Going back to 1/3 inch after using a DSLR.

Postmaster said:
I don't miss any DOF in that shots, heck I actually think it doesn´t look like video DOF at all, but kind of cinematic.
I see a movement towards that more cinematic DOF and away from DSLR DOF.
I did some writeup on that subject: http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2010/12/21/deep-dof-a-new-trend/
Frank
Click to expand...

These are both very well done videos. But honestly, there is nothing cinematic about them. They scream video... high quality video, but still video. These video defiantly are history channel quality, but there is just something about the image/motion that gives it away. Were you using an open shutter? I can't put my finger on it, but there is just something more film-like about the DSLR's. And I don't think it's just DOF... as I've seen many deep DOF DSLR shots that were very cinematic looking and many HVX with adapters that still looked like video.
 
Double sigh... c'mon the motion rendition is way better than a dslrcmos. &DSLRs look tacky in wide shots.

Nice job, Frank! I thought the opening shots of the first cut looked very cinematic.
 
xqzt said:
Double sigh... c'mon the motion rendition is way better than a dslrcmos. &DSLRs look tacky in wide shots.

Nice job, Frank! I thought the opening shots of the first cut looked very cinematic.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's better. That's kind of subjective. The motion is defiantly "different" though. DSLRs look more like a bunch of still frames in sequence where most video cameras, even in frame mode, still look like one continual image. So if that's what you mean by better motion than yea, they do. But it's not film-like motion.

Who knows... maybe it is after all the lack of good motion rendition that gives DSLR the film-look...
 
Vimeo is not a place to judge motion rendition - same goes for resolution, color, artifacts andwhatnot.

Frank
 
I think the "history channel look" here is perfect...it fits the subject matter. The shots are very warm and have beautiful color, nice reasonable dof. It shows IMO that the HVX is flat out a more capable tool for making a film, either narrative or documentary, than a VDLSR by itself. The VDLSRs are good at some things, but I really don't know why you'd want to go to all the trouble of adding all those components, rigs, etc for the price of a great cam like the HVX or HMC150 for that matter. I thought I liked the look for a bit myself, but then I really started watching films more closely...and realized that most of the shots that actually NEED a shallow DOF, not razor thin, but shallow....can be achieved with smaller sensors. Many people here have shown that with their work...even though they didn't know it. One guy on here posted a video with a stock HFS10 showing some very nice DOF shots...everybody asked what adapter he had. He said he just backed up a bit and zoomed in.
 
pulpfiction007 said:
I think the "history channel look" here is perfect...it fits the subject matter. The shots are very warm and have beautiful color, nice reasonable dof. It shows IMO that the HVX is flat out a more capable tool for making a film, either narrative or documentary, than a VDLSR by itself. The VDLSRs are good at some things, but I really don't know why you'd want to go to all the trouble of adding all those components, rigs, etc for the price of a great cam like the HVX or HMC150 for that matter.
Click to expand...

Because HDSLR's are the only digital cameras beside Red, Alexa, ect. that look like film...

You'r right though, the history channel look is perfect here. I said that as well... and it's not a bad thing at all. It's just different than how cinema images look. When I said it didn't look cinematic. I didn't mean shot composition, angles, or pacing... I meant that the images physically did not look like they came from a film camera. They were shot on a 1/3" HD camcorder... and the sensitivity, FOV, and motion are all reminiscent of camcorder, not cinema film. You're also right that most of these HVX's are better and more capable tools for making films... that is... unless you want it to look like film. Nobody shoots on a DSLR because they have a high-quality image. They shoot on them because they're really the only camera that's available at this price point that honestly looks like 35mm film. Higher quality out of a DSLR would be nice, but it's not as important for those after the "holly crap, that looks like a real movie!" look. They're not for capturing pristine full-resolved HD, that's not the point at all.

pulpfiction007 said:
Many people here have shown that with their work...even though they didn't know it. One guy on here posted a video with a stock HFS10 showing some very nice DOF shots...everybody asked what adapter he had. He said he just backed up a bit and zoomed in.
Click to expand...

This does give you shallow DOF, but it's not the same. When you back up and zoom in for shallow DOF effect. The image become very narrow looking and flat. It's not just DOF by itself that is cinematic looking... It's DOF at wider fields-of-view that are cinematic. And these are not achievable on small sensors.

The tagline for DSLR's should be. "DSLRs - They're aren't better... they just look better."
 
