I'm not sure the camera guys get it! [Archive] - DVXuser.com -- The online community for filmmaking

bwwd

09-11-2009, 07:04 AM

Their lack of knowledge sometimes scares me ,they indeed dont have any clue ,i thought they would know that depth of field in motion picyure films from tv is comparable to depth of field in film cameras so they would came up to the conclusion that one still is like one frame of motion picture film.
I think its lack of knowledge,they whining about lack of auto focus on new DSLR and in 70s 80s 90s they used only
manual focus on their film camera lenses,this is so weird.
But also they only need to take one frame while wee need to take 24 of them per second so thats the comparision,its laziness on their part to not make any research before making statements such as "buy video camcorder".Theyre scared of jello in footage and lack of auto focus so its a big no no in their opinion.

editman

09-11-2009, 07:33 AM

He who can shoot still and video and edit it all together will have lot of work!

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 07:38 AM

AF? Vat is dis AF?

Green Hornet

09-11-2009, 07:45 AM

He who can shoot still and video and edit it all together will have lot of work!

Shooting HD video, may yield you frames that can be just pulled from the video.
You may not need to shoot stills as well, just do a frame grab from the video.

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 07:49 AM

If you are shooting 24p (or even 30p), there's going to be a some motion blur in there. Unless you are shooting an absolutely still shot...at which time I would take a picture. Plus, your image is going to be 1920x1080 or 1280x720 instead of something ridiculous like 4K or 5K so it won't be as useful for prints.

The way RED gets away with the whole video to stills thing is that it does shoot 4K (resolving a bit less than that because of debayering). So its coming.

daveswan

09-11-2009, 07:56 AM

Any "video" cams that have shutter speeds down to minutes.....or even hours......thought not.
Dave

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 08:18 AM

My ultimate scenario would be an s35mm digital camera that continuously shoots high speed frames and shutter with very clean high ISOs yielding crisp like images. In post, the NLE would have the ability (with one click) to give me a motion blur equivalent to 24fps. If I want slow motion I could easily pick out a point in the footage and with one click change the perceived motion and maybe catch a bullet flying through the air smoothly. I would also be able to take a crisp and clean snapshot of any frame regardless of how fast an object is moving in the frame. By this time PC’s and laptops will be so fast that applying motion blur in post would not be such a hassle. Also, this would be much better for keying (which for example is one of the reasons why James Cameron desires digital cams to shoot 48 fps instead of 24fps….but still show the final product at 24 fps). Sure, data storage would be crazy high…but at this time it wouldn’t matter. Storage will be even cheaper, faster and more compact.

Sorry….I was just dreaming out loud.

KeithAndrews.TV

09-11-2009, 08:44 AM

Still photogs are familar with the look a 35mm film camera and digital still camera can produce so they do not see what we see with video backgrounds. Greater control over DoF is something they have always had and use.

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 10:49 AM

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 11:05 AM

I agree with what you are saying Barry but I’m skeptical about what we might end up seeing in the form of a “dedicated” camcorder. The way these companies operated in the past leads me to think that there will be many compromises in this hypothetical cam. That would be no surprise. But what kind of compromise is the question. A lot of folks speculate that Canon (or fill in the blank) will come out with a sensor the size of 35mm or somewhere around 4/3s etc. I don’t think so. Bigger sensors….yes…but I don’t that big. Sensitivity will not be as good as the 5Dll either. But it will have all the bells and whistles of traditional pro-sumer cams. That’s where folks would have to decide on getting one, the other, or both. They will eventually work their way up to bigger sensors etc., but not right away. So, DSLRs might be a good compromise for some….at least for a time.

Luis Caffesse

09-11-2009, 11:06 AM

Video on a DSLR is a temporary bandaid to get us over this stretch of time where the only proper video cameras we can afford currently have 1/3" or 1/4" chips, until the future when camcorder manufacturers start offering big-sensor video cameras with an SLR lens mount. I happen to think that *has* to be coming.

Agreed 100000%

Loic

09-11-2009, 11:14 AM

Is it the photo guys that don't get it?

When the Ford T came out, men on horses where telling the same thing: I can't believe it! It's to fast, to dangerous! You can't be as free as riding a horse! Cars are revolution, DSLR as well. In a couple of years their wont be any differences between video and photo equipment. And with a smile we will be looking back at ourselves from the days we used huge camcorders low end on every aspects of the quality of an image.:)

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 11:15 AM

Just like today, when there's no difference between telephones and photo equipment, and we all shoot all our photography on cell phones?

Er... wait...

:)

Tracey Lee

09-11-2009, 11:19 AM

Since I have been using my 5DMKII I have actually really ended up liking the small form factor for many reasons. I have put my XHA1 down to pick up the 5D too many time to justify keeping the A1. I don't see why a smaller DLSR-Camcorder hybrid can't be the future of video work and film making...giving us all the audio and lens options we want and need.

