DSLRs may have taken over but...

EDV

EDV

Well-known member
...I am not impressed. More and more I am seeing TV content with washed out colors, overexposed images or simply careless cinematography. An over-reliance on DSLRs superio low light abilities has led to a new generation of cameramen that have very little regard for good lighting techniques. Take this TV ad for example:




Now lets compare it to this, filmed with a 3CCD camera with an SGBlade adaptor BUT with excellent lighting:


http://vimeo.com/13912979


and this is no isolated example my friends, I see it all the time on TV. It something looks spectacular, more than likely it was made on 35mm film, or on a proper video camera... poor low light capabilities forces you to pay special attention to lighting on set.
 
Last edited:
I am not a huge fan of DSLR's but have seen plenty of great looking footage from them.

Anyone can cherry pick washed out video from any camera.

It is the person BEHIND the camera that makes the difference.

Here is a MV I DP'd, 90% Canon 5d:

 
So you compared a TV ad on youtube (with no resolution indicated) to a music video on Vimeo in HD? c'mon man.

To me the chip comercial just looks like it was a really bad encode or bad colour grading. Maybe it was a look the person was trying to go for (I've noticed a lot of phtography going with the washed out look also).

Unless you are comparing straight from camera footage you can't say it has to do with the camera and not the operator, editor, colourist etc. Do you know the budgets and time spend on each?

Its obvious you have a bone to pick with DSLR video based on your last line which is just your opinion not fact. That is the great thing about cinematography, different people like different asthetics. None being more right than another.
 
Music video vs TV Spot
SD vs HD
Content totally different

Though the principle behind what you are saying "might be" true you should give us better examples to go by.
 
I liked the girl with bikini!

Apart the kidding, apples to oranges in this case. Like comparing fill with key lighting, always different worlds. Some french style against classic hollywood... who wins?
 
The Chip Ad actually looks surprisingly better on the Internet than on my TV. I've seen similar ones locally and in some of them they even show the actual cameraman filming and it's clearly a DSLR. I don't know their budget but it seems to me there is a trend towards lower budgets with DSLRs. Higher rating shows will have none of that and light the hell out of a scene, and it shows.
 
EDV said:
The Chip Ad actually looks surprisingly better on the Internet than on my TV. I've seen similar ones locally and in some of them they even show the actual cameraman filming and it's clearly a DSLR. I don't know their budget but it seems to me there is a trend towards lower budgets with DSLRs. Higher rating shows will have none of that and light the hell out of a scene, and it shows.
Click to expand...

Now your comparing cheap commercials to highly rated studio shows? again apples to apples please. Did the episode of House shot on the 5D look bad?

I think your argument should be more aimed at Amateur vs Professional. Yes more amateurs use cheaper gear and charge less which drives cheaper productions. In the end the company must justify the look vs the cost. If the intended audience won't care then why spend more?

Lately we have been shelving full sized XDCAM and shooting more DSLR and EX-1 because our audience likes the look (youth television). They aren't concerned with the technical aspects of an image but the access you get with a smaller camera that you can't with a traditional ENG set up. People get intimidated by large cameras and large crews.
 
I think Ian is spot on, But I to understand what your getting at. And feel your point is a valid one. I see tons of videos, that are fairly high profile shoots, where available lighting is all thats used, of course the image looks flat, over or under exposed, and just plain ugly. Maybe it's a new fad, as we see many come and go in this business. Maybe it's just lazyness, or lack of knowledge. I don't know. But yeah, there's lots of folks that buy a dslr and refer to themselves as cinematographers because their cam has good low light ability, and can shoot a shallow dof. The good thing is, these people dont last, and sell their gear within a few monthes.
 
maranfilms said:
I think Ian is spot on, But I to understand what your getting at. And feel your point is a valid one. I see tons of videos, that are fairly high profile shoots, where available lighting is all thats used, of course the image looks flat, over or under exposed, and just plain ugly. Maybe it's a new fad, as we see many come and go in this business. Maybe it's just lazyness, or lack of knowledge. I don't know. But yeah, there's lots of folks that buy a dslr and refer to themselves as cinematographers because their cam has good low light ability, and can shoot a shallow dof. The good thing is, these people dont last, and sell their gear within a few monthes.
Click to expand...

This is true but I don't blame the tool anymore than I blame a hammer for shody carpenter work. The same people would probably do a crappy job no matter what tool they had.

I think the big issue in this industry is the money ebs and flows. Advertisers are spending less. TV ratings in many aspects are going down with web viewership going up. Everyone is looking to cut a dollar and the content is now being made for kids/teens/young adults that have grown up viewing low res crappy shot footage on youtube so they are willing to accept a lower standard of production (and that is not just from DSLR footage). Companies are realizing that spending twice as much doesn't result in twice the impact so they don't.

Big budget stuff shot poorly well there is no excuse there. Again though its lazy people not bad gear.
 
Yeh pretty tired of dslr's getting a bad rap when its people that do them injustice. learn your craft and use the tools well...jeez. Its a camera that can shine and be beautiful in one persons hand and look horrid in another person's hands. Time to get over the equipment blame game now. Its frickin 2012.
 
You've definitely misinterpreted this. It's a marketing thing, one that started quite a while back and apparently hasn't died. Ads like this are purposely shot to look like they belong on Youtube because people in the younger generation have an association with low budget, everyday people creations looking washed out and everything else. Generation Me likes to relate to everything. The marketing team wants them to say, in the back of their minds, 'I could have made this'. The conclusion, on some not totally conscious level, is that the message is more authentic. I'm not doing a great job of explaining it, but the basic idea is that it isn't supposed to look super professional. I'm sure you've seen this before.

These ads aren't made for you.
 
Its like the skateboard and surfing footage with the fish-eye lens. I hate that, but somebody likes it, cause it see them everywhere and I know that its not for me, so I keep it moving.
 
I has nothing to do with the tool, it's pure laziness. Just because you CAN get a "good" exposure without proper lighting doesn't mean you'd do it.
 
Are you suggesting that low budgets and the hiring of low skilled people is contributing to the poor quality of content?

Because if you are, I'd agree.
 
Watching on a computer monitor, I could see what the OP was talking about. However, watching this on an iPhone, it didn't look that bad to me. Overexposure, flatness, washed-outness not as noticeable. Not sure of all the reasons why...
 
EDV said:
...I am not impressed. More and more I am seeing TV content with washed out colors, overexposed images or simply careless cinematography. An over-reliance on DSLRs superio low light abilities has led to a new generation of cameramen that have very little regard for good lighting techniques. Take this TV ad for example:
Click to expand...

I don't think you're selections of examples really 'proves' your case... I'll take a pretty crappy image of a bikinied hottie, even if I have to wait a minute, over some dorks in the middle of no where flailing on their guitars, and dragging supposedly dead bodies around...

I also don't think your complaining actually 'teaches' those DSLR swinging barbarians ad portam Romaniae much of anything...
 
I'm starting to realize that as long as the job went through and the cast and crew went home paid and the client that the commercial was shot for was happy that is really all that matters at the end of the day. Critiquing filmmakers don't put money in anyones pockets. So while we are here complaining about these pieces the other guy is probably out making more "crap" and getting paid doing it. If the problem is bothering you that much take a stand and go out and make well-shot, composed, lit commercials to add to the list of good things done with these DSLRs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top