Good to see other people love these things as much as me. I think something a lot of people forgot to touch on is the money these things free up to focus on other things to make our images better. For the price i would have wasted on a hvx200 which i was eyeing before the t2i i have been able to spend more money on lighting, sound equipment, lenses etc. All things that I can take with me if I ever upgrade to higher equipment. That alone should have most people feeling grateful.
Anyone else excited about the future of DSLRs?
- Thread starter dtjohns1
- Start date
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Let me add this. Money on a HVX200 is not a waste if you have certain requirements that cannot be covered by a DSLR. We shoot live events and would NEVER trust the whole event to a DSLR. Some limitations in the DSLR world cannot be overcome. If I am shooting a live event with one DSLR (and leaving out recording time limitations), if someone moves over near the lens with a very textured shirt, I could get amazing rainbows in the image. With the HVX, I never have this problem.
I absolutely am in the same ballpark as you and have done the same thing, I've bought 5 lenses, a lowell light kit, etc, and for me, I came at the right time for DSLR to be a good stop gap till my next camera. It is allowing me to learn how to work with DoF for my future cameras and with a sensor size I plan to continue to use no matter what level of work I do (S35).
It's also AWESOME to see people so excited about DSLRs right now, and as Barry has pointed out, to see something like the AF100 coming along from the desires of those using the DSLRs as well.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Yeah, we do music videos as well and we use 2 7Ds and a T2I for those. Basically it comes down to repeatability of the filmed event (we can reshoot scenes) and cost for us in the deciding factor. I mention cost because sometimes we will shoot with the HVX as well for safety so that if the DSLRs just fail in a scene, we have something to fall back on.
For night stuff though with found light, it's DSLR all the way.
deltoidjohn
Veteran
Yeah thanks Barry, I actuallt already mentioned the AF100 in a post earlier in this thread.
And these are the kinds of cameras that the DSLR's have triggered. The desire has been there for a while but, possibly, the manufacturers did not think the market was as large as it is.
It will be interesting to see what kinds of features trickle into these lower-end cinema cameras in a few years (RAW? 120fps?). The AF100 is already looking to be an awesome camera and once a few other manufacturers step up to the plate and start competing then things will really get interesting.
reem12
Veteran
Not all clients will particularly care about the high quality look as some have mentioned, so whether you shoot on a dslr or hv20 for that matter will not make much of a differance to a client who is driven by cheap over quality. I'm more so talking those who expect and understand quality but can get it at a fraction of the cost it used to be before these new cams came on the scene.
I'm also not going to hate on the new breed of filmmakers taking jobs either ,as they can charge the low end prices they charge due to low overhead vs. those who have built their company around the heavy dutty gear which takes alot more man power to man up. Grips, gaffers, etc. Think of what it takes to man up a simple dslr producing stunning images vs the red package or any film camera package. Less crew, less people to pay, less a production company has to charge the client and the more the production company puts in his pocket. It sucks I know but it is what it is. This is why I downsized from the hvx200 and adapter combo to embrace the lighter, less intrusive, and more light efficent technology.
I was called shoot stills for a company recently with my 5d and the guy wanted to know if I knew anyone who could do video as well. With the capabilities of the 5d I was able to get paid as a photographer and a videographer. These cams have paid for themselves 3 times over
I'm also not going to hate on the new breed of filmmakers taking jobs either ,as they can charge the low end prices they charge due to low overhead vs. those who have built their company around the heavy dutty gear which takes alot more man power to man up. Grips, gaffers, etc. Think of what it takes to man up a simple dslr producing stunning images vs the red package or any film camera package. Less crew, less people to pay, less a production company has to charge the client and the more the production company puts in his pocket. It sucks I know but it is what it is. This is why I downsized from the hvx200 and adapter combo to embrace the lighter, less intrusive, and more light efficent technology.
I was called shoot stills for a company recently with my 5d and the guy wanted to know if I knew anyone who could do video as well. With the capabilities of the 5d I was able to get paid as a photographer and a videographer. These cams have paid for themselves 3 times over
Barry_Green
Moderator
Possibly, but I still continue to believe that it was the lack of video-appropriate lenses that stymied the whole sector.
The GH1 finally brought out a video-appropriate lens, one that can do seamless autofocus during live video. And there are more in the lineup. All they're really lacking now is a power zoom.
Still-camera lenses can be appropriate for controlled digital cinematography purposes, but they can be very inconvenient for typical video tasks. Now that there's at least a couple of lenses that bridge that gap, a bigger-sensor video camera makes sense.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
What is a typical video task?
Almost all of the cinema lens I see used are manual controlled, including focus, iris and zoom. I can understand for ENG purposes but I don't see cinematic people using them even today with lens costs $10k or more. I even question how well the Red focusing will work, and their rack focus capabilities, and if people will even use it.