Loic

09-11-2009, 11:19 AM

Just like today, when there's no difference between telephones and photo equipment, and we all shoot all our photography on cell phones?

Er... wait...

:)

When I was a kid I always dreamed that I would buy a cell only if it could take pictures, go on the net, see movies and buy stuff online. I waited so long that when the Iphone came out, I didn't even bother with it. Still no cell phone for me. I would rather keep my left side of the brain cancer free. hehe:grin:

shorelinedigital

09-11-2009, 11:20 AM

When it comes down to it, can you make a living with it? Myself, I don't want to line the pockets of everyone making a contraption that makes it easier to work with in the field.
I'd rather make a living with my video camera.

Luis Caffesse

09-11-2009, 11:22 AM

When I was a kid I always dreamed that I would buy a cell only if....

When I was a kid I dreamed of phones that didn't have to be tethered to the wall by a cord. :)

Zim

09-11-2009, 11:24 AM

I hate my cell phone camera.

My top camera pick right now is the D300s. The reason? Photography. It looks really really good. I'd like some video with it for somethings. But like Barry said ........ there are limits to a VDSLR. Until I work up to a HD video camera my DVXb is going to be what I'll be using for most video.

roxics

09-11-2009, 11:24 AM

Is it the photo guys that don't get it?

Or is it us, not seeing the forest because we're looking at some trees?

I don't disagree with you about a dedicated vidcam being a better option for video as far as all the other bells and whistles that are missing. But that doesn't change the fact that many photographers today don't seem to understand why the DSLR's are currently beneficial to a certain niche group of video guys.

Also looking forward, someone who does both video and indie film as a hobby, the DSLR is and will continue to be a great form factor. All it really needs is the proper "attachments" for video shooting. A proper viewfinder, XLR and AF video lens.

In some ways Jannard has it right with a modular scarlet. I mean if I can only afford one camera for both stills and film, I'd prefer the SLR form factor over trying to shoot stills with the DVX. You can always build a camera up from a smaller size with the right attachments. You just can't go the other way.

Zim

09-11-2009, 11:28 AM

When I was a kid growing up in small town Illinois we had a party line. (some of you might not know what that is but you shared the same phone line with other house)

Loic

09-11-2009, 11:34 AM

In some ways Jannard has it right with a modular scarlet.

Every body is saying the 7D will hurt Red Scarlet. But it looks like Apple proposing well tough out equipment reliable and Canon is the PC type, throwing cheap models ( follow me her I don't want to insult anybody) of camera that are not designed to really satisfy proper use of the equipment without having to use duck tape on the LCD to attach a view finder and other bells.

I can predict a wave of video content crippled with anti-aliasing in the next year only because Canon is not delivering the quality in his products. And auto gain control for sound is a joke!

Jannard will wipe the floor with 5D and 7D soon enough.

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 11:38 AM

Preaching to the choir...

I think my biggest concern with what they seemed to be saying on the podcast was not so much that they think a DSLR is less apt than a professional video camera. It obviously is, as Barry pointed out, in all areas but a few (price being one of them).

It was that they seemed to think that a DSLR was basically the same thing as a $600 handicam. In fact, it was insinuated that one shouldn't really both with a DSLR for video when handicams still shoot 1080p and offer the apparent holy grail of autofocus. This is where the lack of "getting it" comes in for me. It's blatantly obvious that someone couldn't pick up a consumer camcorder from their local megamart and get a "Dublin's People" or "Perya" out of it. The capability simply isn't there.

Most of us here aren't looking to pop a camera out of our backpack and film our kids little league game with one hand while eating a hotdog or nursing a drink with the other (just as, I'm sure, pro photogs don't intend on leaning back and just casually snapping a few pics from the stands). We plan on being actively engaged in the experience of manipulating focus, DOF, aperature and framerate to produce something more akin to a "film" than a home movie.

The difference between consumer camcorder and professional (or semi-professional) video abilities in a DSLR have evidently not been made apparent. To turn the argument around, I can say: My $400 Canon SD700 takes great stills, and comes in a way smaller size. I don't know why people bother with all these big SLR cameras.

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 11:44 AM

But that doesn't change the fact that many photographers today don't seem to understand why the DSLR's are currently beneficial to a certain niche group of video guys.
Well, yeah -- definitely agreed there. The DSLRs are being put to a use that the still-photogs don't "get", that's for sure.

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 11:45 AM

Every body is saying the 7D will hurt Red Scarlet.

