Does Philip Bloom come here anymore?

jacotte said:
And as far as sound is concerned, there are solutions to that problem.

http://www.zacuto.com/zound-hotshoe

Now it boils down to this: is the aliasing worth investing 4 to 6 times more money and getting equipement which is less sensitive and 20 times heavier?
Click to expand...

that just lets you mount zoom on your camera! not a sound solution! but it helps a bit...

As i say, depends on the job etc...but i have used 5dmkII for two commercials and the 7D is being used by SNL and Dollhouse. both HD broadcast shows...
 
Philip... excuse me for insisting... if the DSLR is broadcast quality and the frame and audio problems are resolved... why on earth would anybody want to worry about carrying five tons of camera gear around to get more or less the same end result? Do you really want to do any location shooting with an EX3, relay, Adaptor, tripod, rods, etc. when you could be getting more or less the same shot with just a single small camera? Let's be very objective about this.
 
jacotte said:
Philip... excuse me for insisting... if the DSLR is broadcast quality and the frame and audio problems are resolved... why on earth would anybody want to worry about carrying five tons of camera gear around to get more or less the same end result? Do you really want to do any location shooting with an EX3, relay, Adaptor, tripod, rods, etc. when you could be getting more or less the same shot with just a single small camera? Let's be very objective about this.
Click to expand...

the audio problems are not resolved, also many broadcasters are NOT accepting the 7D or 5D for HD acquisition. Trust me am being very objective. I film using both. Love both and to be honest of late have been promoting DSLR video shooting way more than DOF shooting.

I hate the weight of the DOF rig, love the image. Love the DSLR rig but wish it didn't have that bloody awful rolling shutter and aliasing issues.

OK, let me put it another way. If I am asked what I want to use for a job, depending on what it is I will generally say DSLR if I can as I love using them and love the size and image.
 
jacotte said:
Philip... excuse me for insisting... if the DSLR is broadcast quality and the frame and audio problems are resolved... why on earth would anybody want to worry about carrying five tons of camera gear around to get more or less the same end result?
Click to expand...

Sure, if anybody ever came out with such a camera it would blow away the alternative, but DSLR aren't that and they never will be, as they cannot be both good at stills and video at the same time.

It really sounds like you've already made up your mind and are just looking for confirmation. If DSLR works for your needs and you don't mind dealing with their limitations then that's fine. But it's not wise to try and convince yourself that it's absolutely perfect and gloss over the problems. Aliasing exists, audio issues exist, form factor issues exist. The flaws might be less prevalent in certain situations but the first time they ruin your shot is when you'll wish you've shot with an EX3 instead. Accept DSLR for what they are and not what you wish them to be.
 
There are workarounds for the sound as seen above.

The aliasing is a codec issue, not a camera issue. If they released DSLR with XD CAM codec how long would it take before evrybody would switch over?

If you read between the lines, Philip is essentially saying that he is just as lazy as the rest of us when it comes to carry heavy equipment around. While his EX3 rig looks great and produces great images, he just can't help going the easy route and using the Canon. The bottom line is his brain is saying EX3 but his gut feelings go with Canon.

I am not in any way trying to defend DSLR, but I'm just trying to evaluate the distance left to cover before the DSLR solution takes over the entire industry. As crazy as it may have sounded just a few months ago, it now begins to look like 5 years from now they will all be shooting features with DSLR cameras and our rigs will look as obsolete as any vintage car.

To that effect, Philip, a very useful video on your website might be a side by side comparison between the adaptor route and the DSLR route. Don't suggarcoat it with a lot of "It depends". Give us the bottom line. I miss those great reviews.
 
it's been mentioned before, but it won't be too long from now when large sensors will be placed in prosumer priced camcorders(scarlet, or the next gen xh-a1).. which will blow away vdslrs in terms of image and functionality.. so in essence, vdslrs aren't too far behind 35mm adapters in terms of extinction.
 
jacotte said:
There are workarounds for the sound as seen above.
Click to expand...

Yes, the keywords bring workarounds, professionals don't like that word because workarounds means that you're sacrificing time and convenience. Real cameras don't have to deal with that.

jacotte said:
The aliasing is a codec issue, not a camera issue. If they released DSLR with XD CAM codec how long would it take before evrybody would switch over?
Click to expand...