Even if I had autofocus available during shooting on the 7D I wouldn't use it. I like the ability to rack focus at the speeds I want. Granted, they could add this ability, and rack focusing, but the demonstrations of autofocus I've seen with the GH1 didn't make me want to use it for any film making purposes. I always hand focus on the 7D when shooting video. I would hate to record the lens trying to determine the autofocus especially in low light.
The biggest complains I hear on still lenses are the focus direction and how sensitive the focus rings are (very short throws), the Iris is not smooth but stepped, breathing and non-constant focus through zooms. I don't see any of these addressed by any new lenses yet. Maybe the new Zeiss cine lenses they are releasing for DSLR will address some of these.
Of course, my biggest usage is filmmaking, so my requirements are different. That's why I am honestly curious of what video tasks will benefit (other than ENG) from autofocus.
Dp you have any personal experience with RED shooting?
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I too believe that the next big thing, camera wise, is the incorporation of the large sensor chips into the video camera form, and function factor, like it appears the AF-100 will do. I think that is great. However, I think that there is a value to the current crop of video DSLRs that really has not been discussed and which I think is going to be a great thing for independent filmmaking.
Now, my video DSLR point of reference is the Canon Rebel T2i, which I recently pick up, and which I think is an amazing little camera. With kit lens, spare batteries and a few cards I paid around $1100.00. Prior to this, for that kind of money, a student, or low end filmmaker could pick up, what, maybe a Canon HV40 camcorder, in HDV. Is there anyone here that will dispute that the image quality of the T2i is better than the HV40? Much better I would assert. Now the disadvantages of the HV40 type cameras have been well discussed here, and elsewhere, yet we all have seen some very good images produced with such cameras, by some very diligent, talented filmmakers.
Now, a young or low end filmmaker, with a camera like the T2i, no longer has to struggle to just get manual control over exposure, or the other limitations well known to such cameras. Now, they can have access to a camera that gives them the opportunity to have control, creative control, over almost all of the basic elements of photographic image making and exploit them for creative expression. Exposure, ISO (sensitivity), saturation, sharpness, color reproduction (WB) and, what I think may be the most important, LENS CHOICE, and with that, the creative use of DOF. The video DSLR "Revolution", if it is that, even with the current crop of cameras, almost forces the low end users wanting to embrace this technology to go back and consider the basics of photography, and their creative impact, in a way that almost all previous DV "Revolution" cameras, with their home movie, or TV news heritage never did.
While we are all here because of the massive change to the independent filmmaking world that was caused by the Panasonic DVX-100, we really need to understand that even that camera, and all the variations of the post DVX cameras really have their genesis with the Sony Handycam, introduced in 1985, with the roll out of Video 8 by Sony, designed for consumer home movies. Since then, even with great advancements, the designers have continued to incorporate consumer convenience features in the cameras, that we have come to accept, now, as the standard for professional video. Now, because of a different development path that the video DSLRs took, the lack of these consumer video convenience features, are being poo-pooed as not being professional. So, can some one tell me exactly when did auto focus became a necessary professional feature? And so on. BTW, Panaflex cameras and the Arri 535 do not have XLR inputs.
I am of the opinion that the current crop of video DSLRs are the 2010 equivalent of the Bolex H16, and students and low end filmmakers who are using them, and making great images, are surfing a photographic/cinematography learning curve that will give them a huge leg up, competitive wise, over long time users of the Handycam evolved video cameras. It is not the horde of amateurs and their cheap cameras that is the worry, it is the few that have mastered these cheap cameras, and will soon have their hands on much better cameras. Those are the f**kers that are going to rule the motion image making world. If you have never shoot film, and came up shooting only on video, and you do not have a video DSLR, even just as a learning tool, I think you may be taking a risk of becoming obsolete in the coming motion image making world.
IMHO.
Now, my video DSLR point of reference is the Canon Rebel T2i, which I recently pick up, and which I think is an amazing little camera. With kit lens, spare batteries and a few cards I paid around $1100.00. Prior to this, for that kind of money, a student, or low end filmmaker could pick up, what, maybe a Canon HV40 camcorder, in HDV. Is there anyone here that will dispute that the image quality of the T2i is better than the HV40? Much better I would assert. Now the disadvantages of the HV40 type cameras have been well discussed here, and elsewhere, yet we all have seen some very good images produced with such cameras, by some very diligent, talented filmmakers.
Now, a young or low end filmmaker, with a camera like the T2i, no longer has to struggle to just get manual control over exposure, or the other limitations well known to such cameras. Now, they can have access to a camera that gives them the opportunity to have control, creative control, over almost all of the basic elements of photographic image making and exploit them for creative expression. Exposure, ISO (sensitivity), saturation, sharpness, color reproduction (WB) and, what I think may be the most important, LENS CHOICE, and with that, the creative use of DOF. The video DSLR "Revolution", if it is that, even with the current crop of cameras, almost forces the low end users wanting to embrace this technology to go back and consider the basics of photography, and their creative impact, in a way that almost all previous DV "Revolution" cameras, with their home movie, or TV news heritage never did.
