That's how every professional commercial is graded atleast here in Finland. I guess it gives a "pro" look
Are DSLRs for video dead?
- Thread starter Donald Ong
- Start date
That's how every professional commercial is graded atleast here in Finland. I guess it gives a "pro" look
Donald Ong
Well-known member
That's how every professional commercial is graded atleast here in Finland. I guess it gives a "pro" look
Here in singapore too... There's a new influx of commercials with lots of shallow DoF and washed out colours. A lot of new international adverts also spot the same washed out colours. It's hard to explain..its like they shot super flat logs and then did not grade the flatness completely out of it. I quite like the look, actually
Last edited:
That's how every professional commercial is graded atleast here in Finland. I guess it gives a "pro" look
...Which becomes a terrible cliché when everything has the same look for no reason other than people have been brain-washed into thinking that it's a "pro" look.
Back in the days of film this so called "pro" look was considered to be a badly made print.
Have you seen Indie Game: The Movie? - https://vimeo.com/25268139
Bought the full 1080 version last night, watched it on my HD TV, it looked great. Had some dynamic range issues, overexposed sky, etc. But it didn't effect the story, and it didn't effect the cinematography, it was still excellent. This film made it to sundance and won an editing award. All shot on 5D Mark II's.
I'm working on a doc right now, and i'm pretty sure i'm going with DSLR's. I already have the support gear, I have the lenses, and the Canon alternatives are just too much damn money.
For documentary, or even narrative short, I see no reason to not use DSLR, just get over the issues and make the movie.
For feature length narrative, if you have more money, sure, shoot on a Red or a Black Magic, or a C300. If you are running low on funds, you can still accomplish great things with DSLRs.
Bought the full 1080 version last night, watched it on my HD TV, it looked great. Had some dynamic range issues, overexposed sky, etc. But it didn't effect the story, and it didn't effect the cinematography, it was still excellent. This film made it to sundance and won an editing award. All shot on 5D Mark II's.
I'm working on a doc right now, and i'm pretty sure i'm going with DSLR's. I already have the support gear, I have the lenses, and the Canon alternatives are just too much damn money.
For documentary, or even narrative short, I see no reason to not use DSLR, just get over the issues and make the movie.
For feature length narrative, if you have more money, sure, shoot on a Red or a Black Magic, or a C300. If you are running low on funds, you can still accomplish great things with DSLRs.
New_Zealand
Veteran
I don't think the DSLR video is dead.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
For people new to DSLRs no, for professionals not needing HQ still photography, yes.
5DmkIII great camera, but not addressing the core needs of motion pictures shooters.
I think the BMC will have the same impact on the direction of buyers as the MK2 did. Face it, if you have $3,500 to spend on a camera body for video production where is the smart money going. Raw 12bit with supporting software or H-264 8bit.
MK2: Revolutionary and low cost
MK3: Upgrade to a 3 year old camera and more expensive
BMC: Revolutionary and low cost
Last edited:
The real problem with the BMC is that it basically has all the same problems as the DSLR's except for image quality. I mean the usability looks to be really, really bad. And I thought the FS700 was an ergonomic nightmare. It's not for regular 24/7 shootings.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
Treat the BMC like a cinema camera and you will be happy, treat it like a DSLR and you gonna be not so happy.
And I think the FS100/700 have great ergonomics. I shot handheld with a bare bones camera, while riding the front bumper of a WWII Jeep at full speed - came out great.
Frank
And I think the FS100/700 have great ergonomics. I shot handheld with a bare bones camera, while riding the front bumper of a WWII Jeep at full speed - came out great.
Frank
simonpwood
Well-known member
(Off topic for a moment - sorry) Frank; I'm sure I read somewhere that you were using Samyang lenses on your FS camera, but I can not find it? Were you using EF or Nikon mount, and how did you find the Samyangs generally?
Donald Ong
Well-known member
That actually looked very nice
Canon needs a C50 or something that costs maybe 3-4k with the same sensor as c300 but stripped down everything. I would kill for that. please, canon? Take out NDs...take of the LCD, just leave the evf...Take out XLRs (I'm fine with 3.5 jacks)...I don't care...but please give us the c300 sensor in a 3-4k body!littletiger2010
Active member
I think Canon message is clear. Their lowest end pricing for such video cameras is set at the level of C100. If you want anything cheaper from Canon, your choice is only limited to their DSLRs. If Canon is going to launch a new video camera with the same sensor as C300, it's either going to be an upgrade from C100 or C300 i.e something like C200 or C400 which will only be priced higher than the current C100 and C300 cameras respectively.
