Use of extra LCD monitor on DLSRs in Live View

[frankoferko]

We shot only on S16mm film before, but now are considering shooting our next feature movie with a DSLR. However, one thing that prevents us from so doing is the terrible way to focus and frame shots, as we are so used to a video assist tap out and watching acquired composition on an 8-inch LCD. All videocams also have this feature. We'll have lots of running handhelds, chase seqeunces, etc, you cannot use the VF nor the little built-in LCD, especially those that do not even swivel.

Inasmuch as the cine-DSLRs (2 Canons, 2 Nikons, Panny Lumix) all have a mini HDMI port out, would this port be active only in playback mode? If yes, does anyone has a workaround to making the mini HDMI port active during image capture, and thus enabling a connected LCD monitor to function as an extra monitor? If not, is there any other way to use a DLSR in video capture mode and have an extra LCD (6 to 8 inch) connected to the camera? Thanx!

[DEPTH OF PHIL]

Great question, what is the real story on this, i heard Live mode is not available.. yet?
Firmware update? MKII, GH1?

Cheers

[Ben_B]

Live view out on the GH1 is not available, there are many other threads for this and it is addressed the first two questions or so of the FAQ on this forum.

[Martti Ekstrand]

First off, unlike Canon 5DmkII and Nikon D90 where the mirror is flipped up so the viewfinder is closed during liveview/video recording, the electronic viewfinder on GH1 is active and very usable for handheld in itself.

It's a pity it doesn't have a live video feed out during recording but that's has been explained from at least one Panasonic representative as a matter of CPU resources. Considering that the Canon 5DmkII can only output at low-res feed despite have what at specs look like a more powerful processor it's not that surprising imo.

Here's a possibility - admittedly bit of a kludge solution - but could be better than nothing.

http://www.adorama.com/ZVS2A.html

Basically a videotap for DSLRs with a small built-in flip screen that's detachable and video out. Haven't tried it or even seen one in real-life so how workable it is in real situations you have to find out for yourself. I think it's a UK company who makes it.

[frankoferko]

"There are many other threads for this and it is addressed the first two questions or so of the FAQ on this forum."

MY RESPONSE: Ben B, I really appreciate your input. I must apologize for not "looking around" the site first for this info, but in my defense, I only signed up to be a DVX User just this morning. I must say, one can get lost here so easily, as there is a fantastic abundance of information here. What an amazing world we live in, thank you dvxuser.com! Again, I will look around everywhere, and also check the FAQ here, like you had suggested.

Anyhow, I take it that maybe the CANON 5D2 would be able to give me a Live View out via the min-HDMI conenction at 480p rez, at which time the camera would shut down the built-in LCD, which is fine since I could power the connwcted LCD monitor separately. Hopefully, one can still follow focus at 480 lines of hor. rez, and to be honest with you many of the film camera video out taps are also not of a higher rez than standard def, I believe.

[frankoferko]

The electronic viewfinder on GH1 is active and very usable for handheld in itself.

MY TAKE; Thank you for that input, Martti. Yes, that is a nice feature of the Panny Lumix GH1 indeed. It's jsut when you try to shoot in 16:9, you would already lose some area by masking, and this would get even more pronounced if you try to compose for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 AR. You just cannot do it in a LCD panel that size. Also, the external LCD monitors in the 6-8 inch diagonal size usually have matte, norefelective surfaces and much higher brightness, plus they can use an external battery for power. You can also attach a sun shade onto them easier.

"The Canon 5DmkII can only output at low-res feed despite have what at specs look like a more powerful processor...."

MY TAKE: I udnerstand that, Matti, but I was told that it is basically a SD quality output in recording mode at 480p. If this should indeed be true, then it is really the normal resolution for such video assist set-up, even on pro camcorders and video tap cameras. Only the top models, like a Panny HPX2700 and 3700 Varicam can really give you a full 1920x1080 image out via an HD-SDI BNC conenctor, I am not sure if that would be progressive or intarlaced, however.