While we are all here because of the massive change to the independent filmmaking world that was caused by the Panasonic DVX-100, we really need to understand that even that camera, and all the variations of the post DVX cameras really have their genesis with the Sony Handycam, introduced in 1985, with the roll out of Video 8 by Sony, designed for consumer home movies. Since then, even with great advancements, the designers have continued to incorporate consumer convenience features in the cameras, that we have come to accept, now, as the standard for professional video. Now, because of a different development path that the video DSLRs took, the lack of these consumer video convenience features, are being poo-pooed as not being professional. So, can some one tell me exactly when did auto focus became a necessary professional feature? And so on. BTW, Panaflex cameras and the Arri 535 do not have XLR inputs.
I am of the opinion that the current crop of video DSLRs are the 2010 equivalent of the Bolex H16, and students and low end filmmakers who are using them, and making great images, are surfing a photographic/cinematography learning curve that will give them a huge leg up, competitive wise, over long time users of the Handycam evolved video cameras. It is not the horde of amateurs and their cheap cameras that is the worry, it is the few that have mastered these cheap cameras, and will soon have their hands on much better cameras. Those are the f**kers that are going to rule the motion image making world. If you have never shoot film, and came up shooting only on video, and you do not have a video DSLR, even just as a learning tool, I think you may be taking a risk of becoming obsolete in the coming motion image making world.
IMHO.
Not going to really debate too much in this post, I suppose we play at different tiers...
There's no less needed for a PROPER DSLR PRODUCTION than a RED production.
I guarantee you I and SEVERAL other RED shooter/owners can one man band the same jobs that you get with the DSLR, and vice a versa.
I can deal with all off the misinformation, wishful thinking, silly comparisons without responding from here on out... but, I really wish people would actually shoot RED then comment, not repeat what someone else is saying or guessing.
In our West Fest short, shooting out in the desert, my camera crew was composed of two guys, myself and Geoff Reisner. G & E/Lighting, two guys... Myself and Geoff Reisner.
I camera Op'd, pulled my own focus then entire time, pulled my own focus, etc. It is NO different than using a DSLR, simply the results are obviously a good three to four times better image wise, and I didn't have to fiddle or faddle around with the temperaments of a DSLR which would've devoured MORE time.
I just shot.
"The enemy of art is the absence of limitations"
-Orson Wells.
From your signature. I think it fits. I'm not totally disagreeing with you, but I think the people who have managed to get the HV20 to make great images learned a lot more in doing so. And I've seen footage from that camera in particular that beats out what most people are able to do with a 5D. Or a Red. The only real change is that you get proper lenses without adapters. I'll admit its big, but it's a problem that wasn't impossible to overcome before.
You do have a point, I just want to tone it down a little with that. Plus I thought it would be funny to use your signature against you. Actually, that's most of why I posted.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
Kholi, wow, I am very jealous that you are a Red One owner. I wish I could have afforded to buy that camera. You should be very proud. I don't want to dis that at all, but, if I may, I have a couple of questions about owning a Red One. Do you think that the investment to buy a Red One has paid off? If you had it to do over, would you still have bought that camera? Do you think that owning that camera will still provide you with a continued adequate income for the foreseeable future?
Just curious.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
I can appreciate that, but I am not saying that the video DSLRs are without limitations. That is well documented everywhere. Even if a young or low end filmmaker masters imaging making on a video DSLR, they have just begun to see the limitations they face. I added the Wells quote to my signature as a direct response to my getting the T2i and the continued debate about their "Professionalism". Now, in my post above, I actually did give a shout out to those diligent filmmakers that man-handled great images out of cameras like the HV-20, et al. I believe that the filmmakers that are going to rule the world, soon, are exactly the types that did get the great images out of cameras like the HV20, but are now starting out with the video DSLRs. I still think that the real new guys coming up, and whose first motion imaging camera is the current crop of video DSLRs, are going to have a grounding in basic photography that has not been seen for a long time.
kodjo
Active member
"To me the great hope is... people that normally wouldn't be making movies will make them and suddenly some little fat girl in Ohio will be the new Mozart and will make a beautiful film using her father's camera-corder and the "Professionalism" of movie making will be destroyed forever and it will finally become an art form."
KEEP DREAMING because even the little girl from Ohio won't get Arnold or Tom Cruise to star and in a movie, the casting and promotion budget is something that will not get solved by DSLR.
KEEP DREAMING because even the little girl from Ohio won't get Arnold or Tom Cruise to star and in a movie, the casting and promotion budget is something that will not get solved by DSLR.