If you've read the article that I linked you would see that it's not a codec issue. The camera's hardware is simply incapable of resolving sufficient details and it lacks the corrective filter to prevent false details from getting through. Having a higher codec has nothing to do with it. If you do a simple calculation you'll see that the 5d actually has a higher bitrate than HDV, yet you don't see that kind of problems on say an XH-A1.


jacotte said:
I am not in any way trying to defend DSLR, but I'm just trying to evaluate the distance left to cover before the DSLR solution takes over the entire industry. As crazy as it may have sounded just a few months ago, it now begins to look like 5 years from now they will all be shooting features with DSLR cameras and our rigs will look as obsolete as any vintage car.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that. DSLRs are terrible for video work because they're designed for still. Terrible, terrible form factor. At best they're a transitional form into the next generation of cameras. I agree that in 5 years we will be shooting on 35mm sensor cameras, but these will be real cameras with dedicated video functions, not DSLR hybrid. Although I can see where DSLR can come in handy for stealth video work.
 
In 35mm film there is no audio. The Nagra is the ultimate workaround. So I don't buy the argument regarding separate sound being non professional.

Corrective filter means software. Software means firmware. It is possible that new firmware down the line will resolve the aliasing as well as the rolling shutter. The EX1 had also a rolling shutter problem until the latest firmware removed it.

The success of DSLR is precisely due to the fact they were not designed as video cameras. Who wants to carry a heavy video camera around? DSLR accidentally re-invented the wheel. You can put it in your carry on bag and shoot a feature on the moon with no crew. Heavy camera rigs are no longer necessary.

I also want to mention that everything DSLR I have seen on the web (and that includes Philip Bloom's website) looks great. You can't knock the wonderful, grain free, images.

Now I own a heavy camera rig and I have never used a DSLR... however I have a friend of mine who used it on a commercial and the footage looks great. It is much sharper and has no grain.... Plus he did it with no lighting. I could never have achieved these results with my rig without carrying lights, tripods, and all sorts of extras on location. Holding the camera is even more mind blowing. I could see myself shoot a feature with the camera around my neck.

I just have the feeling DSLR has taken the industry by storm. The idea is just too silly for us veterans. Perhaps we can be compared to Deer blinded by sudden headlights.

Also, a few words about reviews. If I were Philip, I would feel very uncomfortable endorsing DSLR all the way when a lot of companies such as LETUS, SONY, ZACUTO have been so nice to me. Companie such as Zacuto may not want to admit the adaptor gear they sold might no longer necessary. Too many people live of the adaptor rigs and NOBODY wants DSLR to take over too quickly.

But at some point we may all have to face the music; A bug free DSLR solution is just around the corner and could knock out everything up to and including the RED... at 5% of the cost of a RED.
 
Last edited:
jacotte said:
In 35mm film there is no audio. The Nagra is the ultimate workaround. So I don't buy the argument regarding separate sound being non professional.
Click to expand...

Ask any one who shoots film whether they would rather be able to get sound into the camera instead of having to sync in post and you'll probably get "Yes" as an answer. Yea, there's no sound when you shoot film but that's not a feature, it's a liability.

jacotte said:
Corrective filter means software. Software means firmware. It is possible that new firmware down the line will resolve the aliasing as well as the rolling shutter. The EX1 had also a rolling shutter problem until the latest firmware removed it.
Click to expand...

Again, if you'll read the article you'll see that you can't simply put a filter in place because that would destroys the camera's ability to shoot still. When you put in a low pass filter to get rid of high res details that the camera can't resolve in video mode, it would also filter out all the details that the camera is capable of resolving in still mode. So you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either it's a good video camera or it's a still camera. And if such a filter is ever used, the effective resolution of the DSLR will drop to sub 720p level, barely greater than SD (as proven by resolution charts).


jacotte said:
The success of DSLR is precisely due to the fact they were not designed as video cameras. Who wants to carry a heavy video camera around? DSLR accidentally re-invented the wheel. You can put it in your carry on bag and shoot a feature on the moon with no crew. Heavy camera rigs are no longer necessary.
Click to expand...

Sometimes light is good, other times weight is good. Ever try to use a DSLR for handheld shots? People are actually going out and buying huge shouldermounted systems in order to make the camera heavier and more stable.


jacotte said:
Plus he did it with no lighting. I could never have achieved these results with my rig without carrying lights, tripods, and all sorts of extras on location. Holding the camera is even more mind blowing. I could see myself shoot a feature with the camera around my neck.
Click to expand...

DSLR or not, you're still going to need all of those supporting gear in order to get good results. How will you create mood without lights, how do you get stable shot without a tripod, how will you do anything other than shooting flat video footage with just the bare camera? DSLR doesn't excuse you from needing all of that extra gear and it's not a fix-all solutions.
 
jacotte said:
From what I've seen and heard, all technical jargon aside, the image quality in better on a Canon 5 than with EX1 and Adaptor. When was the last time you saw anybody even talk about adaptors anymore? Go to the Zacuto website and all you will see is gear for the Canon. You never see Philip Bloom with anything but a Canon and all the articles he writes are about Canon. Where I live there's a guy who rents out Letus equipement. He uses the Canon.
Click to expand...