Last edited:
Peabody said:
One day we will look back at DSLR as a passing fad. They are after all still cameras adapted to shoot video. The big attraction being depth of field and the flexibility of interchangable lenses.
The Panasonic AF100 addresses both desires and it records audio too.
Even DSLR guru Philip Bloom appears to be impressed with the AF100 http://philipbloom.net/2010/10/19/af100/
Click to expand...

I agree with this. I also believe we will look back at the DOF adapters on all the small chip cameras as silly and amusing.
 
i dont know why everyone is bad-mouthing adapters and VDSLRs. they're all just tools. use what's available and works for you at the time.
 
I don't think we are bad mouthing them. I am just saying "that after having done this for more years than I can remember the proliferation of (tools) that have come out recently to aid the blooming film makers has become comical at times." I believe that when the dust settles on all this the new guys will come to realize there is no substitute for sound photography principles and solid story telling.

Learn your craft practice it everyday with whatever tools you have at your disposal and you will have to become better at whatever you do.
 
Cbrianchester said:
Because HDSLR's are the only digital cameras beside Red, Alexa, ect. that look like film...

... They shoot on them because they're really the only camera that's available at this price point that honestly looks like 35mm film.
Click to expand...

So,

what exactly is it that you consider "honestly looks like 35mm film" out of DSLRs?
The low resolution, the moire, aliasing, compression artifacts or is it the low 4:2:0 look?

I shot a lot on the 5D lately, but nothing of what I see from DSLRs looks even close to film. Not the latitude, not the resolution, not the grain, not the highlights, not the shadows and certainly not the DOF (at least in most of the DSLR productions).

So what is it?

Frank
 
Postmaster said:
I spend that weekend there with some of my reenactor/living history friends and we did an impression of occupied Germany in September 1945 - the first summer in peace.

Of course it was all very quick run and gun, handheld without sound and light - exactly the combination I usually hate - but on the other hand it also was some kind of challenge for me, since I never done something like that.

I think the HVX200 did an awesome job.



Frank
Click to expand...

Hi Frank, I think YOU did an awesome job! I love the silent movie style, story is told nicely and if you did it with a HV20 it would still be awesome :-))) You know how to film! A camera is just a tool for you like an instrument is the device a good musician uses to produce good music! And come on...you could have not pulled this off in 2 hrs without massive preparation and logistics regarding props-actors-wardrobe etc....but it still is great! the first 30 seconds I could have seen it drift into comedy but then your storytelling took over very nicely :-)
:thumbsup:
 
Honestly, I swear to god, this (the shorter one with the raid) was shot out of the blue in less than two hours.
The rest I shot during the weekend.

Since this was an reenactment camp in a open air museum all the props and wardrobe was already there.
I came up with that "story" during breakfast, and was giving directions to the "actors" (now look at him, take her out of the room) while jumping back and forth with the camera in my hand.
Non of them was an actor just hobby reenactors like folks on a medieval fair (Mittelaltermarkt).

Frank
 
> I also believe we will look back at the DOF adapters on all the small chip cameras as silly and amusing.

Not to mention painful... (Abandoned my 5th revision DOF adapter to buy a 7D!)

> what exactly is it that you consider "honestly looks like 35mm film" out of DSLRs?

For me, color rendition. It's hard to put a finger on, but my canon 7D sensor feels a lot like Kodak - For the first time I feel good about shooting video. It's certainly a lot different than the old Canon sensors.
 
Postmaster said:
So,

what exactly is it that you consider "honestly looks like 35mm film" out of DSLRs?
Click to expand...

FOV, DOF, color rendition (which is completely different than color space), motion, total exposure range, sensitivity. I really cannot believe you don't see the shadow sensitivity in these cameras. Again, you're either lying to yourself, or... hell, I don't even know. Watch the WWII clips and then watch a low-light DSLR clip. If you really don't see the difference then I'm sorry.

Here's a direct side by side to 35mm. They're so close it's scary.
http://www.vimeo.com/7227865

Postmaster said:
So,
The low resolution, the moire, aliasing, compression artifacts or is it the low 4:2:0 look?
Click to expand...

Absolutely none of these things negates the film look.

Watch a DVD... Does it not look like it was shot on 35mm because it's only 480p now?
Watch blu-ray in full 1080p... do they not look like film when a transfer is overly-sharp and results in aliasing on detailed areas?
Does film really stop looking like film when it sampled down to 4:2:0 color space?