I can think of one way 7D has hurt Scarlet. I, and no doubt others, were looking at getting a 2/3" scarlet to learn the ropes before stepping up to the S35 brain. Now, I'll have a 7D. I won't need to purchase that 2/3" scarlet, just the S35. Yes, I'm still buying a Scarlet. Yes, I'm very likely to choose it over future DSLR cameras. But RED still lost a sale.

Now, here's hoping Jannard does wipe the floor with these little things sooner rather than later!

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

09-11-2009, 11:56 AM

Hi Barry: I agree with most of what you've said.

The thing that drives me nuts is greedy & stingy behavior by cam manufacturers. Note I didn't say all cam manufacturers are greedy & stingy, and I didn't say they're greedy & stingy all of the time. But IMHO most of them slouch in that direction too often.

For example, I don't care what excuse can be dreamed-up for it (and I can imagine several), but not including something as basic as a 1/8" stereo headphone jack on a consumer video-capable DSLR camera is greedy & stingy, period. It would cost the likes of a Canon or Panasonic almost nothing to design-in a headphone jack on a video-capable DSLR cam.

Fer chrissake, about 99% or their customers already own & use earbud or full-size headphones and we expect to use them with all of our devices which play or record audio! (Note to Canon, Panasonic, etc.: There are these things called MP3 players. Maybe you have heard of them? They are very popular. All of their users have headphones!!!)

Canon, Panasonic, etc. omit putting a headphone jack on their video-capable DSLR cams because of greed & stinginess, _not_ because they didn't think of it. These manufacturers have been making A/V gear for at least decades -- they definitely thought about it and decided they'd rather hold off and up-sell us a "prosumer" version with a headphone jack later. Which is fine, but meanwhile, their current _consumer_ users and us early adopter types would like a headphone jack so we can monitor audio while we record & especially for playback, thank you very much!

Another example is the automatic audio level control during video recording. It would cost the manufacturers essentially nothing to allow users to turn this feature off when desired. Sure, someone doing this accidentally might generate tech support costs if they couldn't figure out how to turn ALC back on. But I guarantee you this cost would be offset many many times over by the increase in sales it would generate to us early adopter pro/sumer types who know the value of manual audio level control. And like every detail of the design of these cams, the manufacturers purposely decided to implement the automatic audio recording level control so it can't be turned off. Why? _Not_ because they didn't think of it, but because of greed & stinginess. They want to upsell us to a prosumer cam with manual audio control later. Bless their pointed little heads. :-)

At least in the case of the 7D there's a good chance the Magic Lantern firmware hack folks will be able to disable audio ALC, but first we'll probably have to _wait_ until after Canon releases a firmware update of their own and then _wait_ until it can be hacked, and then hope the hack doesn't break too much else, etc. What an idiotic waste of everyone's time!

Don't get me wrong, I think devices such as the GH1 & 7D are way, way cool. But manufacturers' greed & stinginess about things which have almost no cost -- which means they're essentially disrespecting us -- is getting way, way old.

Sorry, several decades of buying purposely-crippled A/V gear kinda gets to you ... [smacks self in back of head] ... ahh, that feels much better ... now I can go back to researching new toys ...

Loic

09-11-2009, 12:00 PM

I can think of one way 7D has hurt Scarlet. I, and no doubt others, were looking at getting a 2/3" scarlet to learn the ropes before stepping up to the S35 brain.
The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard. I would rather be in position to shoot broadcast then have the thing that gets in the way in a year simply because nobody will want to invest in a non broadcast standard.

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 12:13 PM

For example, I don't care what excuse can be dreamed-up for it (and I can imagine several), but not including something as basic as a 1/8" stereo headphone jack on a consumer video/audio-capable DSLR camera is greedy & stingy, period.
There's another much more likely answer: they never considered that anyone would want such. Think about it -- how many still photographers who pop into video mode are going to be wearing headphones? None. Zero. The percentage of people who would take advantage of that capability is probably 1/2 of 1%. Unfortunately for us, the dedicated video shooters, that's 100% of us! We make up that 1/2 of 1%. I'm pretty certain that they never even thought of it.

There's no headphone jack on my PowerShot SD500, and it shoots "DVD-quality" video.

Another example is the automatic audio level control during video recording. It would cost the manufacturers essentially nothing to allow users to turn this feature off when desired.
Agreed -- but who would use it? maybe 20% of the dedicated video users, so 1/10 of 1% of the user base?

Yes, they could technically cram in absolutely everything into absolutely every product ever, but is that smart? There was a great video on TED about how more choice makes consumers less happy. The fewer choices offered, the happier people are and the more likely they are to participate.

