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/
look it doesn’t really matter what you think DSLR is here to stay. instead of criticism how about some tips to get around the pitfalls of this tech.
Lets look to solutions , the short comings are obvious
Jack it’s all about perception and which side of the fence you choose. I bought into this technology otherwise I would not be in a position to write about it. It would have been easier to ride along with the notion that this technology is super duper and fall in line with all the other DPs, but that’s not what happened, I see it from a professional viewpoint and in my opinion I don’t need SDoF to impress my clients nor would they even notice.
What they would and have noticed is me “filming” with a HD DSLR…not a video camcorder and I don’t like having to justify my equipment least of all to a well paying client.
I give a open and honest account from my viewpoint.
I would say that it’s not that what you are saying is untrue; in fact most of the educated people using HDSLRs knew of these shortcomings before purchasing. I certainly did. But you also ignore the fact that people (like myself) ARE using these for very nice looking professional productions. You could have written the same article about shooting 35mm film. And while I don’t claim that my 7D looks like film exactly, when I use it for productions where film would be a useful substitution (e.g. NOT an ENG shoot) then it works out great. We are all welcome to our opinions, but you seem to skip the fact that there ARE great things being done out there with these cameras. I, and others, have written about their merits and included the shortcomings. You seem to just focus on a part of that.
I have the same feelings about the use of the camera its great for pretty video but for a usable production camera(like replacing an hvx) its not gonna happen with the current crop of HDSLR plus you didnt mention rolling shutter which is a bummer. Having shot a short film with the 5d2 it was a blast to use and get the “look” we wanted on the cheap. I have hopes that the popularity of these HDSLRs will put the video manufacturers on notice so that they up their game and not sit on old technology.
The only thing here that I find bogus is that fast lens’s are always more expensive. I don’t think you would notice a big quality difference between canons 50mm 1.2 and their 50mm 1.4 or even the 1.8. Both the 1.4 and 1.8 are pretty cheap yet crazy fast lens’s. Same goes with the 85mm 1.2 vs the 85mm 1.8. Not a big difference in low light capabilities there and many people say the 1.8 is unnoticeably just as sharp with even faster auto focus.
In most cases the faster lens’s are going to be pretty spendy but you can’t argue that a 7D with a 50mm 1.8 isn’t the cheapest way to get crazy low light video out there. I’m also thinking that these combos are perfect for journalist who’s videos won’t ever be viewed at their full resolution but only at lower resolutions on a newspapers website. It might not be perfect for everyone but I think its revolutionary for some.
These are the same limitations you face with any professional camera shooting in HD.
You seem to have a problem that the current crop of DSLRs are affordable. We all understand that being able to afford equipment does not lead to professional results. That being said, there are professional out there that are achieving professional results with DSLRs.
How can you not recognize that these are the early days. Just take a look at what happened to still photography. There were people making the same kind of statements that you are making. Because you are open and honest, you are not necessarily correct…tough.
Not the case…If I see an exceptional production and it allows me to embed it on my blog I do so like “GIANTS” shot on a Canon 5DMk11 by Creative Producer Conrad Piccirillo for the NBA Indiana Pacers. Another HD DSLR production was “SALSA KINGDOM” by Joe Shaw shot with a Panasonic GH1.
100% correct as I keep telling everyone…this HD DSLR phase will encourage someone like Canon to produce a proper film like SDoF camcorder.
Not true, I have had the 50mm f1.4 Canon and the Sigma f1.4 which on paper was better than the Canon both lenses do not perform as good as the 50mm f1.2 ‘L’ Canon lens…in fact the Sigma was so bad (soft) I sent it back for a refund.
Nonsense.
Post samples because that’s what you would need to do to notice the difference. Especially in video. You just got done saying that your clients don’t notice DOF so they certainly aren’t the pixel peepers that they would need to be to notice the difference.
It’s not so much the “affordability” it’s all the extra expense that goes with it, you can’t just buy a £1244 7D with an 18-135 EF-S lens and expect to get professional video results. “Early Days” I keep hearing this time and time again…if Canon were intent on giving us a true DSMC then they would have copied the most important features from the professional video world but they haven’t.
