Did the DSLR's cause a revolution?

S

Stab

Well-known member
This topic is about all DSLR's and non-expensive big sensor camera's which are now entering the market, so it might be in the wrong forum... My apologies for that but I didnt know where to place it.

My question to you is:

Do you think the arrival of the affordable big sensor camera's has changed the film industry? How big is the impact regarding film schools, small companies, Hollywood, etc? And your own life?

For my school I am considering to write a paper about it because I think it is really interesting, but I want to know first if 'people' consider it revolutionary enough to write about.

I will be curiously reading your replies :)
 
Did the DSLR's cause a revolution?

Stab said:
Do you think the arrival of the affordable big sensor camera's has changed the film industry?

How big is the impact regarding film schools, small companies, Hollywood, etc?

And your own life?
Click to expand...

I don't think the impact of the big sensor cameras has changed the film industry that much. They continue to shoot film or RED. 4K is right around the corner and everyone mastering at 1080P will have a problem uprezing their 1080P productions. Also, the camera's record 4:2:0 color, not the best to work on in post, it's highly compressed.

I think the impact at the film school level is going to be felt. I didn't produce many films in college because of money and access to materials (film stock). A film group I was in shot 13 short films on 5D's and 7D's last year. We're a learning center, so the ease at which we could work was a big advantage and the dual sound setup we were forced to use was a little more work but produced much more professional results. The Canons make you work the set as if you were working with film.

My 7D helps my company. The 60P comes in useful if you want slo mo. I can attach any lens on the planet to it it seems. It's great to finally have a digital camera that records progressive frames. It may not look like the most badass camera by itself, but you can add to it and make it use specific.

I think what's these DSLR's are going to do is make the entry level to 24P digital film production much lower. Self-Directed or otherwise, filmmakers will have the tools to experiment and produce High Quality films/videos. I think the internet has affected Hollywood and film education more than the DSLRs. I would put them second. The revolution you're talking about could not have happened without the internet.
 
yes, but only on the no budget to nearly no budget productions

in any case, what I wanted to say is this: make sure you also ask in other sections of the forum!! this is like going to canonlovers.com and asking "nikon or canon"?
 
I dont know if I would call it a revolution, I would say it has had an impact, thats for sure. I would be more apt to say the DVX100 and it's 24p feature is what started a revolution.
That has had the biggest effect of no budget filmmaking than any other digital camera. Since it's become almost an industry standard as far as framerates go. Evan the super cheap camcorders now have the ability to shoot 24p. Then I would say the DOF ADAPTER takes credit for stirring up the shallow depth of field movement. From there it seems almost a natural progression to the large sensor camera. Of course Canon takes credit for that, along with "Reverie" Vincent's amazing short film. Thats about the time, most of the other manufacturers started getting with the program. Some leaving Canon in the dust, some not so much.
 
It certainly shook things up. The biggest impact has been on both independent film making and local-/regional-level production (commercial, corporate, promotional). These are the folks that were using cameras like the XL-1 and then the DVX100/a/b, and many with 35mm adapters. It opened up a world of new imaging to folks on tighter budgets, and caused many to migrate even from HD cameras like the HVX200. Yes, there have been some big names who have seen potential in DSLR technology and decided to play with it a little ("House", "Black Swan", even LucasFilm), just as there were big names who harnessed miniDV 10 years ago when Panansonic shook things up by offering 24p on the DVX. Those have been few and far between in the grand scheme, and I don't know of anyone who ditched their CineAlta for a 5DmkII.

I'd say the bigger revolution came from the development of larger, CMOS-based imaging chips as are found in RED or Alexa or the AF100 or the F3 or the FS100. RED and ARRI kind of busted through that gate, and now others (Panasonic, Sony, and Canon) are releasing cameras that have the same kind of modular form factor and use a single, large chip. Perhaps, in an indirect sort of way, the DSLR movement had some impact there as the AF100 really feels like Panasonic listening and responding to DSLR users about what they really wanted: the image of the DSLR with the form factor of a real video camera.

What has had a major shift is the chip count. It used to be that large chips were rare and far too expensive. Three chips are always better than one when it comes to smaller image sensors, even on the professional level, because those sensors aren't really big enough to render the best color or resolution without the help of a couple of friends. The cheapest consumer handy cams had single chips (1/3", 1/4", some even smaller than 1/4"), and the images reflected that. All the broadcast cameras were 3-chip, and still the best of the best of 1/2" (or smaller) chip cameras are 3-chip. BUT, the accessibility of single-chip cameras with imagers large enough to resolve stellar pictures is the big revolution.

The impact on "Hollywood" remains to be seen, as film is still the popular medium for major motion pictures.
 