This is a judgment call, and everyone hates judgment calls when comparing gear. The still image of a Canon 5DMKII might be in many ways comparable to other prosumer HD cam + adapter rigs, but we're not comparing still images. We're comparing moving images, and the 5DMKII records moving images at 30F. Any person who studies film, cinema, or shoots regularly can spot 30F from across the street with one eye closed. I know I can. And 30F looks TERRIBLE to my eye. It screams video. And that's not even bringing up the lack of manual controls and lack of XLR inputs, or form factor.

I know that the 7D has addressed some of these issues, namely the lack of 24F. Still, it doesn't quite bridge the gap. Still photographers are going to love the camera because its still a great still digital camera, and for event photographers, now they can double as event videographers and charge more. To be perfectly honest, I see the 7D taking over the event market because of this very thing. But to anyone who has spent a lot of time on set, they're going to be disappointed for a number of reasons, stated in other people's posts.
 
I tend to agree that vdslrs are great for lowlight in that one doesn't need to be good at nightime lighting. With these cams, available lighting really shows up well on the subject matter.. and in a place with many lights, like a downtown area, or moody restaurant, the complexity really shows up well... something that's hard to duplicate with staged lighting..maybe even impossible . That's why most of the clips that blow people away are nightime shots. Most of the daytime stuff I see is crappage.
 
Hopefully, anyone who needs the functions that a true video camera offers over a dslr, will know what he needs. If she doesn't, then it's surprising they are even in business.

For the average aspiring film student, weekend warrior, hybrid photographer, documentarian, event photographer, family video, prosumer, vimeo-er, etc... there really is no problem with them making the jump to hybrid slr's.

I for one, do not find them up to standard. After research, I decided not to purchase. Not because of price, but I do not see the reason in buying something that does not work for me.
 
jacotte: just look at Barry's articles, bottom line is vdslr cameras aren't as good as traditional video cameras yet in many regards:
- the resolution is barely above SD (720 at best)
- moire and anti-aliasing issues (not simply fixable by firmware update or the like)
- not as much dynamic range as traditional video cameras
- cmos artifacts (skew, yello vision, partly exposed frames (flashes))

Don't get me wrong, I like shooting with the 7D, especially in low light and if I don't have a lot of resources, but if quality really matters and if I have the resources, I choose an adapter rig over a vdslr rig.
 
2010 will bring large sensor, true video cameras from Panasonic, Scarlett, Canon, et al. These will be proper video cameras at varying price points. The video DSLR cameras will be rendered next to useless except as stealth and crash cameras and, of course, will be used by some because they're cheap. Anyone spending $5K for a Canon 1D for video only will probably be wasting their money.

I find full frame 35mm DOF very difficult to work with and always use my Ultimates at Academy framing. Any professional AC will probably run away from narrative shoots that are full frame 35. The best part about using DOF adapters with any of my 1/3", 1/2" or 2/3" cameras is that you can take them off--because there are a lot of shoots where the shallow DOF just isn't wanted by my clients.
 
As someone who owns neither and thus has no dog in the fight... reading all of this and the other thread, I have yet to see any sort of definition of "Better". "Better" and "Worse" are inherently subjective terms, unless you qualify them with what exactly your set of criteria for "Better" is.

It's like telling me a Shelby Mustang GT500 is better than my Explorer. Sure, it's better... until I need something to drive in the snow or other inclement weather, haul gear, go camping or hunting, go out onto the "back 40" at my parent's place, or just get a bunch of groceries. If that last set of criteria is what's important to me or what I need, then how in the world is the Shelby better?

Don't mistake what's important to you and your criteria for what's "better" as being the end all and be all for every other person (which, jacotte, you seem to be doing).
 
Well, and let's clarify -- what I'm saying is that some of the profound hype we heard when they were first launched was, basically, ridiculous.

But now that we can quantify what these things can do, at the price point that they're at, they're still a breakthrough. They can produce astonishingly good results, at very inexpensive prices. And, they can screw you with moire and jaggies too.

The only "reality check" that needs to be issued is the idea that they're sharper or have more dynamic range than conventional video cameras -- they aren't, and they don't. But what they do, is offer the shallow-DOF look for under $2,000. And that right there earns them a place at the table.

The next generation will likely improve upon them significantly. But as-is, they're well worth their price tags.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top