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

[Cbrianchester]

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.

No they aren't. 1/3" chips are almost 6 times smaller than 35mm. The 7D, t2i, GH2 are all almost exactly s35mm size. You posts are nonsensical.

Seriously, look at a chart like this. 1/3" is nowhere near closer to 35mm film.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

And smaller sensors aren't getting more interest now. What is that based on? People have been shooting on them for 5 years now and weren't satisfied with the control for narrative-film like images. Why would they all the sudden be interested in going backwards? Just to be more pretentious and claim that shallow DOF is for amateurs? People need to get over themselves.

And when I said FOV. I was referring to the FOV/DOF ratio or whatever you want to call it. You can obviously get 50mm FOV on a 1/3" chip... but it looks really flat in comparison to 50mm on s35.

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.

Again, this stuff is all subjective. But I'm not talking about individual people's opinions. I'm talking about overall audience response. I used to shoot allot on 1/3 inch chips and I would always get comments like "wow, this is really professional, it could be on TV or something..." Now with shooting on DSLRs the responses are "holly crap! That looks like a real movie!" or "That looks like a real music video!". Start shooting the same projects on both formats and then ask people what they honestly think of each? You'll be surprised.

 

[Razz16mm]

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.)

You do get 35mm aesthetic qualities as far as lens performance, field of view and DOF goes, but to me that is about the extent of how well the DSLR video matches up with film. They are a decent low end solution though.

 

[thekeygun]

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.

I totally agree with you.

I would do an hpx with an adapter any day over a DSLR. Only reason to use a dslr for me is for emotional/intimate docu work. A lot of my subjects are more comfortable around a dslr.

 

[Postmaster]

No they aren't. 1/3" chips are almost 6 times smaller than 35mm. The 7D, t2i, GH2 are all almost exactly s35mm size. You posts are nonsensical.

Please don´t get emotional.

Of course you don´t use a smaller sensor with 35mm lenses if you want the same FOV. It is like bolting a medium format lens on a 5D.

And smaller sensors aren't getting more interest now. What is that based on?

You say it yourself:

The 7D, t2i, GH2 are all almost exactly s35mm size.

They all don´t have full 35mm sensors.

But even with a 1/2 imager and the adequate and fast glass, you can get very cinematic DOF.

Frank

 

[maranfilms]

It all boils down to story. And this story was good. I never considered pixel peeping this piece, Why? because the story along with the cinematography sucked me in and stole my attention. Now maybe if this was lame, my attention could have drift and I start looking at why, but that was never the case.

I can certainly say, I never sold my 1/3 inch setup for a dslr. Infact I use both for their strengthes. And still feel a 1/3 inch setup with a dof adapter looks more like film than a naked camcorder or dslr. The ground glass gives it a diffused look that to me is similar to film. And the light loss forces you to light situations you might not otherwise with a dslr,, And we all know lighting is key to a cinematic image. So yeah, each really is a tool with different advantages. That still doesn't make one better than the other.

 

[timbook2]

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

Excellent! even better then Really: very very well done Frank! ( das meine ich jetzt echt ) :thumbsup:

 

[Postmaster]

Danke für die Blumen!

 

[Razz16mm]

> 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.

Y
Canons look like Canons. The same color rendition you get from your 7D, I get from my GL2 DV camcorder, though it takes significantly more light.

 

[DCTBradJohnson]

Alright, I have held my tongue on this page for a week or so. I was looking to buy a camera back in May, along with many other senior filmmakers in my film school. Many of us talked daily over what cameras did this and that, and what the best options were. We all went and bought different cameras, and I'm the only one who chose the HPX over a DSLR. My main reasoning? Why would I ever want my sole camera to be one that is so limited in its application. I use DSLRs often as a B cam, but how could a young filmmaker justify limiting the potential of future work so much?