The dinosaurs from photography were bashing on about quality and how digital would not be as good as 35mm film well yes they have been proved wrong. I have been an advocate of digital from day one, digital makes all our lives easier but as I have said before a hybrid camera that tries to please both camps has to have a compromise and in case you have not seen it…it’s compromise is always video !
1) Shallow depth of field is why there are ADs/focus pullers.
2) DSLRs have a layer of protection over the sensor that is cleanable. Changing a lens on any camera can introduce dust into the system/
3) Any film production or major TV production captures audio seperately/outside the camera.
4) Red footage isn’t exactly easy to work with either and you better be ready to spend some money on a RAID array to move data around fast enough.
5) HDSLRs are being used in lots of big productions in addition to other more traditional video cameras.
I agree with Benjamin. When I purchased my 7D I knew exactly the limitations, and the bottom line was expect a workflow like you’re used to (at least for audio): I don’t know about you but I grew up shooting 35 and 16 and there’s audio inputs there… I have a slate, I clap it, and I sync it up later. The 7D makes that a hell of a lot easier when you add Pluraleyes to do the sync for you! You can’t justify NOT having an audio technician on set to handle audio capture for a professional shoot, nor can you justify NOT having a qualified focus puller on set to keep your image sharp! That said, for anything narrative, EOS->PV. Done. The fact of the matter is, you shoot at an f/4 or f/4-5.6 (coincidentally my favorite range to shoot the RED at), and your DOF is not “which eye is focus?” (which I agree – I hate) but rather a nice range (most of the time) of focus and out of focus. It’s ALWAYS been about controlling your tools. I don’t mind that I have to take a light meter out to make sure what I capture is in range of my camera (been doing it for years with different film latitudes!). If you know what you’re doing and understand the limitations, then it doesn’t make sense NOT to invest in this route simply because of the PRICE. That said, it’s definitely not a solution that’s for everyone. 100% agree with that. News shooters, events, that sort of stuff – no way. Music videos, commercials, narrative projects (short and long) – it’s a fantastic way to add production value on a budget. But hey, that’s why there’s so many options out there, right? Helps all of us to have choices. Cheers mate, thanks for the read! 🙂
“you can’t just buy a £1244 7D with an 18-135 EF-S lens and expect to get professional video results.”
Yes you can. Yes there are limitations, but it’s the operator, not the camera, that gets you professional results.
Great reply…I agree, music videos would be a great medium to benefit from SDoF that the HD DSLR gives, musical montages, opening sequences, I am not shut off to the DSLR but you need to know it’s limitations then like anything in professional video production…use it sparingly and for the right reasons.
I do agree with a lot of your viewpoints, and I’m equally sceptical to HDSLR as they are now for drama productions. But I wouldn’t underestimate the impact they are having on pushing high ISO capabilities into professional digital film cameras. Remember that RED revised all their next gen designs after the 5D MKII came out. I think that future improved versions from both Nikon and Canon can become viable tools for producing moving images, but they will be niche products, and might not ever be widely adapted in drama.
I couldn’t disagree more with this article. Take a look at this article I wrote before I read this. http://www.canonfilmmakers.com/2009/12/everything-i-know-about-canon-7d-i.html
Sorry as this comment is going to be really off-topic (I am interested in film making and photography but have zero budget for a HD DSLR :[ ), but what breed of dogs are depicted in the photograph at the start of the article?
I only ask because we got a dog from a rescue place that looks really similar. My wife thinks the dog is a Border Collie \ Labrador cross but I thought she looked more like a ‘smooth collie’
Anyway, thanks for the article (in both a photographic and K9 sense 🙂 )
Canon and Nikon are not stupid you can bet they will take on RED but they will have to seriously change their tack and give us professional sound inputs, gain controls and Hi Rez swivel LCDs.
The 12 minute time limit is mega serious for anyone who wants to film 12 minutes or more of continuos footage, you can’t get around this or are we expecting everyone to buy two 7Ds.
The dog on the right is a Border Collie from farm stock, don’t know anything about the dog on the left.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 ?
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.
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.
Very good answer you have it in a nutshell.
I like your analogy of “never good enough high end pushing technology down to the masses.” that sais it all in one line.
Obvious
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.
Whithout an external monitor or WiFi feed to a monitor it can’t be done.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.