"Here's a possibility - admittedly bit of a kludge solution - but could be better than nothing. Basically a videotap for DSLRs with a small built-in flip screen that's detachable and video out. Haven't tried it or even seen one in real-life so how workable it is in real situations you have to find out for yourself. I think it's a UK company who makes it.

http://www.adorama.com/ZVS2A.html

MY TAKE: This is very inetresting indeed, thanks! I can see how this would work for an OPTICAL VF DSLR, but I just don't see how it could work for one that has an electronic VF, like the Lumix GH1. I don't think scanning an electronic VF image this way would you a good quality image that you could use for focusing. I understand this little device has a video out port, I am not sure what type, probably only a 3.5mm or 2.5mm mini RCA composite, and you just cannot get good quaility out of something like that. But the concept of scanning the optical VF is tantalizing, as this is exactly how the video tap sensors work in a 16 and 35mm film camera. It's just those cost upwards of $10-15,000 extra on top of the already hefty price of the film camera body itself. I also like the fact that you can have the sensor removed from the camera, i would be curious what the max. length of a cable run would be. Did not see ay hard specs for the device, will see if I can find he mfr's web site.

[frankoferko]

" it is addressed the first two questions or so of the FAQ on this forum. "

Ben, I could not find the area of where this sorts of FAQ would be on the site, can you pls give a hint or the specific URL, thanks!

[Erik Olson]

Just a slightly off-topic observation, but if you're coming from S16 or CCD acquisition, you should be aware of the CMOS skew / "Jello" distortion issues during any jerky or otherwise abrupt camerawork. I only say this because you indicated that you plan to be doing run-and-gun and chase-style camerawork on this first project.

Most CMOS imager cameras - especially these early prosumer Nikon, Panasonic and Canon offerings - can't even be used as a dashboard camera as even the lowest vibrations disrupt the CMOS.

Look closely at the footage being posted in the DSLR in motion areas of the forum for evidence of this and then decide if it will present a problem for you.

e

[Ben_B]

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174020 Temp FAQ sticky at top of general discussion GH1 forum.

[frankoferko]

Erik, yes I know about the notorious CMOS issue when coupled with the rolling shutter. Skew, jello, judder, flash induced banding, etc. Not all CMOS sensor cameras have it, of course, like for instance the Grass Valley Infinity 1000 does not have it, nor does the Arri D21 and the Sony F35. Of course, these models cost more than ordinary video-capable DSLRs do.

Interestingly, the larger the CMOS sensor gets, the less this is an issue, it seems from the tests. Of the tests I have seen w. the DSLRs, the issue of CMOS + rolling shutter artiacts is a lot less pronounced, for example, than with an $8,000 Panny HPX300 camcorder that only has the tiny 1/3-inch diagonal CMOS sensor.

[Martti Ekstrand]

It's jsut when you try to shoot in 16:9, you would already lose some area by masking,

Umm, from my little experience the EVF nor the LCD doesn't mask off anything - WYSIWYG


and this would get even more pronounced if you try to compose for 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 AR. You just cannot do it in a LCD panel that size.
Yes you can - it's just a tad more difficult. I'd put on a screen protection self-adhesive film and draw two black lines with a ruler and a marker. And if you'd aim for 2:35 then you'd need to get a anamorphic lens on it, to crop out the center part for that aspect will be pushing 1920x1080 capture to far, not to mention 1280x720. Illya Friedman of Hot Rod Cameras are working on that btw. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/ and he sells a PL mount already that might be of interest for you.


You can also attach a sun shade onto them easier.
There's a Hoodman already that I've seen mentioned works very well with flip-out screens.


as this is exactly how the video tap sensors work in a 16 and 35mm film camera.
Yup, I'm old enough to remember when this new-fangled thing called video tap first arrived on a set. Did pretty well without them for some years before that. Had to trust the cinematographer / operator a little more though.


those cost upwards of $10-15,000 extra on top of the already hefty price of the film camera body itself.
Yeah, and that's exactly why we here are trying to wrangle a high-end consumer camera to be a micro-budget pro device.


i would be curious what the max. length of a cable run would be. Did not see ay hard specs for the device, will see if I can find he mfr's web site.
IIRC that page also mentions a WIRELESS add-on, have a look at it.


I don't think scanning an electronic VF image this way would you a good quality image that you could use for focusing.
The EVF is pretty hi-res so you might get lucky. If you don't try you'll never know


I understand this little device has a video out port, I am not sure what type, probably only a 3.5mm or 2.5mm mini RCA composite, and you just cannot get good quaility out of something like that.
OK - don't even try then...