If an end consumer picked up a 7D and saw the menu system of an HPX3000 in there, do you seriously think they'd be saying "great! I love this, I'll read every page of the manual and really know how to extract all the power this camera has?" I guarantee you, no -- they'd put it down and say "ooh, this one's too complex, I just want a simple camera." Remember we're talking about a $1700 product here, which is primarily a digital SLR, not a video camera. The GH1 has icons next to the menu items, fer cryin' out loud! :)

I'm not defending the lack of features that you want. I'm saying that this product (well, these products) are not aimed at professionals or even prosumers. These are digital SLRs. They're aimed at still photographers, who might want to also occasionally shoot some video clips.

But I guarantee you this cost would be offset many many times over by the increase in sales it would generate to us early adopter pro/sumer types who know the value of manual audio level control.
I think you overestimate our presence. We're a blip on the radar of the overall sales scheme of products like this. And they didn't design these products for us anyway -- we're repurposing them for our own uses because they're pretty close.

Don't get me wrong, I think devices such as the GH1 & 7D are way, way cool. But too often the manufacturers' greed & stinginess about things which have almost no cost -- which means they're essentially disrespecting us -- is getting way, way old.
Is that what it is? Or is it you (and many of us) buying a product that's not aimed at us, and trying to wedge it into a niche where it doesn't truly belong?

Sorry, several decades of buying purposely-crippled A/V gear kinda gets to you ... [smacks self in back of head] ... ahh, that feels much better ... now I can go back to researching new toys ...
There's a saying that isn't designed for this discussion, but one that fits aptly here, which says "buy the best, and you only cry once... instead of every time you go to use it." Buy the product that actually does what you want. Spend a little more and get what you need.

(and yes, I'm aware that they haven't yet made that product for us, but undoubtedly they will. And yes, I'm painfully aware that we come "second" versus the mass consumer, but that's because we're a tiny minority of the marketplace!)

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 12:14 PM

The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard.
Oh, come on -- why on earth should the BBC look at the 5D at all? It's a DSLR that not only doesn't shoot video in any recognized standard format, but it doubly doesn't shoot anything that is directly relatable to PAL 25Hz broadcast at all!

Of course they rejected it.

The 7D might be a different issue -- it at least records at proper video-compatible frame rates, including 25/50Hz.

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 12:22 PM

Just out of curiousity and as a great learning experience...

I've heard a great deal from a number of people about how difficult the BBC can be in regards to footage (I first heard the complaints from the RED users, I believe. I didn't know what to make of it at the time.)...

Is there a parallel to this scenario in the US in which certain devices are "blacklisted" from producing broadcast footage? Some of the commercials I see regularly appear to be shot on your PowerShot SD500, Barry. I know there are folks shooting music videos and commercials on the 5D that (supposedly) have aired successfully on major networks like MTV. So what's the deal?

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 12:22 PM

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

Michael Olsen

09-11-2009, 12:26 PM

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

That adds to my question: why do they deny devices or capture formats instead of simply listing acceptable deliverable formats? For isntance, why can't they just say "It doesn't matter what it's shot on or originally encoded in, just give it to us in XXXXX format @ this or that resolution and at standard 25p."

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 12:30 PM

I can understand that some lower rate codecs have certain undesirable compression characteristics that stick out like a sore thumb. But when cleaned up most of them are non-existent. At that point….how can they actually tell? Unless of course you have to declare what you shot you footage on….. But…you can always lie. :)

dustwaterwindfire

09-11-2009, 12:46 PM

I looooooove being able to take this thing (5d) into public places with little consequence. shot a whole scene for a music video in waffle house and i think they just thought I was taking photos. I will always have a dslr version of a large sensor cam just for that very purpose. if they added a few extras like better audio inputs etc.. I would actually prefer its run and gun body style. I have enough rigging (shoulder mount, rails, FF) to help me forget it doesnt have a handle or the traditional body of a camcorder.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

09-11-2009, 12:56 PM

Thanks for your thoughtful reply, Barry.

I'd agree with you if Canon & Panasonic (just to pick on two) had never designed video camcorders before in the approximate price range of the GH1, 7D, 5DM2, etc.

It's inconceivable to me that these supremely sophisticated, truly world-class manufacturers "didn't think about it". They absolutely thought about it, and then made a cold, hard business decision that they'd put a headphone jack & manual audio recording control in a later and more-expensive model -- but not in the current HD video-capable DSLR cams.

Despite the fact that the current DSLR cams scream VIDEO, VIDEO, VIDEO! in their marketing, and despite the fact that their initial business requirements & functional design plans for these cams must have included video. A "still" cam doesn't do video by accident. It's planned to the nth detail from very early in the design process.

Then why doesn't a 5DM2, GH1 or a 7D have a headphone jack? Because the manufacturers decided the good will of a relatively small* portion of their customer base (us) is worth less to them than the profits they'll make by _squeezing_ us to buy a more expensive cam later. Heck, they even planned that a bunch of us would buy _both_ the crippled version of the product _and_ the more capable version later. Them manufacturers, they're no dummies!