Last edited:
I reckon the DSLR is playing (has played) a part in the broader video revolution. As stated above there is a lineage that can be traced from the Canon XL1, the PS Technik Mini 35, the DSLR's, up to today's offerings that are really combining the features of their successors in one package (that is: progressive framerates, interchangeable lenses, the ability to shoot with a shallow depth of field).
 
Last edited:
Well, I guess you have to start by defining what you mean as a "revolution".

What is different today, versus prior to them coming out?

If you're defining a revolution as -- the means of production were taken away from the ruling class and given to the masses, then no, obviously nothing has changed. Sure it's more affordable to buy a camera, but lights, actors, scripts, sets, catering, wardrobe, props, all that stuff hasn't changed in the slightest -- you still need all that same stuff to make a movie, so in the grand scheme of things, nothing has changed.

It can be argued that the lower cost of a camcorder has made it more available to more people, but the dedicated filmmaker was never dissuaded by that anyway -- he'd just beg or borrow; Rodriguez borrowed the Arri 16S he used to shoot El Mariachi on, and I've been borrowing cameras from others, and now loaning them to others, for years and years. So as a net sum game, I don't think much has changed. The pricetag for buying a camera has changed, but that's about it.

What HAS changed, as far as I can tell, is that apparently a lot of people have changed what their definition of filmmaking is. Three or four years ago, prior to the DSLR "movement", we would get sixty to ninety entries in our DVXFests. People were going all out, spending thousands of dollars, making films like "O2", and shooting it on whatever they had -- an HV20 with a Letus Mini, or a Red One, whatever. Now, four years later, our membership has tripled, there are thousands and thousands and tens of thousands of new users here -- and the participation in our film festivals has plummeted. Our last fest, which had our most open/least-restrictive theme ever, drew eighteen entries. People aren't making actual films anymore. Now they seem to think that a three-minute montage qualifies as a "short film" (hint -- it doesn't; a montage is an exercise in a first-semester beginning videography course, not a "film").

Why is this? Has the bar been lowered to the floor? Or is this really the beginning of a new definition of what people think filmmaking is? Or is it a reflection of the idea that now people who have never had any form of training, but have a camcorder, are doing what they can with what they've got? Meaning -- filmmaking is hard work and takes a lot of people to do it. Does DSLR-ism mean now that an individual, by themselves, who wants to be an artist, is redefining "filmmaking" to be something that they can accomplish by themselves without involving others (and the pay and social hassles and coordination and feeding and all that it involves?) And therefore, what can someone do by themselves - a montage?

Is that what's happening?

And if it is... does that qualify as a "revolution"? Or is it its own version of a "new wave", like mumblecore or dogme95 or ... well, the French "new wave" itself...

... or is it more of a reflection of the youtube revolution (which is a real revolution -- it's turned audience appetites from 2-hour network dramas to 20-second snippets, and in the process has gone a long way towards redefining peoples' attention spans). Does the DSLR dovetail into that and become, not a "revolution in filmmaking", but ... a new thing? Does it do to conventional film, what film did to theater and opera? If so... that would qualify as a revolution, by my definition.

Access to tools alone doesn't make for a revolution. It's what you do with it that makes or breaks a revolution. You can buy a gun at wal-mart, but that doesn't mean that the American people are in a revolution. Not unless they start using them.

So - again - it goes back to the original question. What do you consider a "revolution"?
 
Last edited:
I think that they did, but I disagree that they are the destination.

They are merely an evolutionary step towards large sensor cameras with real video features.
 
Has it had any greater effect than the advent of 24p based video? Or HDV and the affordable HD codecs that followed?
Or the increased speed and affordability of storage and processing power that makes desktop editing possible?
Or, for that matter, 35mm adapters that gave us much the same look of shallow DOF?

I wouldn't say they caused a revolution.
Like Mcgee, I would say they are part of the evolution of technology - which has been going on for years... and will continue to go on.
They are a step, one part of a long chain of events. Not the beginning... and definitely not the end.

Barry is right - the tools becoming cheaper makes little difference if nothing is done with them.
What it does do, however, is separate those who know their craft from those who rely on gear.
When everyone can afford the equipment, it's craft that makes the difference.

The other thing to remember is that as these tools become more accessible, the high end is constantly moving higher and higher.
Let's not forget that while we are now excited to finally have acceptable 1080P large sensor footage, the high end of the industry is beginning to migrate to 4K acquisition.
I agree, the threshold of 'good enough' was passed long ago... but the bar keeps going up and up.
 