But the concept of scanning the optical VF is tantalizing
Again, all other vDSLRs optical viewfinders go black in liveview / video recording so you can't use any kind of videotap on them.

From your general attitude you seem more bent on the Canon 5DmkII. Fine. Two observations from a fairly old film dog: first off the 135 mm full frame still photography sensor do yield a very pretty image. But ...
1. That also means it has more lines to sweep on each frame which give a bigger rolling shutter problem. Maybe Canon can speed up the roll in a future firmware update but right now GH1 has a less pronounced skew already in 1080 and I dare say it's not really a problem in 720.
BTW have a look at Canon's own demonstration of the rolling shutter, cars haven't looked this funny since Pixars' "Cars". Scroll down for the QuickTime film
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2951

2. If I recall correctly from working on a couple of gigs shooting on VistaVision, which has the same neg size as 5Ds sensor, the DOF gets shallower in pretty steep fashion. IE to get the same DOF as T2.8 with a normal lens (28mm) on a Academy 35mm camera, the VV cams normal (50mm) had to be stepped down to T8-9. The amount of light we had to use was staggering.

Now when shooting action with Academy 35mm format a T4 or 5.6 is a good idea or the focus puller will have a cardiac arrest before the wrap party. That usually puts a blankett on the festivities. So you'd have to step down the 5DmkII quite a bit. The DOF on 5DmkII at 2.8 is really thin. Here's a example of that - if they even shot at 2.8, it might be 4.0
http://vimeo.com/5207913

You can also read Illya's blog about GH1 for film shooting. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/about/blog/

But seriously I suggest you lend / rent / buy-n-return both a GH1 and a 5DmkII and have gear available to test stuff yourself before locking down on what you need for your production instead of going on conjecture based on intartube info. What's a perfect solution for somebody else might be a total nightmare for you and you seem to have very specific demands.
In the mean time look at a couple of examples of GH1 in action. First Jack Daniel Stanley's action test: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=174857

and - ahem - my little lowlight short film, much less ambitious mind: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=175134

cheers

[Erik Olson]

Brilliant post, great information.

It should be clarified that we are decidedly not talking about Arri equipment. Also I believe that the Genesis / F23 / F35 are still single CCD devices, which means that there will not be rolling shutter issues.

We actually own the HPX300 and the rolling shutter is an issue on a longer lens especially in 1080/24 fps and worst in the AVC-i100 mode. However, it can be worked around and does not manifest as much as it does in the DSLRs during vibrations. This is a big issue for in-car shooting or on hostess trays / vehicle mounts, running without stabilization, whip pans and on and on. So, if you're asking about an "action" oriented camera, the DSLRs, in their current crop of offerings, aren't optimal.

e

[frankoferko]

Thanks, lots of great stuff here, Marti.

The use of anamorphic lenses and adopters, however, is sort of history, at least in the motion picture theaters of today. Reason for that is, the DCI D-cinema projectors (Christie, Barco, NEC, Sony) do not use them. When a digital cinema projector projects a scope formatted film, it simply does so at a 2048 x 884 pixel resolution, which gives you the 2.35:1 aspect ratio without having to use a scope lens or scope adapter on the PJ. To put it another way, whther your digital cinema projector prjects a 1.85 or scope movie, the lens remains the same on the PJ.

Of course, you can still use anamorphics for the acqusition phase.

I certaionly do not have any unique requirements, merely that the image should not do crazy jello and skew, that sort of mars the motion experience in my view.

[frankoferko]

Erik, The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) did a D-film camera shoot-out recently, and I believe the German Arri D21 was voted as the best digital film camera overall (priced at app. $300,000), and the surprising runner-up was the Panasonic HPX3700 Varicam ($30K with a trade-in camera). So sorry, Sony. The Red One did not even make it into the top 3, in fact I heard from 'confidential sources' that it came in dead last of all cameras tested by the ASC. Sort of an obituary for the Red One, perhaps?

The Genesis is a pretty old design Sony camera that Panavision modified.

The Sony F23 is CCD, the F35 is CMOS.