Certainly, cramming any device full of trivial features of questionable usefulness is a recipe for disaster. But a headphone jack and the ability to turn off ALC aren't rocket science, and certainly aren't trivial features to users like us.

Sometimes I think we let the manufacturers off the hook too easy. Sometimes I think we need to call them out when they're greedy & stingy about truly important features which cost almost nothing to implement or support.

* We may be small in terms of market size, but we're not insignificant, and especially not in terms of opinion-leading, word-of-mouth/viral marketing.

Zim

09-11-2009, 12:57 PM

They have ways to find out!!

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

mtan

09-11-2009, 12:59 PM

I agree, I think the dslr body is what makes it so cool for me, very stealthy and compact. I can also take good photographs while I am at it. I personally don't care that much about DOF but it is a bonus for me.

Taylor Rudd

09-11-2009, 02:06 PM

Plus...how the heck would they know what camera one shoots their footage on anyways??

Which camera used can mean a difference in several hundred thousand dollars, and those little details are usually negotiated before any money is transferred....

In terms of broadcast, the standards may be compromised for content (at the expense of a bigger payout).

Some networks use the bronze, silver, and gold rating. If done on spec, these ratings play a role in how much a series is purchased for.

Let's use Discovery Channel as an example. Planet Earth is as gold as gold gets. Something like Deadliest Catch is silver at best, but because HDV probably makes up more than 30% of their show it could be bronze. Let's act like a good DVXUser ( :D ) and think the camera is the only thing that matters. Even if content/story/production costs weren't an issue (which they are), would you pay the same for an hour of Deadliest Catch as you would Planet Earth?

That adds to my question: why do they deny devices or capture formats instead of simply listing acceptable deliverable formats? For isntance, why can't they just say "It doesn't matter what it's shot on or originally encoded in, just give it to us in XXXXX format @ this or that resolution and at standard 25p."

If you polish a turd its still a turd. It also depends on who is doing the production. Is it the network's internal team? They would never cut costs so much they had to resort to using DSLRs as "A" cameras. Or another production company that is doing a co-pro, acquisition, etc.? It is more likely they would use less expensive cameras...but not still realistic...

You can certainly use 5D/7D/GH1/D90 footage in shows that go to BBC/TLC/Discovery/etc., but only a certain percentage of the show can be that quality (and for limited durations IE a minute at a time).

editman

09-11-2009, 02:33 PM

Remember when DV used to be something that sneaked into TV-productions and compared to the times standard BETASP without anyone complaining?

I recall making a test for one of the bigger Swedish TV-broadcasters in the 90's between BETASP, DVCAM, DIGIBETA and some other format I've forgot... BETASP was out of the questions picture wise. This was for there playout center and BETASP was the standard these days.

Even the GH1's low bitrate and funky codec impresses many people in the business who are used to HVX200/RED and other cameras. Maybe these cameras (GH1/5D/7D/D90) are like those days DV. Not a pro format but close and sometimes superior to the de facto standard.

If I compare these to a HVX200 I do miss the pro format of the HVX. But I can get images out of a DSLR that the HVX200 on it's own can't touch.

Treat the DSLRs like a film camera and you will be rewarded. That's why I wanna have great still and video in the same body. Then it's up to me to choose - still image or motion picture. And when you master the two of them there's nothing stopping you!

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 02:38 PM

Even if content/story/production costs weren't an issue (which they are), would you pay the same for an hour of Deadliest Catch as you would Planet Earth?I see what you are saying and based on that info, if we had to leave it up just to that one category (camera being most important), then no I would not. It's kind of silly though when I think about it. WHen it came to standard definition television of old (or at least yesterday...lol) did they go by a similar rating system? For example, if a series decided to use film over digital aquisition did that automatically command a bigger payout? Or did it all have to do with the overall cost/budget of that particular series (camera just being one of them)? Seeing how cameras are getting cheaper and much better in their IQ I wonder where within that system they will fit in for future broadcast.

Thanks for that run down by the way.

Eddy Robinson

09-11-2009, 06:08 PM

The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard. I would rather be in position to shoot broadcast then have the thing that gets in the way in a year simply because nobody will want to invest in a non broadcast standard.

Oh really. Do please document this for us. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the 5d only shoots 30p and the BBC broadcasts at 25fps.

If someone shoots a feature film with the 7d or a similar camera that gets a thumbs up and a theatrical release (I give it about a year to 18 months), you think the BBC will refuse to show it?

