighting is what matters. It always has and always will, from Caravaggio to Vittorio Storaro.
You have to be able to tell the story in the first place, then you can learn what you can get away with, the Knowledge is more valuable than the equipment.
Could not agree more…the BBC job I was involved with would not have been the same job without the excellent work of the lighting director.
Obviously a very hot subject if the number of comments is anything to go by. I just made my first feature on an old DVX100… it looks good and no body has asked for their money back yet…so i’m guessing it’s not all about how the picture looks…story is key with drama.
I must admit to be about to jump on the DSLR bandwagon..bang for buck the 7D does some great things in the right hands which i can’t do with a video camera…even with a 35mm adapter. But..i totally agree – it’s got some serious flaws. I think as long as we all go into DSLR production well informed, we’ll get the best out of them. They are not what you need as your main cam, but as an extra tool to get those ‘special’ shots…they are great.
HD Warrior is a great blog..it keeps me well informed of the latest news in the video production world and the video reviews are very informative. Just because there’s a few differences of opinion over gear, i’m not going to stop dropping by every day to see what’s new.
S
Yea the Dark Knight had serious issues shooting on 1000ft mags that give 11 min of 4 perf 35mm…
BTW, I’m not a fan at all of the VDSLR fad occurring at the moment, but you really have to realize that you come off as argumentative and ranting, not informative and unbiased. Most of your complaints have solutions, but since you only tell one side of the story, you conveniently dont mention them.
This is interesting!
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/20
Very good article thanks for linking it for us.
Absolutely fantastic! At long last someone has had the bloody balls to say what many REAL film makers have been thinking for ages. The old story of the Emperor’s clothes comes to mind! I spent my first ten years of my career as a young photographer, then worked as a TV cameraman for the next twenty, and then returned to digital photograpjy in 2003. I could not believe what I was reading when I first saw some of the articles and pictures associated with cameras like the 5D Mk 2, which incidentally I purchased five months ago. It was like the this is the best thing since sliced bread. Absolute tosh. The real reason behind this nonsense was because most people raving about this technology were, and still are, photographers, with no real experience of producing videos. Sure, Phil Bloom has an excellent pedigree, but I can’t help thinking somewhere along the line he may have some arrangement with Canon(?) It all seems like re-inventing the wheel! For goodness sake, if people want to make proper video productions then use a dedicated video camera, not a stills camera which has pieces of plastic stuck onto it trying to make it into something it’s not. Yes, I know, as I hear everyone jumping up and down shouting…”But it’s HD.” We all get sucked into the whole digital thing, when most of the time it is completely superfluous. I could continue to write about the negative aspects of HD, but I think HD warrior has made more than enough valid points in my opinion. At the end of the day, these HD cameras, and in particular the 5D Mk2, ARE STILLS CAMERAS THAT CAN BE USED TO RECORD MOVING IMAGES and that’s all! They have a place, and a useful one, but let’s all keep it in perspective. Well done HD Warrior, you have my 100% support.
Thanks Howard, I think Alister Chapman from XDCAM-USER.com has put a lot of these so called budding Spielbergs in their place with his technical findings. Phil Bloom has embraced the technology, seems to have a relationship with Canon but as far as I am aware not a financial one. Phil does however make money from 2 teaching DVDs all about Canon HDSLRs though as far as I am aware that is not a crime, just envious I never thought of it myself