The rolling shutter artifacts captued on various test clips seem to be abbhorrent when it comes to the HPX300. Also, that tiny sized imager in the age of the video-ready DSLRs just does not make much eco-sense, especially at $8,000. It is a great camera for still life, interviews, a remake of "Diner" with a bunch of folks sitting around a diner table talking. etc. Just not for any fast moving action stuff. There is such a thing as too narrow DOF, but the HPX300 gives you way too much of it. And the stock Fuji lens it comes with ain't much at all.

We are going to be doing some price comparison as well, as money is a big factor. Shooting on 16mm, the cost of the raw stock (Fuji, Eastman) and the cost of laboratory processing has not really gone up much, if at all, in the past 15 years, amazingly. Renting/buying 16mm film cameras and lenses are rather cheap, too, in comparison to the pricey video offerings.

The final step in the workflow would be the HD or 2K scan to hard drive, the cost of this procedure is dropping as well. And I can now go back to a 20-year old negative to do a new scan and give me an HD data master. Sort of hard to do if you had shot the same thing on Beta SP way back then.

So, that would be the film route, now with the video camcorder route you are usually talking about more money for the equipment but less money for everything related to capture and post, plus it is much faster. Overall, I still think shooting on film would cost more.

Nevertheless, just 15 years ago there were Super 8 and mini-VHS cameras and Polaroid still cameras on movie sets for various activities, these days a DSLR can be put into use for audition recordings, make-up/wardrobe tests with the actors, location scouting recording, maybe even behind-the-scenes documentaries.

[frankoferko]

"If you'd aim for 2:35 then you'd need to get a anamorphic lens on it, to crop out the center part for that aspect will be pushing 1920x1080 capture to far, not to mention 1280x720. Illya Friedman of Hot Rod Cameras are working on that btw. http://www.hotrodcameras.com/ and he sells a PL mount already that might be of interest for you."

Martti, I don't believe anyone professionally uses anamorphic lenses and adapters anymore on video cameras. Since the Digital Cinema Initiative came into effect, exhibition of scope is via masking, so I don't see much reason to go that way in acquisition for anyone. Very little anamorphic lens is being sued today even in 35mm theatrical shoots, filmmakers preferring to go the cheaper, simpler, more versatile Super 35 route using spherical optics. As to PL-mount lenses on DSLRs and video camcorders, that makes precious little sense, too. Arri PL lenses were and still are designed primarily for 16mm and 35mm motion picture film cameras. Not for little DSLRs and camcorders. People make all sorts of adapters and converters for just about everything. It does not mean the use of them is always a worthwhile idea.

"The 135 mm full frame still photography sensor do yield a very pretty image. But ...
that also means it has more lines to sweep on each frame which give a bigger rolling shutter problem."

Martti, I believe the opposite is true, based on the empirical evidence presented in various camera tests hereto. Due perhaps more than sensor size to the fact that DLSRs use a somewhat diferent electronic shutter design than CMOS video camcorders do.

"So you'd have to step down the 5DmkII quite a bit. The DOF on 5DmkII at 2.8 is really thin."

Martti, maybe you are not getting fully why folks use CMOS sensor DSLR videos for capture. Mark Forman, who shot the first scenes ever incorporated into a major 35mm motion picture with his own 5D Mark II told me that he was asked to use the Canon specifically because the director wanted a shot in such low light that no motion picture film stock could handle it. Somehow, Mark was able to adjust focus in this nighttime ext. shoot so it was not out of focus, I understand, and he did not even have a focus puller for this task. I've seen plenty of other use with the Canon iris full open w. an F1.4 lens, even a 1.2. I think shooting anything with a DSLR or small camcorder and then have a dedicated "focus puller" dial your focus, Hollywood style, would be just ludicrous.

Also, focusing is done quite a bit differently with motion picture film cameras than with digital cameras. With digital cameras, it is much simpler and easier. With film cameras, the optical VFs can still be pretty dim, especially in low light, which is why the focus is normally not set visually but via a measuring tape. With a digial camera, you can actually set focus quite okay manually and visually, I believe. I am sure not many people would by a Canon 5D2 for video use, foe example, if they could only upon up iris on a lens to F5.6 or F8.

