DSLR or HD?
- Thread starter kfkok
- Start date
No offense but I find the "will this camera blow up well to 35mm" question pretty ridiculous every time it's asked. It's just putting the cart before the horse. Chances are, if you're shooting on a 5d or an HVX, you don't have the budget to do a 35mm blow up. And if you beat the odds and actually get theatrical distribution, your distributor will be footing the bill, and if they've already bought the film then it's not going to matter too much how well the film blows up to 35mm. Heck, they've blown up DV movies to 35mm so an HD source by default should already be better.
Thanks guys for your reply.
In fact, my intention to ask this question was more towards technical side. That is, since I watched footages shot by DSLR and I found the motion (not about rolling shutters, just normal motions) looks quite different from those shot with camcorders. DSLR's videos sometimes looks "too sharp all the way even on moving objects". I was thinking is it because a camcorder will "intelligently blends the frames so that the video looks more smooth to human eyes"? Or, will it all become just fine after blowing up to 24fps film?
Let me explain a bit on why I'm considering DSLR solution. There is a chance that I may get post production/distribution fundings from certain organizations that required footages(or roughcut) from the film for application. So there is a chance to blow up to film even for very low budget film.
And honestly, the idea of playing with a full frame sensor camera in such low cost is extremely attractive to me! Can't help it man! A P2 (HVX) cost 3 times a Mark II, and with a much smaller sensor. So this concerns low light creativity and DOF. Getting adaptor with prime lens aren't cheap either.
In fact, my intention to ask this question was more towards technical side. That is, since I watched footages shot by DSLR and I found the motion (not about rolling shutters, just normal motions) looks quite different from those shot with camcorders. DSLR's videos sometimes looks "too sharp all the way even on moving objects". I was thinking is it because a camcorder will "intelligently blends the frames so that the video looks more smooth to human eyes"? Or, will it all become just fine after blowing up to 24fps film?
Let me explain a bit on why I'm considering DSLR solution. There is a chance that I may get post production/distribution fundings from certain organizations that required footages(or roughcut) from the film for application. So there is a chance to blow up to film even for very low budget film.
And honestly, the idea of playing with a full frame sensor camera in such low cost is extremely attractive to me! Can't help it man! A P2 (HVX) cost 3 times a Mark II, and with a much smaller sensor. So this concerns low light creativity and DOF. Getting adaptor with prime lens aren't cheap either.
stangtuner
Member
Well, here's some food for thought:
The Mark II does NOT record in 24fps, only 30. That in itself will give the footage a more"Video"look.
The HVX does record in a "Cinemode" (24fps)
The sound on the MarkII leaves ALOT to be desired. I did a commercial with it and although the footage came out fantastic the audio sounded like Helen Keller stuck in a box. Good thing I had a Z1u to record the sound.
The HVX does have good sound. Certainly WAY better than the Mark II.
The MarkII has the ability to change out lenses for certain artistic or lightning needs.
The HVX does not have interchangeable lenses.
Peronally I would buy the HVX if you're going to make a movie. If you're going to take pictures then go with the MArkII
The Mark II does NOT record in 24fps, only 30. That in itself will give the footage a more"Video"look.
The HVX does record in a "Cinemode" (24fps)
The sound on the MarkII leaves ALOT to be desired. I did a commercial with it and although the footage came out fantastic the audio sounded like Helen Keller stuck in a box. Good thing I had a Z1u to record the sound.
The HVX does have good sound. Certainly WAY better than the Mark II.
The MarkII has the ability to change out lenses for certain artistic or lightning needs.
The HVX does not have interchangeable lenses.
Peronally I would buy the HVX if you're going to make a movie. If you're going to take pictures then go with the MArkII
Thank you for reply!
I'm happy to hear that you'd experience shooting Mark II. My big question is: Does motions in the video shot by Mark II difference from those shot with any camcorder (24p or 60i)? This "different" here, I mean "worse", or "not as smooth as" etc. Regarding sound, I don't concern it because I plan to record that with a separate sound recorder anyway.
Looking forward to the reply! Thanks!!
stangtuner
Member
Here's the footage from the Mark II
http://vimeo.com/5313638
It is very smooth and colors are good right out of the box. Just a small touch of color correction was needed to realyl get them to pop. This was with a Tamron 2.8 lense.
Thanks! Looks like Mark II really works well. And a Tamron lense is good enough? It's much cheaper than Canon lens.
I am hoping the upcoming (not yet selling in my country) GH1 can be as good as Mark II too....a much smaller sensor though.