Eddy Robinson

09-11-2009, 06:21 PM

If an end consumer picked up a 7D and saw the menu system of an HPX3000 in there, do you seriously think they'd be saying "great! I love this, I'll read every page of the manual and really know how to extract all the power this camera has?" I guarantee you, no -- they'd put it down and say "ooh, this one's too complex, I just want a simple camera."

right on - look at the manual for the 7d, it's written so it can be understood by a 12 year old, all 'do this, then do that, it'll look like this'. It doesn't even mention things like gamma curves or background concepts. If the reviewer in the New York Times says it's a bit hard to use that'll affect their sales more than 100 DVXuser threads.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

09-11-2009, 06:44 PM

right on - look at the manual for the 7d, it's written so it can be understood by a 12 year old, all 'do this, then do that, it'll look like this'. It doesn't even mention things like gamma curves or background concepts. If the reviewer in the New York Times says it's a bit hard to use that'll affect their sales more than 100 DVXuser threads.

Um, Barry brought up the "HPX3000 menus in a 7D" idea, not me.

I specifically posted about the 7D's lack of a lowly headphone jack & the ability to disable audio ALC. Period.

_Everyone_ understands what a headphone jack is. And almost no one would be hopelessly confused by a menu item that says something like "Audio automatic rec level: On/Off".

It's quite a stretch to take my basic suggestion and turn it into a plea for stuffing the 7D with dozens or hundreds of additional features.

Let's not give the cam manufacturers a pass for omitting a drop-dead obvious, basic feature like a headphone jack, which any relatively expensive "consumer" audio-video recording device should have.

Ian-T

09-11-2009, 06:59 PM

Doesn't it have an A/V output? Couldn't that double up as a headphone out with the right Radio Shack connector? Clunky? Yes it is...but all is not lost.

xbourque

09-11-2009, 07:06 PM

Doesn't it have an A/V output? Couldn't that double up as a headphone out with the right Radio Shack connector? Clunky? Yes it is...but all is not lost.

That's what people have been doing on the 5D2 *with Magic Lantern*.

Unfortunately, out of the box, audio is disabled on the AV jack when recording.

From the manual, p. 159:

"If you connect the camera to a TV set and shoot a movie, the TV will not output any sound during the shooting. However, the sound will be properly recorded."

-- X

Pepster

09-11-2009, 07:16 PM

The BBC refused 5D quality and it will be the same for the 7D. It's not a broadcast standard. I would rather be in position to shoot broadcast then have the thing that gets in the way in a year simply because nobody will want to invest in a non broadcast standard.
I am constantly in disbelief at what passes as 'broadcast standard'

99% of all material broadcast, that I have seen, I would describe as woeful.

Most HD broadcast looks worse than DVD !

I have 0% doubt that the BBC will broadcast plenty of 7D sourced material in the next year !!

The 7D footage I have seen so far, is vastly better than the majority of the current HD broadcast material.

Barry_Green

09-11-2009, 08:08 PM

It's quite a stretch to take my basic suggestion and turn it into a plea for stuffing the 7D with dozens or hundreds of additional features.
And I agree. But are you going to be the only one makin suggestions? Where does it stop -- who draws the line?

Anyway, I agree completely that it's asinine to have a video camera without the ability to monitor the audio. It's ridiculous and seriously compromises the usefulness of the product as a video camera.

mhood

09-11-2009, 08:31 PM

I mount my Edirol HR9 on the hot shoe and plug my earbuds into that.

Peter J. DeCrescenzo

09-11-2009, 09:04 PM

Thanks, Barry; we're cool.

Anyway, I've decided to chuck the idea of my getting a GH1 or 7D and instead I'm getting one of these!
http://www.samsontech.com/products/productpage.cfm?prodID=2020

:-)

Zim

09-11-2009, 09:22 PM

Green Hornet

09-12-2009, 09:51 AM

some footage from the HMC40 Looks good. Also not a bad deal on a kit too. Really, if you only want video why not something like this over a DSLR? To each his own I guess!
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/638292-REG/Panasonic__AG_HMC40_AVCCAM_HD_Camcorder.html
http://vimeo.com/6145756

1. Price
2. Interchangable lenses of better quality.
3. Depth of field
4. Also a pro level still camera
5. Smaller form factor to carry everything in.
That is what the 7D gives you over a regular video camera.

Green Hornet

09-12-2009, 10:26 AM

Is it the photo guys that don't get it?

Or is it us, not seeing the forest because we're looking at some trees?

Video on a DSLR is not the ultimate destination, guys. It's a severe compromise. The DSLR is a lousy form factor for shooting video. It's borderline unacceptable for professional use (no live monitoring? No XLR ports? No zebras or audio levels or waveform monitors or ... *anything* that a pro is used to?) So what are the benefits? The benefits are that they have (usually) large sensors and interchangeable lenses. The End. Everything else about video-on-a-DSLR is worse than anything about a regular video camera. Having been enamored of my GH1, and spending just a day with the tiny little HMC40, I have to say the HMC40 is leagues better for shooting video for professional purposes. If it had shallow DOF, nobody would even be talking about using a DSLR for video...