I am looking over the links next that you had suggested. At this point, after attending the Philadelphia Film market last week, I am on the opinion that a movie today should shot either on film (Super 16, Ultra 16, 2-perf or 3-perf 35, or else using a 2/3-inch sensor or larger dedicated D-film camera. Obviously, the Panny Varicams have 2/3-inch CCD sensors, no rolling shutetr concerns there, but I still want to give a try to the 2/3-inch CMOS sensor Grass Valley Infinity 1000, the as the mfr. claims that there are no skew and jello artifacts with their camera.

[Erik Olson]

Erik, The American Society of Cinematographers (ASC) did a D-film camera shoot-out recently, and I believe the German Arri D21 was voted as the best digital film camera overall (priced at app. $300,000), and the surprising runner-up was the Panasonic HPX3700 Varicam ($30K with a trade-in camera). So sorry, Sony. The Red One did not even make it into the top 3, in fact I heard from 'confidential sources' that it came in dead last of all cameras tested by the ASC. Sort of an obituary for the Red One, perhaps?

The Genesis is a pretty old design Sony camera that Panavision modified.

The Sony F23 is CCD, the F35 is CMOS.

The rolling shutter artifacts captued on various test clips seem to be abbhorrent when it comes to the HPX300. Also, that tiny sized imager in the age of the video-ready DSLRs just does not make much eco-sense, especially at $8,000. It is a great camera for still life, interviews, a remake of "Diner" with a bunch of folks sitting around a diner table talking. etc. Just not for any fast moving action stuff. There is such a thing as too narrow DOF, but the HPX300 gives you way too much of it. And the stock Fuji lens it comes with ain't much at all.

We are going to be doing some price comparison as well, as money is a big factor. Shooting on 16mm, the cost of the raw stock (Fuji, Eastman) and the cost of laboratory processing has not really gone up much, if at all, in the past 15 years, amazingly. Renting/buying 16mm film cameras and lenses are rather cheap, too, in comparison to the pricey video offerings.

The final step in the workflow would be the HD or 2K scan to hard drive, the cost of this procedure is dropping as well. And I can now go back to a 20-year old negative to do a new scan and give me an HD data master. Sort of hard to do if you had shot the same thing on Beta SP way back then.

So, that would be the film route, now with the video camcorder route you are usually talking about more money for the equipment but less money for everything related to capture and post, plus it is much faster. Overall, I still think shooting on film would cost more.

Nevertheless, just 15 years ago there were Super 8 and mini-VHS cameras and Polaroid still cameras on movie sets for various activities, these days a DSLR can be put into use for audition recordings, make-up/wardrobe tests with the actors, location scouting recording, maybe even behind-the-scenes documentaries.

I'm really just speaking to the OP's first post regarding the use of a CMOS DSLR as a replacement for Super-16mm production. It will be a fantastic tool. The caveat is that the OP indicated that the camera would be used for Bourne-style photography. I just observed that this form-factor / acquisition type might not be up to the task. Look at the recently posted parking garage footage and you can see the Jello/shudder on even low-speed panning and in walking shots.

Also, unless Sony has recently updated (and downgraded) their F35 CineAlta (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/product-F35/) system, the cameras are, like the Genesis / F23, a CCD imager centered device. Not CMOS.

Also, we shoot primarily reality and documentary projects. That said, we will also offer B4 to PL options on our HPX300 cameras, which will likely handle most narrative work without too much trouble. We will be posting our jib tests with the HPX300 in various modes and framerates. These tests are designed to show the absolute edge of what the HPX can capture before exhibiting skew. I can't reconcile what you're saying about DOF on the 300.

e

[frankoferko]

Erik, I believe DSLR video/ceinematography was never intended to replace Super 16mm film acquisition. Instead, shooting with a Lumix DH1 is more tantamount to shooting with a 35mm film camera, and shooting with the EOS 5D2 is like shooting with the VistaVision, the next size down from an IMAX acquisition. This is how Illya with Hot Rod Cameras puts it:



"The Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH1 sensor, while smaller than the Canon 5Dmk2, is much closer to the field of view/depth of field used in mainstream film and television. Take a look at this chart I created. All sensors/film formats sizes listed are to scale.
One more thing- the 4/3″ format is not roughly equivalent to 16mm. One could say that 2/3″ HD and 16mm film are similar, but it’s not accurate to also include 4/3. 4/3 is FOUR TIMES the size of 2/3″ HD. (22mm hypotenuse vs 11mm hypotenuse). See the chart below for a visual representation."