So... I think there is a big difference in storytelling between those of us coming back and reevaluating the strengths and weakness of our available tools. I see examples of work that should NOT have been shot on a DSLR everywhere, but how many examples of HPX work out there do you see and instantly think... they used the wrong CAMERA on that video? Very few. The HPX works, and will allow you to focus on the story, which is many times more important than a 2 inch slice of DOF. Not having that shallow DOF will not "hurt" your story, but using nothing but a 50mm 1.4 on a 7D WILL "hurt" your story. Furthermore I find myself getting in disagreements with my crew more as well, everyone can afford a t2i, you don't have to stake a 4,000 dollar claim that you want to be a cinematographer to own one personally. However, now everyone thinks they are a DP and the Canon's "Awesome Low Light Performance" is a replacement for not taking the time to properly light and mask a scene. I know there are many people who will disagree with me violently, but IMO the MAJORITY of people using DSLR's couldn't explain to me why their project would benefit from its advantages without losing from its losses, whereas I can explain to every client what benefits they will receive from the HPX, and what they lose from not having a DSLR there. (mainly shallow DOF, the ability to record audio, monitor their image, record certain shirt patterns...) To me it boils down to a very likely scenario for me as a young budget conscious filmmaker... I have a short time period to capture a critical interview, I only have time/space/budget/hands to bring one camera. I walk into the room and its a small space, and my subject is wearing a striped/checkered shirt. What camera do you want to be in your bag?

Examples: These come from real projects made by talented people from my film school, the kinds of people who most commonly use and abuse DSLRS IMO.

http://vimeo.com/18319014- A short dance group promo. I can not imagine why you would use a DSLR over an HPX for this. You can see many points in the promo where having the added DOF from the 1/3 ccds would have saved many of his shots from searching for focus (distracting to the story). Movement and CMOS... I'd rather not have the chance to "lose" my shot.

http://vimeo.com/18319459- A short documentary about KU debate. The story here gets lost in the mix between searching for focus in live debates, pulling focus unnecessarily and away from the speaking character, moire and aliasing on movements, chair patterns, and shirt patterns, plus electronic gain artifacts from high ISOs. They chose to take a personally owned 7D on their roadtrip when the school has plenty of HPXs available. Did anyone else notice how many shallow DOF shots were in that thing... I'm pretty sure its about 3 out of 4.

http://vimeo.com/15978861- A Second Place short I made for a 48 hour film festival in Lawrence filmed on the HPX170 exclusively. There are spots here where I would have liked to have had a DSLR on set, but do you see anywhere that screams you should not have used the HPX on this?

 

[Razz16mm]

Alright, I have held my tongue on this page for a week or so. I was looking to buy a camera back in May, along with many other senior filmmakers in my film school. Many of us talked daily over what cameras did this and that, and what the best options were. We all went and bought different cameras, and I'm the only one who chose the HPX over a DSLR. My main reasoning? Why would I ever want my sole camera to be one that is so limited in its application. I use DSLRs often as a B cam, but how could a young filmmaker justify limiting the potential of future work so much?

100% agree. DSLR's have their useful niches, but they are not very practical as an all around A camera for motion work.

16mm-2/3" sized format is still my personal favorite for a single general purpose production camera. It is a nice compromise between solo run and gun efficiency and creative flexibility.

 

[Ian-T]

LOL..this discussion gets silly at times and then makes sense at other times. I tell you what....for those of you on both ends of the coin...go with an AF100. It's literally got the best of both worlds. Now there....wasn't that easy enough??? LOL

 

[Cbrianchester]

http://vimeo.com/15978861- A Second Place short I made for a 48 hour film festival in Lawrence filmed on the HPX170 exclusively. There are spots here where I would have liked to have had a DSLR on set, but do you see anywhere that screams you should not have used the HPX on this?

Yea... the whole thing. It looks cheap. Like a high-quality handy cam. And it's defiantly not your ability to blame. Your composition and editing was great. Do you really not see the differnece between the images and motion?

100% agree. DSLR's have their useful niches, but they are not very practical as an all around A camera for motion work.

Yea, kind of like 45 pound film cameras. We weren't really discussing "all around" performance... where almost any camera beats a DSLR... it was strictly film-like motion and look.

Again, the HVX 170 and the 5D cost about the same amount of money when you add a lens or two. People have seen HVX footage for a while, it is great quality, but nobody raved about it in masses. When the 5D came out, people dropped everything and bought one. The quality was mediocre at best and there were tons of work around, but DLSR video exploded. In fact, DSLRs are so much more or a pain in the ass to use that this "DSLR revolution" would never have happened unless there was something significant different about the footage... and there was... it looked like 35mm film. If DSLRs are such a low quality, pain in the ass, where aliasing completely ruins a production, and look nothing like film, then where did this mass revolution come from? Why did big budget productions adopt them? Why do some top-tier cinematographers stand behind them as the future? Why did produces like Rick Macallum pronounce this as the step that finally democratized film making for the masses? Why did these things not happen with the HVX? Why does everyone on the Red forum go crazy and into defense mode when a "7D vs Red" thread pops up? Why are there virtually no "HVX vs Red" threads?

Hint: it's not a conspiracy by Canon.

