Are DSLRs for Real?

T

trifilmer

Member
Has anyone done any serious production work using these cameras? What I mean by that, documentary work where on camera interviews were shot with them, etc.

I would like to see examples and how the workflow was to work with them.

Thanks
 
yes, been quite a few things shot with them already, and folks are out there putting them to work.

Just have to know what it is you are getting, and not expect it to be the holy grail, or you might get caught with your pants down.

These dslr's are a great value dollar for dollar (if you arm yourself with information and be sure it's a purchase that will work for YOUR needs), but they are far from perfect (just like anything). Not as great as some people make them out to be, and not as bad as others wish they were.

Just be realistic about what you are expecting for 2 grand. cine 35mm frame size. good low light, nice pleasing image, etc, etc... but, it lacks some standard features that many have grown accustomed to in the camcorder form factor, and, while the footage excels in some areas it lacks or can shoot you in others if you aren't aware.

If you search around, check out some of the links in the footage section, I'm sure you will find examples of what you are looking for.

Just don't expect to turn the camera on and have it work magic for you. Learn it, be aware of it's pitfalls, appreciate it for the great value that it is for the money (if you go that route) and worry about much more important things, like proper lighting, composition, audio, etc, etc, etc.

later,
Jason
 
Yes, I know what you are saying. As I see it right now, I think these are great, but for the kind of filming I do (documentaries-sometimes in 3rd world countries) I see them as mainly b-roll cameras.
 
i shot my first documentary on my D90. Had a lot of outside things go wrong, (like my sound guy screwing up the sound and having to go and use the D90 onboard mic), and some other issues.

You can check it out here

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=187840

We had time crunches, sound problems, lighting issues and other stuff but overall it came out ok for everything that went awry.
 
Again, beautiful images, composition etc. But how does it work for getting interviews and the workflow? I am email Khalid to find out more.
 
The biggest problem IMHO with HDSLRs is that everybody is judging their images on the internet. Sampled down and compressed - the negatives are being hidden. Take Barry's sharpness test, or look at ISO 6400 on a HDTV. The negatives really pop out there.

I own the 7D and absolutely love it, but unless your material is meant for the Internet 100% of the time - these cameras will definitely show their weaknesses - which is to be expected for $1800.
 
I use the 7d as a B and sometimes as an A camera all of the time.

I just shot a bunch of interviews last week where the HPX-500 was the main (locked-down) camera and the 7d was the "drifty" B camera and the shots look great when cut together.
 
patssle said:
The biggest problem IMHO with HDSLRs is that everybody is judging their images on the internet. Sampled down and compressed - the negatives are being hidden. Take Barry's sharpness test, or look at ISO 6400 on a HDTV. The negatives really pop out there.

I own the 7D and absolutely love it, but unless your material is meant for the Internet 100% of the time - these cameras will definitely show their weaknesses - which is to be expected for $1800.
Click to expand...

It depends on how much of an image nazi you are. I won't disagree that the image quality probably lacks in certain areas. But it depends on what you're doing with it. I mean I shot my first feature film on a Canon XL1 at 60i and projected it in a movie theater off of a DVD. Because of my inefficient editing workflow at the time the original image quality had gone through several renders and generations. The final result was probably a resolution not much better then VHS. But the audience didn't seem to mind much without anything to directly compare it to then and there. Once the audience got into the movie they just accepted the look and the story took over. It is what it is.

I would believe (or at least hope) that these DSLR's even at 720p resolution would look better then footage coming from a Canon XL1 after several generational losses. If that's the case this footage would be perfectly acceptable for an indie screening or film festival screening so long as the movie itself is actually decent.
 
trifilmer said:
Has anyone done any serious production work using these cameras? What I mean by that, documentary work where on camera interviews were shot with them, etc.

I would like to see examples and how the workflow was to work with them.

Thanks
Click to expand...

Documentary work is probably pretty fair game for DSLR video acquisition. I would be more concerned about it in a commercial or narrative application than anything else. But if you're shooting talking heads then why not?

I've completed three talking heads commercial jobs with the mkii and it came out damned fine. It's not my preferred line of work but the camera was the least of my worries.

As for the broad topic of the cameras being for real? They are officialy another tool to choose from which makes them as real as any prisoner laveveled video motion picture tool available past and present. Every single single reflux iteration on the market now, however, falls short of even equally or lower priced cameras on a technical level, the saving grace being frame control or he ability to compose beyond the limitations of a small sensor and fixed lens setup; Barry has proven this many times over.

Are they being used for features? Sure. Who cares? The Z1U and HD-100 were as well. So was the PD-150 recently by a major motion picture entity. You choose the tool you suspect works for the job and move on right?

I've said it a few times but technical me wouldn't want to out a DSLR at bat as my power hitter or A cam. The technical difficulties with image is a valid concern and will bite you in the ass one day. Count on something you couldn't have planned for popping up and having to eat it because there's nothing else you CAN do.

Then, just knowing how nice the image looks when there's some work done in front and behind camera, audience and content creator wanna be me says hell yeah. That's exactly what everyone else with no or low budgets are thinking and it's why I can't keep my 7Ds in. And why I just bought another pair.

Gotta keep an eye out on the trend and make it work for you.
 
For talking heads, the DSLRs are absolutely brilliant.

For deep-focus wide-angle shots, that's their weakest spot. But it also depends on how much detail there is, and whether it's natural or man-made. For wide vistas of a desert landscape, I bet they'd look unbelievably good. For a row of houses with spanish-tile roofs and chain-link fences, they might fail bad. That's probably not the kind of deep-focus shot you want to try with a DSLR.

Interviews and head shots and natural beauty are things that DSLRs can handle very, very well. (excepting the GH1's codec, which can go mushy when there's too much detail overall).
 
The mobility of a DSLR lets you do things with it that are harder or even prohibitive to pull off with a bigger rig. Think back to Kholi's "Heiniken" commercial, there was some cool stuff in there that you just couldn't get any other way.

The DSLR is more likely to succeed in environments with natural detail and less manmade; aliasing really compounds issues with straight lines and moire comes into play with areas of repeated detail; those scenarios don't happen in nature. Of course, too much detail overall (such as the sunlight glinting through the leaves in a forest situation) can overwhelm the GH1 codec; I haven't tried the 7D's codec in a similar situation.

Music videos, like anything else, it depends on what they're shooting. If they're shooting Amy Grant with a 30-foot-long red dress billowing out while she's standing on top of a mountain, I bet the DSLR would do very well with that (4:2:0 notwithstanding). If they're shooting deep-focus shots in a California suburban neighborhood, it might puke.

It's all about the right tool for the job. The mobility and flexibility of the DSLR certainly lends itself to music video shooting.
 
And the cost to shoot is tremendously low as far as camera department goes. With the right two to three people behind camera you could really wreck an entire music video.

Also, consider where Music Videos are shown: Internet and SD television. The flaws of DSLRs are well hidden in Vimeo spaces and on television screens in standard definition. So it's no real big deal to shoot music videos, which are a dying form in all sense-- no money, no substance, with DSLRs and get the gimmicky out of focus background that everyone's pining for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top