www.hotrodcameras.com/2009/06/17/film-format-and-sensor-size-comparison/ (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/www.hotrodcameras.com/2009/06/17/film-format-and-sensor-size-comparison/)



So, since the GH1's sensor is almost FOUR TIMES THE AREA of a 2/3-inch camcorder's or S16 gate area, the closest it replaces is S35. Of course, the 36x24mm sensor size in the 5D2 dwarfs the 4/3rd size imager. It is only in this content when one realizes that the micro-midget 1/3-inch videocam sensors are practically useless for modern digital acquisition. But they are still the best size for consumers and prosumers. The big problem with the HPX300 is its app. $8,000 price. Too high, compared that a much, much, much larger sized CMOS camera (DSLR) can be had for a fraction of this cost. Test footage shot with the 300 in 1080i/24pN are notoriously unimpresive. And the 1/3-inch video elsnes are nothing to write home about -- they are just not that good, and they give a rather narrow AOV at their widest settings. No 93 or 96 degree horizontal AOF here, I'm afraid.

I am sort of surprised thart Panny came out with a full-size camera body this year using the midget sensor. They should have charged a few thou more and give it a 1/2-inch sensor, like the Sony HDCAM EX-series has. Then nobody would buy the Sonys. But a tiny 1/3-inch sensor that is CMOS with rolling shutter -- what is there to like with the HPX300, exactly? Obviously, it cannot handle 1080i acquisition in Native mode and using the AVX-I 100 codec, it's just too way much for it.

While testing cameras is always a good idea, I believe I have seen all the tests I need to see shot with the Panny HPX300. The new firmware update for it is supposed to correct the flash-induced binding FX -- according to Rajesh Rad, my engineering contact at Panny's NJ HQ nearby -- but I was told by him that it won't be able to correct the skew and jello, as that is shutter related, part of the technology's inherent compromise.

BTW, there is a good question on the Red Hot blog, “Why would you put PL mount lenses on a DSLR?” I have zero clue as to why, perhaps because you already have some PL-mount 35mm cine lenses idling on the shelf. But I certainly would not buy a $1,500 camera that already comes with the lens, toss the lens, get a PL-adapter for more than what the camera portion costs, and then put on it a 35mm cine-style lens that goes for new today in the $20,000 to $75,000 price range (unifocal & varifocal). But, I suppose folks will be making and using adapters and converters of one type or the other from here until Doomsday -- and back. ;~))

One new trend is shooting with 2/3-inch sensor camcorders and film cameras using SLR/DSLR photo lenses, but I guess it was only time before the opposite of this lens-flow was conceived and put into motion.

Lastly, we attended the Philadelphia Film Market last week. There were many exhibitors, producer and prod companies, showing their latest feature films. It was amazing to me that only one film was even shot on S16mm film, or the others were shot on video. Only one was shot on a 2/3-inch CCD camera, all the others were shot on 1/3-inch cameras.

Even more amazing was the fact that many brand new features were shot on STANDARD DEF cameras, some even in the 4:3 aspect ratio! The most popular cameras that they shot features on were the Canon XL1, the Panny DVX100, and the Panny HVX200. Again, one feature only was shot on film, one shot on 2/3-inch, and none shot on DSLR. The rest were shot on 1/3-inch CCD camcorders, more than one film in SD, not HD.

[frankoferko]

http://www.hotrodcameras.com/2009/06/17/film-format-and-sensor-size-comparison/

[Erik Olson]

We shot only on S16mm film before, but now are considering shooting our next feature movie with a DSLR. However, one thing that prevents us from so doing is the terrible way to focus and frame shots, as we are so used to a video assist tap out and watching acquired composition on an 8-inch LCD. All videocams also have this feature. We'll have lots of running handhelds, chase seqeunces, etc, you cannot use the VF nor the little built-in LCD, especially those that do not even swivel.

Inasmuch as the cine-DSLRs (2 Canons, 2 Nikons, Panny Lumix) all have a mini HDMI port out, would this port be active only in playback mode? If yes, does anyone has a workaround to making the mini HDMI port active during image capture, and thus enabling a connected LCD monitor to function as an extra monitor? If not, is there any other way to use a DLSR in video capture mode and have an extra LCD (6 to 8 inch) connected to the camera? Thanx!