So, yes, let's embrace that we finally have shallow-DOF without adapters. But to embrace video-on-a-DSLR as the ultimate solution? No thanks (and I say that as the very happy owner of a GH1 and a foaming-at-the-mouth rabidly-waiting-for-my-preorder Canon 7D). It'll do for today. It'll do because it's cheap. But the minute someone makes a proper video camera with such a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, the SLRs are going on ebay.

Video on a DSLR is a temporary bandaid to get us over this stretch of time where the only proper video cameras we can afford currently have 1/3" or 1/4" chips, until the future when camcorder manufacturers start offering big-sensor video cameras with an SLR lens mount. I happen to think that *has* to be coming.

Until then, we use video cameras for the video-camera usage, and DSLRs for the shallow-DOF.

Barry, part of me agrees with you and part of my doesn't.
I come from a Photo background, and can see how the DSLR can evolve into a seperate product that does video.

I agree that a traditional video camera form factor is and has been great for that, and I can seehow it can continue to be great.

What I see as a potential for the DSLR is to be the same thing in a different form factor that ALSO does great stills.

The thing I like most about the DSLR's is the ability to carry it all the time in a traditional camera bag. That is one of the major reasons I don't like to carry my big cameras unless paid...too much to transport.

I can see how sound can be easily added with a device similiar to a battery grip, whearas the connections interface through the battery compartment. Out of the battery grip device, you have mini XLRs for audio, or even a stereo wireless receiver...just picture that!

For waveforms, all you need is to put the camera on rails and add a 7" monitor.
It is so light, you can have a short double rail from the camera to the matt box, and use a sigle rail from there through a shoulder brace via a bearing pivot, that extends further to where your batteries mount as counter weights.

I can see the need and evolution of both types of camera systems.

I can definately see the need for a DSLR that can shoot HD 24p footage for under $2,700 and fits in a traditional camera bag. I can see that all day long.
You get two of them, and you always have a back up camera system, or a second camera while doing EITHER a photoshoot OR a video, or mix and match.

WOW I say!

Giallogreg

09-12-2009, 10:35 AM

1. Price
2. Interchangable lenses of better quality.
3. Depth of field
4. Also a pro level still camera
5. Smaller form factor to carry everything in.
That is what the 7D gives you over a regular video camera.

And 60fps @ 720p. Never before done with a 35mm sized sensor/lens at this price point.

Tim Le

09-12-2009, 10:49 AM

I think a still camera is much more likely to evolve into a killer video camera than it is for a killer video camera to evolve into a good still camera. The HDSLRs have already gotten over the biggest hurdle which is getting the sensors to work well enough to record video at the most used frame rates. The main thing now is getting AF to work well and designing some video specific lenses with servo zoom. They could even design lenses for smaller sensor sizes so you can get that deep DOF for standard video work and then just window the sensor. The rest of it like audio controls and monitoring is relatively easy-peasy.

But for a video camera like RED to try to "kill the DSLR" is not realistic. They would have to develop their own AF systems, metering system, flash system, lens system, etc. All of those things took Canon and Nikon decades to develop and for the market to accept. The still camera market is physically huge compared to video. Canon and Nikon totally dominate this space and have been doing it for decades. It would be extremely hard to get people to accept a new brand.

Ian-T

09-12-2009, 10:51 AM

Really, if you only want video why not something like this over a DSLR? To each his own I guess!
Because they don't see nearly as well in the dark as these much bigger sensor DSLRs. Also, the detail and sharpness do not come close. Most importantly...DOF control.

qazwsx

09-12-2009, 01:39 PM

...
So, yes, let's embrace that we finally have shallow-DOF without adapters. But to embrace video-on-a-DSLR as the ultimate solution? No thanks (and I say that as the very happy owner of a GH1 and a foaming-at-the-mouth rabidly-waiting-for-my-preorder Canon 7D). It'll do for today. It'll do because it's cheap. But the minute someone makes a proper video camera with such a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, the SLRs are going on ebay....

totally agree with this, and think that with the video community buying VDSLRs, it shows the manufacturers that there is a market for it. if we all just ignore them and sit on our hands waiting for them to release a proper video camera with a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, we might never see it because they'll assume there's no place for it.