Nope, these are all scapegoats used by people that either...

A: Do not understand how to use the technology and constantly bring up it's flaws to seem like they're above it.
B: Don't want 35mm available to the public, because it broadens the talent pool.
C: Always had the pipe-dream of shooting on real 35mm film, used the 5D, and realized that their moves still look like crap meaning that they only have their lighting, cinematography, or directing to blame... but instead blame it on the 4:2:0 color space, moire, or aliasing.
 
Last edited:
Cbrianchester said:
FOV, DOF, color rendition (which is completely different than color space), motion, total exposure range, sensitivity. I really cannot believe you don't see the shadow sensitivity in these cameras. Again, you're either lying to yourself, or... hell, I don't even know. Watch the WWII clips and then watch a low-light DSLR clip. If you really don't see the difference then I'm sorry.

Here's a direct side by side to 35mm. They're so close it's scary.
http://www.vimeo.com/7227865
Click to expand...

Yeah they both look like heavily compressed artifact loaded Vimeo videos. Sorry a Vimeo video doesn't look like film regardless of the original source.
 
Razz16mm said:
Yeah they both look like heavily compressed artifact loaded Vimeo videos. Sorry a Vimeo video doesn't look like film regardless of the original source.
Click to expand...

Yes it does. Are you kidding? Again, I'm not talking about full-raster full-blown 4k film print. I taking about the F-ING AESTHETIC inherent to motion images captured on 35mm film or a 35mm digital sensor. If you cannot see this then I'm sorry. Whether something came from a HVX video camera, GOpro, RED MX, film or DSLR... they all have a distinctive look and feel to the image regardless of compression or what website you're viewing them on. You're either over-analyzing the images out of pure pretention and spite... or you really do not have as strong of a connection to images as some people. Which very well could be... since I watch so many videos where I ask myself "was the creator really oblivious to how bad or awkward these images come off as?" It's about the feel of the images, not the quality. I guess some people really cannot "feel" images and have to resort to pure numbers and resolutions. Oh well. Whatever.

Think about it... there was a reason that practically everyone on the internet shooting video dropped everything and started shooting DSLR. Can you explain that? (Hint: it's not camera size or resolution... as there was small cameras and cheaper HD that resolved higher before HDSLRs came out.)
 
FOV?! Come on!

And what has a 35mm 3 pref film to do, with a full 35mm sensor (DOF wise)? Totally different beast.
That´s why I said that smaller sensors getting more interest now - they are much closer to film.

"everyone on the internet shooting video dropped everything and started shooting DSLR"

WTF? This is really getting funny now.

But believe what you want, to each his own.

Frank
 
Cbrianchester said:
Yes it does. Are you kidding? Again, I'm not talking about full-raster full-blown 4k film print. I taking about the F-ING AESTHETIC inherent to motion images captured on 35mm film or a 35mm digital sensor. If you cannot see this then I'm sorry. Whether something came from a HVX video camera, GOpro, RED MX, film or DSLR... they all have a distinctive look and feel to the image regardless of compression or what website you're viewing them on. You're either over-analyzing the images out of pure pretention and spite... or you really do not have as strong of a connection to images as some people. Which very well could be... since I watch so many videos where I ask myself "was the creator really oblivious to how bad or awkward these images come off as?" It's about the feel of the images, not the quality. I guess some people really cannot "feel" images and have to resort to pure numbers and resolutions. Oh well. Whatever.

Think about it... there was a reason that practically everyone on the internet shooting video dropped everything and started shooting DSLR. Can you explain that? (Hint: it's not camera size or resolution... as there was small cameras and cheaper HD that resolved higher before HDSLRs came out.)
Click to expand...

They shoot with them because like you said...they have a certain look. That does not mean it looks like film...it just looks different than traditional video often does. IMO ... HVX, and HMC are all capable of a look that is overall...just better. Not numbers, not resolution...just the look. All they don't have is razor thin DOF. The color is better, the FEEL is better. That being said I agree that the DLSRs are a good option for a lot of people to get something that isn't VIDEO LIKE. So are the Panasonics though, with their gamma curves and color. If I had 2000 bucks I'd get a GH2 or 60D and an extra lens or two and be happy with that look...for sure. If I had $3000 or so: I'd get an HVX or HMC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top