Frank,

I wanted to show you your own original post, because as far as I can tell you're flaming your own thread. I posted a reply regarding rolling shutter in the five cameras you're looking at for one reason. That the CMOS might not be the best for action photography where vibration / rapid camera movement would be prevalent.

I said nothing about Arri, Panavision or any other professional camera, yet you keep bringing these completely disparate devices into the conversation. Your rambling posts don't have any connection to my observation on CMOS for action photography. And yet you persist. Also, as someone who has actually operated VistaVision systems (at Kerner Optical among others), I don't think you should relate any digital format to VistaVision. While VV utilized 35mm motion picture stock running horizontally through the gate, the system by its movement, process and exhibition bears no resemblance to digital acquisition in any way, shape or form. Neither does 16mm or conventional 35mm celluloid-originated photography.

Your obvious disdain for the HPX300 isn't an issue for me. That is your choice. However, when you make nefarious comments regarding the cameras ability to render 1080i (which it does with little or no CMOS issues) or that the Sony F35 is a CMOS camera again and again and again (despite Sony's literature to the contrary), I have to question your ability to even acknowledge black and white reality.

Also, it should be stated that the 1/2" Sony XDCam cameras are incredibly popular, as are cameras like the Z7U hybrid type variant. I work with them all the time for the DCI family of nets and they feature heavily in the TLC and Discovery programming you see every day. In fact, I would estimate that the largest broadcaster on the planet originates the greatest majority of their programming with them. The technical standard might dictate that HDCam and VariCam do so as a percentage, but we (the producers and photographers) know the real ratios.

To answer your observation regarding why professionals (sic, idiot savants) would use PL mount professional lenses on our cameras (of any type) - well the answers are myriad. Lack of breathing during focus. Matched speed across a set. Matched optical components across a set. Matched optical coatings across a set. Universally accepted mounting (for better or worse) system type, with most lens mfgs. utilizing same. Overall optical quality of lenses at this level.

At any rate, I really feel that I've wasted my time (and your's) by offering one observation to your original post. Hopefully, you'll get as much out of these boards as you put in. And I hope that what you put in is well-conceived and researched.

e

[frankoferko]

"I posted a reply regarding rolling shutter in the five cameras you're looking at for one reason. That the CMOS might not be the best for action photography where vibration / rapid camera movement would be prevalent."

MY TAKE: No, CMOS cameras are not that good when they only have the rolling shutter mechanism and not the global shutter. I was just wondering, being a newbie here and all that, why do so many folks on www.dvxuser.com are actuallty commenting about and apparently even using these DSLRs as potential video devices, anyhow? It's probably just a big hype, sort of like 3D filmmaking is. Here today, gone tomorrow?


"I said nothing about Arri, Panavision or any other professional camera, yet you keep bringing these completely disparate devices into the conversation."

MY TAKE ON THAT: Well, we were talking about rolling shutter artifacts at one point, like skew, jello, the other nasties. I merely mentioned that not all CMOS cameras have this problem, because not all CMOS cameras use the rolling shutter, that's all. The Panny HPX300 does, however. I am not that much bothered by rolling shutter, truth be told, but those who do and still want a CMOS sensor camera, there are other options out there than these DSLRs, since I understand all or at least most of them employ rolling shutters. No?

But $8,000 for a tiny-sensor camera with CMOS AND rolling shutter and 1/3-inch video optics -- what a lethal combo!

"Your rambling posts don't have any connection to my observation on CMOS for action photography."

MY TAKE ON THAT: Well, I know of a horror flick that was shot entirely in NYC using a CMOS DSLR, but maybe horror is not really a sub-genre of the action main genre, I don't really know. Best to shoot on motion picture film stock, I gather. No surprises there, surely.


"I don't think you should relate any digital format to VistaVision."

MY TAKE ON THAT SUGEGSTION: Yeah, and I don't think anybody should, really. They are a good 50 years apart, anyhow, and that's just for starters. Size isn't everything, right? ;~))


.... the system by its movement, process and exhibition bears no resemblance to digital acquisition in any way, shape or form. Neither does 16mm or conventional 35mm celluloid-originated photography."