Tim Le

09-12-2009, 02:20 PM

Regarding the OP's question, still photographers are resistant (and sometimes outright hostile) to video for these reasons:

Some have no interest in video. They feel that adding video features is taking away precious camera development time for improving image quality for stills. Or they think the sensor is being compromised somehow in order to take video. They also don't want to pay more for features they feel they won’t use.
Most don't understand the sensor size/DOF/low light/24P/60P advantages desired by filmmakers because most are not filmmakers. Most only understand video as it relates to consumer video cameras.
Some actually fear that adding video will add complexity that will hinder their still picture taking abilities. They think the added buttons and menus will be a distraction since they won't be using the video function.
Some see video as a threat. They fear that if someone can shoot high quality video and pull stills from the footage, still photography will be obsolete.
Some actually understand that operating a DSLR in video will be difficult because the AF is primitive and manually focusing motion at this DOF is hard. So if they want to shoot video they’d rather do it on a simple, easy to use consumer video camera.
Finally, some are just elitist or old school fuddy-duddies that don't like change. To them a still camera should be a still camera. If they want video they will buy a video camera. Many consider video on DSLRs to be a "toy." These are the same guys that railed against Live View because they consider that too to be a "toy" meant only for lowly P&S cameras.

In response to these points I would say:

I can understand how they feel since not everyone has a knack for video. But that's too bad because even in still photography you're a storyteller. It would good to learn both.
This is simply due to lack of knowledge. However some are beginning to see the light (haha!). Their reaction to "Perya" was very positive: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=32982506
That's just crazy. I say deal with it and learn to adapt. We live in a technological world.
I don't think still photography will ever go away. Yeah, you can pull stills from a video but there is still something unique about the process and the care needed to visualize and capture a singular moment in time. It takes special skills to be the best at that just like it takes special skills to be the best at cinematography.
Can’t argue with that.
Not much to say except these guys can keep driving their Model T's.

My background is also mainly in stills.

TimurCivan

09-12-2009, 02:35 PM

i have been using my 5D for a fashion documantary, im actually supposed to do stills but ive been shooting Broll on the MkII. The head of the company, saw some of the footage and kissed my head. (literally) thanking me for making her look amazing. ( like the stills, which is why she hired me to begin with ... she loves my stills)
Its not sound synch stuff, but it definitly looks good if youre not using it as the only camera.
Its like trying to shoot with a old super 8 camera. looks so "cool" but you really cant do sound synch work with it. so its cool as a "b Roll" camera.

Michael Olsen

09-14-2009, 01:48 PM

I found the BBC white paper that documents why they don't allow the 5D for broadcast.

Essentially, when shooting a circular zone plate test chart, the chroma and luma aliasing and moire pattern were simply unacceptable to them. They didn't do any further tests. The white paper is here:

http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD39_Canon_5D_DSLR.pdf

Cranky

09-14-2009, 01:56 PM

This is 1997, people:

http://jlvideousa.com/Images-Optura/Optura-372A.jpg

http://jlvideousa.com/Optura.html

Eddy Robinson

09-14-2009, 05:10 PM

I found the BBC white paper that documents why they don't allow the 5D for broadcast. Essentially, when shooting a circular zone plate test chart, the chroma and luma aliasing and moire pattern were simply unacceptable to them.

Excellent find, good job Michael!

(...)I don't think still photography will ever go away. Yeah, you can pull stills from a video but there is still something unique about the process and the care needed to visualize and capture a singular moment in time. It takes special skills to be the best at that just like it takes special skills to be the best at cinematography.

Agree. even in the motion picture world, for a long time the smart thing was to have a still photog on set because frame grabs from film were not good enough - too small and grainy for print (a problem which remains true if you grab from HD) and also because 24fps + 180 degree shutter meant blur and saturation characteristics that weren't acceptable. In fact if you look at any film history book it's pretty easy to see the lower quality on frame grabs vs publicity stills.

That won't change much with the 7d, since 1920 x 1080 is still only 2 megapixels and begins to look ugly even at poster size - print and projected images are seen quite differently by the eye. It does give RED footage an edge, however - the shutterspeed/blur is still an issue, but I've seen some mighty fine still pulls.

And consider how things will go down the line - the 7d already shoots full-res stills at 8fps for as long as the mirror/CF card can handle it...anyone think that number won't keep going, or that when it hits 24fps people won't start using it for super-high quality moving images? It's too much data for CF/SD cards to handle continuously, but nothing you couldn't shove down a gigabit ethernet cable. At that point TV news/sports broadcasters turn into still photo suppliers, which is going to mess up a lot of pro photogs.

Of course, the converse is also true - get a 7d or equivalently capable camera, go where the news is, and suddenly you can be in the video business - but to do so effectively you've got to start thinking about audio, maybe a talking head, and a much more high-bandwidth pipeline, which the video people already have anyway. So the barriers for video people to enter the still marketplace are a lot lower than the other way round. Over the long term this has got to be worrisome for the still photographers.