It's a good thing that Barry Green said! I asked myself the same question about the "revolution". and Green answered it very well! It's not because DSRL are here that is more easier to make a film. I've been studying, communication, cinema, televsion production amd post-production. And it's always been teamwork. Does DSLR changed the way of teamworking? No, it's only cheaper and hurts less for the budget. =P

Graduating "shorts-movies" i've done will studying won't be in a porte-folio or a demo reel. I'm aware that their beggining errors in them, and I may continue to make some, less but some. DSLR won't change a thing. Probably more people while make "short-movies" but their will be beggining errors.
 
I would say it's a revolution in the sense that it has brought true film making capability to the people. It has done this by shattering the price performance barrier making professional results available for $600 as price of admission to the cinema arena. I believe that before the DSLR, we were at just under $4k for a DVX100, but with the 35mm adapter it would be significantly more. DSLR really gave the light sensitivity and the desired shallow DOF for narrative work. Not to mention the great look of colors, contrast, saturation etc that many people seem to flip over.

To cite your proof of the DSLR's effect on the film making community, you'll really need to present a chronology of pivotal events starting with "Reverie", "Tiny Furniture" winning SXSW best film, 5dII being used the primary cam on "House" for the episode "Help Me", and of course Paramount bid 5 mil on the indie film "Like Crazy" at Sundance filmed on the 7D. What's really interesting is that their use has incited such incendiary debate as any discussion between a liberal democrat and a conservative republican. The opposition hsa been as rabid as the love affair with this new technology. I guess that's a hallmark of any revolution.

What's the effect of DSLR's on the professional industry? I think that's hard to quantify, but the fact that Technicolor felt a need to respond with a picture style designed for Canon DSLR's that outputs Log-C because the regular codec was such a pain in the ass to them would seem to indicate that DSLR use is pretty wide spread in the industry and Technicolor has to deal with it quite a bit. I don't know. It would be interesting to talk to some guys at Technicolor to find out how often they have to deal with it on big productions.

Once other codec issues are resolved, you could see it used more. I've heard a Hollywood DP say that the ease of use and set up can cut a shooting schedule in half, reduce crew size and reduce equipment on set. That is the true revolutuion that actually effects the likelihood of certain movies getting made that otherwise might not get made. Being able to show a profitable business plan to make big budget looking feature on a small budget for a particular niche is the revolution. Smarter movies may be made because of it. That's probably the direction I would go if I were writing a paper on it.
 
But -- what of that is new? We've had "lower price of entry" revolutions over and over, starting in the 1920's with the introduction of 16mm film. Then we had 8mm film introduced in 1932. Then we had Super8 introduced in 1965. Then VHS introduced in the 1970's. Then DV in the '90's. Then 24p in 2002. Then HD in 2003/2004.

Which of these was the "revolution?" All of them caused the same kind of things you're talking about. "Tiny Furniture" winning SXSW best film? How about 16mm winning the Sundance Grand Jury prize, or a DVX100 film winning best cinematography awards at Sundance several times? A 5D being used as a primary camera on "House"? Big deal -- Danny Boyle used eight Canon XL1 cameras to shoot "28 Days Later" in 2002; that was feature film that grossed $82 million in the theaters, shot by a (future) Oscar-winning cinematographer, certainly a much much bigger deal than an episode of a TV show.

Point being -- we've been here and done this over and over and over -- and we undoubtedly will do it again. There will be another "revolution" soon enough.

So again -- it comes back to the question of what do you mean by "revolution"? If you mean "are the DSLRs being used in the industry" then sure, yes they are. Is that a revolution? DV, HDV, and P2 cameras have been used in the industry for years and years. Before Rodney Charters used the 5D to shoot background plates on "24", he used the JVC HD100 for that same purpose. And before he used the HD100, he used the Sony VX2000 for that same purpose. Scorcese used an HVX200 for a scene in "The Departed" and "Cloverfield" used it extensively as an "A" camera in a $25m feature film in 2008. Oscar winner "An Inconvenient Truth" was shot largely on a JVC HDV camera (not the slideshow, but the rest of it). "Like Crazy" was bought for $5m and shot on a 7D. Again -- big deal; "Open Water" was shot on a standard-def VX2000 and was bought by Lions Gate for $2.5m back in 2003. Grossed $54 million in the theaters. Blair Witch was shot on a consumer RCA 8mm camcorder, sold to Artisan for a deal that netted the producers over $12 million. DVXs have been a staple of cable TV series for years and years; the CBS primetime series "What Would You Do" is shot today on standard-def DVX100s.

Point being -- this is the exact same story we've seen played out over and over before. There's nothing new here, or revolutionary. Been there, done that. Consumer gear is being used in big projects -- yep, been there, done that. Big success has been achieved by some people using the equipment -- yep, been there, done that. Yesterday's big story is "Monsters", shot on an EX3 (I think) and bought for a million bucks at that same SXSW film festival where "Tiny Furniture" was bought.