MY RESPONSE: I am not sure if I agree with this last part. On a S16mm movie shoot, we had actuallty used a video tap (video sensor) inside the camera, watched live the action on set, and even recorded color video of what the camer'as lens saw for later playback. Maybe it has got nothing to do with VistaVision, but I think it has a little something to do with digital acquisition.


Re the HPX300's ability to render 1080i.... Well, the Panny rep dragged that camera down here to us (along with the HPX2700 and 3700) and so we did some of our own testing, and the rest I saw posted on Vimeo. I was actually stunned how wretched the 1080/24pN footage looked, which is why I suppose just about everyone and their broher is using the camera only in its 720p mode, not in 1080i. It is a great 1/3-inch sensor camera, if you really want a tiny, sub-size sensor to record images with, that is. Personally, I wouldn't. There are lot better deals out there these days to get, really.


The reason Sony decided to use a single-chip CCD sensor instead of a CMOS was that they use an entirely different approcah to global sutter design than the Arri D21 does. Still nothing to do with the VistaVisions of yesterdecade, however.


"Also, it should be stated that the 1/2" Sony XDCam cameras are incredibly popular, as are cameras like the Z7U hybrid type variant. I work with them all the time for the DCI family of nets and they feature heavily in the TLC and Discovery programming you see every day."

MY TAKE: Well, to start with the Sony EX cameras, they have only a slightly larger CMOS sensor than the HPX300 does, and a much, much smaller sensor than any of the also CMOS-equipped DLSRs do. What is the attraction with them, exactly? They cost way much more than any of the DSLRs do, too.

The 8-bit DVCPro HD Panny 27H was a great camera when it came out in 2001 or whenerver, but today (summer of 2009), it's the HPX2700 and 3700 that are all the rage in that department, you know.


"Why professionals would use PL mount professional lenses on our cameras (of any type) - well the answers are myriad."

MY TAKE ON THAT: Nonsense. There is only one main reason for that, really: because that is what the particular camera uses. For instance, when we shot with the Aaton XTRProd, we never really contemplated getting an adapter and putting a 1/3-inch, 1/2-inch. or 2/3-inch video lens on that film camera. Never, and you can quote me on that. We were perfectly happy to stick PL-mount S16 cine lenses on it, really we were.

On the other hand, I think it is funny more than anything when some folks try to Frankensteinize a $1,000-$2,000 DSLR camera by putting a $15,000, $20,000 prime or a much more expensive cine zoom lens on it, only because that lens has a different mount than what the photo camera usually takes as standard lens mount. What a total waste! Who is being fooled by this "technique," anyhow?


"Lack of breathing during focus."

MY TAKE: All cine zooms we ever used (Zeiss, Angenieux) breathed some when focus was pulled. Some more than others, of course. But maybe the VV lenses did not breath, who really knows?


"Matched speed across a set. Matched optical components across a set. Matched optical coatings across a set."

MY TAKE ON THAT: No need to use any set of unifocal lenses since 1951 or thereabouts, as that is when the so-called variofocal or "zoom" lenses came into wide use and acceptance. These days, one can use one or two zoom lenses to shoot an entire independent feature film with, one really can, you know. But for those who cannot afford zoom optics, they do indeed have to try and match one fixed lens to another. Sounds like a regular pain in the butt, too. :-))


"Universally accepted mounting (for better or worse) system type, with most lens mfgs. utilizing same. Overall optical quality of lenses at this level."

MY TAKE: Yeah, and I even heard that some less informed folks attempt to use a motion picture cinema lens on a digital camcorder! What a total mismatch, hmmm!? The situation is markedly better with the new breed of digital cine lenses, fortunately.

[frankoferko]

Erik, think about this for a second. Are you really promoting a SINGLE CHIP CAMERA that costs $280,000? It seems to me that you do when you provide laudatory for the Sony F35.

Now, in my book, a single chip any camera is the cheapest video camera one can get. Since you can get a perfectly good Panasonic HPX3700 Varicam with THREE CCD CHIPs for $30,000 w. a trade-in today, I really don't see the rationale of talking about a a camera costing over a quarter of a million dollers -- and one having only a SINGLE CCD CHIP.

That's just too freakish.

Heck, you can get a DSLR with a SINGLE CMOS for under a thousand dollars these days, wow!!!