David G. Smith
Steak Knife Member
http://www.youtube.com/play
Yeah but just maybe the little fat girl from Ohio can make a video that is shown in the Guggenheim. Yeah, I am going to keep on dreaming that the availability of technology that we all seem to debate ad nauseam is going to be embraced by someone that is the metaphorical little fat girl from Ohio and blow all of our socks off and change everything. My question is if you do not believe this also, then why the f**k are you posting on DVXUSER?
Not full owner. The investment by all's paid off quite well, experience, connections, and financially.
And, no, at this point owning a camera doesn't really make a difference. I've surpassed the point where owning gear gets me jobs, now I can rent or suggest whatever I think fits the bill or they have something in mind. (EDIT HERE) -- I also misread your question. Adequate Income? Well, the kit rents for 1000/day. I'm not sure what you personally consider adequate, but I think that's a decent amount of money. For reference, I was also still renting my HVX200A + Letus Ultimate rig for 700/day. And, my 7D Rig w/Glass was going for 600/day before they went away.
It's good that I don't have to rely on gear to get me jobs, anymore.
Being able to shoot RED from the first batch did put me in a position to learn hard and fast. Continuing to shoot RED for best quality keeps me on my toes, as the better the camera, the easier it is to see that it has less to do with the gear, more to do with who's behind cam and in front of it.
I also had a D90 the day before it was released, a GH1 the day it was released in Japan, three 7Ds and two 5D MKiis.
I've shot and logged several projects on DSLRs, consulted on larger commercials when this all started (Snuggle, McDonalds, Charmin, Heinken, etc.) and helped usher in this "revolution".
My point was: people should talk about what they've shot with, not what everyone else has shot with.
I don't talk much about Film, because I have never shot film. When I've got a lot of experience, I'll be able to do that.
Last edited:
Chris Light
Veteran
dude...that is one of the most ignorant, arrogant, and plain retarted statements i have ever read.
so now STARPOWER is what makes films better? come on man, your well is running dry.
Finnegan
Well-known member
The last thread I saw your replies in was the Zacuto DSLR test thread where you vehemently and condescendingly promoted the idea of HDSLRs being absolutely incapable of an aesthetic that is of enough quality and aesthetic merit for practical application in the film industry, when the evidence for the contrary is stacked overwhelming against you. I'm beginning to think you're a troll. And even if you are a troll, I will still point out that the argument you are making is ridiculous.
News flash Kodjo, you don't need Arnold or Cruise to make a successful movie. You don't need big name actors, or cutting edge technology. Hell, you don't even need a studio. There's this little film, you might have heard of it but I don't know if you studied it in film school because it's pretty obscure, it's called Star Wars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-g0nlreeUo
Listen to Irvin Kershner talk about the reaction to the first screening of the film amongst Lucas' peers. Coppola, Kershner, da Palma, Zemeckis, Spielberg...they all HATED it. Every one of them thought it was really just terrible. No one wanted to help him finish making it. No studios wanted to distribute it. It had no big name actors. Yet, Lucas pressed on when EVERYTHING went wrong. Months behind schedule. Way over budget. Forced to use little models for action sequences, and big colorful cardboard costumes for aliens. Everything that he shot, according to Lucas in the documentary on the film, was so far from the vision he had that he almost did not finish it. During production, he almost had a heart attack because of how incredible the stress was. But still, he went on and finished it even after he knew he had failed, and EVERYONE else told him he failed. And look at it now. Hell, look at it then. It's one of the most successful and timeless movies ever made, and furthermore, it's probably one of the greatest artistic endeavors of the modern era.
Great filmmaking comes from adversity. It comes from compromises and working within limitations. It hones your senses as a filmmaker as to what is really important in the piece. Case in point? Star Wars: The Phantom Menace and the subsequent films in the trilogy. After the ridiculous success of the original trilogy, George Lucas had everything he could ever want as a filmmaker. He had final decision on EVERYTHING. Actors. Set design. Prop design. Editing. Writing. Directing. Cinematography (or what little there was of it). Budget. He controlled everything and was not limited in the slightest. And guess what? Those movies suck big time.
If you think you need a top tier film school education, or Philip K. Dick as your story writer and Cali Khouri as your screen writer, or Tom Cruise or Arnold Schwarzenegger as your star, or cutting edge post production technology, or an unlimited budget to make something worth watching...then good luck to you. You'll need it. In sum, it is incredibly pretentious to even insinuate that a film is not worth watching or any less artistic than another based solely on the format on which it was shot, be it film, HDSLR, my girlfriend's stupid flip-cam...whatever. I mean come on, you DO know who said that quote about the little girl from Ohio right? Don't you think he's in a little bit better of a position to comment?
Last edited:
Chris Light
Veteran
^yeah....that's what i meant to say. 