Seriously -- none of this is new or revolutionary, we've been here and done that over and over.

So what do you mean by "revolution"? If you mean "people made a movie on it" then again I say, so what, we've done that a hundred times already with the gear of the day. But if you mean that the very nature of filmmaking has changed because of available-light no-budget equipment, well... there's an argument to be made there; we'd just have to see the evidence of the actual films that have been made that embody that, and the impact that they've had on audiences.

Example of something -- Crank 2 used something like eight tiny Canon HF11's to create looks that had never been seen before in film. That's (to me) revolutionary -- using the tiny size and low cost of the equipment to create something truly new and unique that we haven't seen before. And the original Dogme95 movement was fueled in part by tiny little cameras like the Sony PC7, which was used on "Festen" and could be mounted on the end of a stick and used to create imagery that nobody had seen before, which expanded the filmmaker's palette of tools. Those types of things were slightly revolutionary. Slightly, in that -- well, those are the only two examples of anything I can think of like that; a revolution would imply that everything was being shot that way now when in fact it isn't. In fact, among DSLR shooters, it seems the trend is to defy and defeat the tiny size, by rigging them out with these big old frankenstein rigs that then defeat their tinyness.
 
Last edited:
All of those cams are small chip cams or am I wrong about that? And they are all in $2-3K ball park at least Sony VX2000, Panasonic HVX200, and Canon HF11. So what's new? The ability to shoot on a close to S35 size sensor is new. The light sensitivity is new and revolutionary making 1600 ISO usable and according to Bloom 3200 on the GH2. It certainly doesn't justify not using lights, but certainly less light. Also the price performance barrier is new and at rock bottom at $600. I don't remember the mania around those cams you mentioned like there is around DSLR's. Yes, the DVX100 had a mania around it.

Probably most importantly in terms of revolution is that all of those features on the DSLR are offered on a photographer's platform reaching out inviting him to cross offer to the cinema world. That is the revolution. People that have the most potential to become good DP's will now jump in and get their feet wet that otherwise might not. Believe it or not, many photographers find the whole premise of video pretty distasteful. We're a pretty snooty bunch :-). DSLR's are changing that. I think DSLR's are bringing new filmmakers into the fold unlike any other revolution in the past.

You say your membership has tripled but entries in contests have gone down. Give it time, Barry. They're still trying to get their editing software sorted out :-). So much to learn. The cam is the least of it.
 
Ok after all your good replies, especially Barry's I am convinced it is a bad topic for a paper.
There is simply not enough evidence for the improvements in video camera's to lead to a revolution. After all, the camera / film is only a small percentage of the costs made in a movie thus not cutting much costs there. After thinking about it some more, I agree with Barry and DSLR's, AF-100's, F3's are just an improvement to video which is improving for decades. Soon enough it will surpass film in quality and ease of use, but then still not much will change I guess.

Someone maybe can shine a light on a similar topic that might be interesting enough to research and writer my thesis for? :)
 
Yes they were small-sensor -- but ... does that matter? Those guys all still made their films and sold them for millions of dollars or used them in major productions or ... I dunno, it seems like "same thing, different day."

It just seems like "evolution", not "revolution". All the things that are being claimed as being done on DSLRs, have been done on other cameras for years. The DSLR has eliminated the desire for the DOF adapter, yes, but other than that... it's nothing different. Same thing, lower price tag. The DVX100 was something new -- it brought the pricetag for video 24p from $100,000 down to $4000. The DOF adapter was rather revolutionary, in that it brought the shallow DOF look to the small-sensor/small-budget indie shooter. The DSLR is just kind of both of those things together.

It's certainly easier and less hassle to get shallow DOF on a DSLR than it was to use a Letus Mini on an HV20, but does that in and of itself constitue a revolution? An HV20 with a Letus Mini costs an awful lot less than a 5D, for example.
 
DSLR's have caused a revolution all right - in a couple years' time I've seen a LOT of really bad video shot with ridiculously shallow DOF and constant rack focuses. I don't really mind them though, they're great for their size and cost, and as long as you keep their limitations in mind you get another great tool to shoot with.
 
SLavictoire said:
So, stab, you can talk about Evolution rather then Revolution! Only matters of changement.
Click to expand...

Nah, it should be a research with a research question and of course at the end, an answer... Can't really see that happening with the evolution of video... But feel free to fill me in :)
 
It put film DOF in sub 2k dollar cameras. That's a revolution in its own right

But no....I don't think it started a revolution as far as tech goes. Maybe in a few years once the technology gets to the point where there arent inherent issues with using a DSLR as your primary cam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top