Postmaster
Dark Side of the Camera
I have a Nikon mount Samyang - thought it would be the most future proof.
Love the 35mm - actually one of my favorite lenses in the moment and probably the best bang for the buck out there.
Just ordered the 24mm (cinemized version).
Frank
Donald Ong
Well-known member
The next 2 years should be very good for new cameras. If the Yen was at it's more traditional 117-120 range, the C100 would cost $4,333 new right now.
As the world economy improves, the Yen will weaken from an incredibly strong 80 to the US dollar (also strong against the Euro) as people abandon safe harbors and chase yield.
So lets say in 2 years the C100 would normally go down to $3.5K, as the C150 comes out at $6.5K. But the C150 will actually be $5K, so the used C100 will get pushed down to $2K. A new C350 will be $10K, a used C300 about $6K as the C150 almost equals it.
And that used C100 at $5K - $4K - $3K becomes your C50. Just a matter of time. :undecided
ROCKMORE
Veteran
As long as I can bring the image quality home I can work around handling the ergonomics. I've worked with much more difficult cameras, starting with a 4X5 field camera loading film holders in a black bag sitting on a the side of the road somewhere. Some shooters today are very spoiled and don't know how good they got it, 2.5K for $3,000 with a touch screen and metadata at no extra cost. They are upgrading firmware and haven't even sent one production unit to one customer yet.
A BMC is basically a box with a lens mount on it that shoots 2.5k. Just the way I like it, simple. Reminds me of the way I learned at the beginning in art school, a pinhole camera made from a shoebox. Try that and you will know the meaning of PIA.
If I want easy, I just pull out the EX3.
Last edited:
maranfilms
Veteran
And then you can stop on the way home from the camera store, and buy a loaf of 9 dollar bread, 11 dollar a gallon gas. People, hyper inflation is coming. I hate to say it but, the market is going to be flooded with cheap cameras that people will have to sell to eat. Anyone that has any basic knowledge should see the writing is on the wall. This is what happens when when your gov. prints money every few years.
dustylense
Veteran
I agree.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Well that's the world we live in, isn't it.
If you are a small production company the motion picture business you need equipment right? For many it is a smart decision to downsize from holding $20,000 cameras if they aren't making money to perhaps $5,000 packages as long as your clients will accept the IQ, then rent what you need when the project calls for it. Cheap clients get what they get, clients willing to pay always pay for rentals.
It's also a good idea to dump equipment while it still has value. I know people who held on the Arri 435s and Arri3s and really took a beating. I also have an Arri 2C that I couldn't trade for a loaf of bread, but at least it was a $5,000 investment 10 years ago not $100.000. Can't win em all. I'm just glad I never bought into JVC HDV cameras at 10 grand. Ouch.
Now along comes the BMC, a digital HD raw acquisitions camera that uses most any lens you already have and can run on a motorcycle battery in the desert, and for how much? $2995.
It's basically a small box with a relatively high resolution sensor. It reminds me of my i7 PC I built 3 years ago for only $1,200. A real workhorse, that has been producing and making money for around a 1000 days with no end in sight. (knock on wood) I think the BMC will have similar longevity.
Smart money is more important than ever, but I don't think the sky is falling. If it does, there will be new dawn.
Don't panic, just buy what you need, not everything you want.
Last edited:
maranfilms
Veteran
excellent advice. I am guilty of buying toys I think I will need, but not at the time. Somehow I seem to justify it. Now my wife, is a great saving person. she's a good balance.
I dont want to be a panic type, but I have to disagree, I strongly believe the sky will be falling. But your advice is good none the less.
Donald Ong
Well-known member
Yeah, as much as i love the image from the BMCC, i just know i can't live with it with the current firmware...very limiting (as of now, that is)... Also the only real way to use the bmcc handheld is with a rig...not a fan of those overly large, over-expensive and overly ridiculous frankenrigs.
I don't need the best image quality and super high latitude...And the 5d3 seems to be very decent if you sharpen in post....soo.....