 

[DBP]

Yea... the whole thing. It looks cheap. Like a high-quality handy cam. And it's defiantly not your ability to blame. Your composition and editing was great. Do you really not see the differnece between the images and motion?



Yea, kind of like 45 pound film cameras. We weren't really discussing "all around" performance... where almost any camera beats a DSLR... it was strictly film-like motion and look.

Again, the HVX 170 and the 5D cost about the same amount of money when you add a lens or two. People have seen HVX footage for a while, it is great quality, but nobody raved about it in masses. When the 5D came out, people dropped everything and bought one. The quality was mediocre at best and there were tons of work around, but DLSR video exploded. In fact, DSLRs are so much more or a pain in the ass to use that this "DSLR revolution" would never have happened unless there was something significant different about the footage... and there was... it looked like 35mm film. If DSLRs are such a low quality, pain in the ass, where aliasing completely ruins a production, and look nothing like film, then where did this mass revolution come from? Why did big budget productions adopt them? Why do some top-tier cinematographers stand behind them as the future? Why did produces like Rick Macallum pronounce this as the step that finally democratized film making for the masses? Why did these things not happen with the HVX? Why does everyone on the Red forum go crazy and into defense mode when a "7D vs Red" thread pops up? Why are there virtually no "HVX vs Red" threads?

Hint: it's not a conspiracy by Canon.

I hear ya. It does seem like people here often confuse technical quality with a certain 'look' or x-factor that a camera has.

But even in spite of the 'film' look..... content will always rule the day. It's a tired ol cliche, I know, but if Pulp Fiction were shot on an HPX170, or an Sony xacti cam for that matter..... it would blow away eeeeeevery indie DSLR film out there put together.

I know it's been said a bunch, but that always bears repeating. So even though capturing the look and motion characteristics of 35mm film is neat and a huge revolutionary step... it is *far* from the be all end all that some make it out to be. Alot of DSLRs are responsible for nothing more than really nice film-ic looking boring crap.

 

[Cbrianchester]

Alot of DSLRs are responsible for nothing more than really nice film-ic looking boring crap.

hahaha... true. :beer:

 

[Rick Burnett]

I've shot with an HVX and then an HVX with a 35mm adapter. The HVX with adapter BLEW AWAY what I've seen without it on the HVX. We did a whole feature film with the HVX and while I was really happy with it, I think the flexibilty of the 35mm lenses really just open up the freedom of what you can do and get in your shots. SURE, you can get shallow DoF with the HVX by itself, it's not as flexible, there will be shots YOU CANNOT DO because of not having enough room, etc. It's that simple.

With the 35mm adapter the problem became light. You need A LOT of it for the HVX or it gets noisy. When the 7D came out, we started shooting on 2 of them and then an additional t2i. The WHOLE REASON was lenses and the sensor size. It was like night and day and really opened up a lot of opportunity. 30mm F1.4 or 85mm F1.4, seriously amazing stuff we could do. Sure, the moire and aliasing alone are horrible, not to mention a ton of other problems, but we actually shot on the HVX and the 7D at the same time and it was clear, the 7D for us was a quicker tool for getting cinematic look to our scenes without a lot of hassle. I'm not saying the HVX200 was horrible, it was great, and we really enjoyed it, but for us it's time came and went, because now we have an AF100 arriving Monday, which I agree, is the best of what I consider all worlds, at the moment.

Having a low light camera isn't just about NOT using lighting, it's also about not having to use 500000000 Watts of lights in your scene. We used a flashlight on a scene that was behind props to backlight something, it was SO awesome. It allows us to get away with smaller lights, more hidden, so we can get even better dynamic shots. It also means when we shoot at regular light, we get a lot of room to push the footage as well as the noise is so much less.

Filmic is not about actual film. It's aesthetics of so many variables that trying to quantify it all is really silly. I've seen the 7D look filmic and I've also seen it look like a fischer price tape driven toy It's the hands of the user. Same with the HVX200, and other cameras. Filmic is about shot design, lighting, grading, editing, pacing, etc. I mean, black and white films have no color at all, and they still look filmic So I guess the 4:2:0 really isn't playing a role there

Shooting at S35 to me is THE BIGGEST part of a camera. The relationships of focal length to depth of field, to pixel density on the sensor, to field of view, THIS is what I like. I don't care who makes the camera, but 1/3 and 2/3 just isn't as nice FOR ME. I like the S35 size which is why after using a 5D, I didn't get one. Wasn't what I wanted for filmic work. S35 is the best inbetween in MY opinion