Hollywood Celebrity Canon DSLR Users

[Ethan Lane]

wow I go off on a ski trip and come back a week later and THIS IS TILL GOING.

I think the larger picture that some people are missing is that filmmakers now have the ability to get the "movie look" for a ridiculously low cost, and that's why HDSLRs are good. And for those who have a bigger budget, they can get BETTER cameras like red, which are sill cheaper than film.

 

[Barry_Green]

This is very true. The SLRs, despite their shortcomings, have become a revolutionary tipping point, like when the DVX first brought out affordable 24p. What you get for the price is just amazing.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

wow I go off on a ski trip and come back a week later and THIS IS TILL GOING.

I think the larger picture that some people are missing is that filmmakers now have the ability to get the "movie look" for a ridiculously low cost, and that's why HDSLRs are good. And for those who have a bigger budget, they can get BETTER cameras like red, which are sill cheaper than film.

Right. Its like another piece in a fairly large puzzle. Like sound, you do it bad, everyone knows its low budget. Having deep DOF was often a give away in the same way. Goodness knows there are so many other things that can instantly give you away. :-|

 

[Ryan Farnes]

More coming on March 25th? (I think). Zacuto has a shoot out with these cams and 35mm film. More grist for the mill. I LOVE IT!

March 24th. I saw this comment and went to Zacuto.com and watched their trailer for it. Oh man, I'm juiced to see what the heck they found out. Flippin ridiculous. 35mm vs. DSLRs?! Wow.

 

[Ethan Lane]

March 24th. I saw this comment and went to Zacuto.com and watched their trailer for it. Oh man, I'm juiced to see what the heck they found out. Flippin ridiculous. 35mm vs. DSLRs?! Wow.

I wish they would include RED MX in there, too. Still very excited

 

[Ryan Farnes]

So, I guess it is actually more of a comparison among the DSLRs and not exactly to see if they're as good as film. Using film as a high benchmark and then evaluating the DSLRs from there I think.

 

[leteeci]

like said 100 times before; DSLRs are meant for photo journalism only..

why should Canon offer ( if they decided to ) DSLR with all functionality an quality of cameras worth 20k to 100k..

I just shoot third day of music-video with 5d, otherwise I shoot with EX3 + SGproR3 + smallHD, which weight a ton and need van of lightning..
Yes, picture of 5d is from time to time very good..but it have no stability.. it is mather of frames/seconds when everything is like it should be..

I tried to make some zoom-in, zoom-out footage of appartment blocks from the roof of a skyscraper, and some slow pans.. inpossibe.. rolling shutter like crazy.. something similar I did with HV20 two years ago in 5 minutes, without any problems..

so.. DSLRs are good only for slow-moving-postcards, with some actions in it.. like wonderfull landscape and somebody walks thrue.. and all the footage you posted like a reference ( bloom ) looks like that..

I am using DOF adapter some time, and would be happy to switch, but the picture quality and flexibility is farr beyond what DSLRs are and will offer.. why should be somebody produce/sell BMW quality cars at the price of Hyundai..

my 2 cents..

 

[speedjunkie]

like said 100 times before; DSLRs are meant for photo journalism only..

why should Canon offer ( if they decided to ) DSLR with all functionality an quality of cameras worth 20k to 100k..

I just shoot third day of music-video with 5d, otherwise I shoot with EX3 + SGproR3 + smallHD, which weight a ton and need van of lightning..
Yes, picture of 5d is from time to time very good..but it have no stability.. it is mather of frames/seconds when everything is like it should be..

I tried to make some zoom-in, zoom-out footage of appartment blocks from the roof of a skyscraper, and some slow pans.. inpossibe.. rolling shutter like crazy.. something similar I did with HV20 two years ago in 5 minutes, without any problems..

so.. DSLRs are good only for slow-moving-postcards, with some actions in it.. like wonderfull landscape and somebody walks thrue.. and all the footage you posted like a reference ( bloom ) looks like that..

I am using DOF adapter some time, and would be happy to switch, but the picture quality and flexibility is farr beyond what DSLRs are and will offer.. why should be somebody produce/sell BMW quality cars at the price of Hyundai..

my 2 cents..

go to Zacuto's website and see for yourself .. The Results are very impressive.. all of canons dslrs are very very close to FILM

 

[Gary Huff]

6K resolution and 4:4:4 colorspace...oh yeah, they're so VERY close.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

6K resolution and 4:4:4 colorspace...oh yeah, they're so VERY close.

So true. I just saw Avatar on my local cinema's 6K screen...no way a DSLR could do that.

:happy:

 

[Ethan Lane]

go to Zacuto's website and see for yourself .. The Results are very impressive.. all of canons dslrs are very very close to FILM

no offense but that doesn't really address the points he was making. Even if DSLRs had sensors better than RED's MX they would still have the problem of being still cameras and all the workarounds associated with that

 

[Ryan Farnes]

no offense but that doesn't really address the points he was making. Even if DSLRs had sensors better than RED's MX they would still have the problem of being still cameras and all the workarounds associated with that

Why do people come onto a message board for the 7D to point out how it isn't really a video/cinema camera? Let me assure you, we have been adequately warned. We already know that the thing is not a dedicated video camera. We already know that it requires some workarounds. We already know there are limitations for particular subjects and movements.

We're already using them to produce stuff. So are some higher end production personalities or entities.

Did I miss something? Is this DVXuser? Founded around a prosumer indie DV camcorder? Or did I miss the memo to migrate to another message board so that only true pros could analyze the fundamental flaws of the cameras, despite the fact that they all own them and use them too?

 

[ydgmdlu]

Did I miss something? Is this DVXuser? Founded around a prosumer indie DV camcorder? Or did I miss the memo to migrate to another message board so that only true pros could analyze the fundamental flaws of the cameras, despite the fact that they all own them and use them too?

The point is that no one should go as far as to proclaim that DSLRs will evaporate the market for RED or any other digital cinema camera or dedicated camcorder (such as ENG). No one has ever claimed, in this thread, that DSLRs absolutely can't be put to work in the same or similar situations; it's just that they're far from ideal and therefore can't be oversold to be more than what they really are. If you want a camera that captures decent quality video and simply gets the job done, then there is no reason to spend than one or two hundred dollars. Just buy one of those cheap Flip Mino camcorders. You could theoretically use it, with difficulty, for any ENG needs. You could use it to shoot the next DVXFest winner. But just because you could, does that mean that you should or would, in every situation, if you were able to afford much fancier equipment?

If you only have a couple hundred bucks to spend on a camcorder, then a Flip Mino would be a fantastic deal, and it shouldn't keep you from making a movie masterpiece. Most of us are here because we can't afford a RED package, and the Scarlet is still far away from its release date.

 

[Ryan Farnes]

The point is that no one should go as far as to proclaim that DSLRs will evaporate the market for RED or any other digital cinema camera or dedicated camcorder (such as ENG). No one has ever claimed, in this thread, that DSLRs absolutely can't be put to work in the same or similar situations; it's just that they're far from ideal and therefore can't be oversold to be more than what they really are.

Right. Hehe, sorry. I guess it was just my little vent on the eternal struggle between people shooting totally different things for totally different audiences for totally different delivery formats. Ignore the "7D > RED" noise and have fun with the camera. If its not for you, alright, now leave the rest of us alone. :tongue:

 

[greymog]

I say thank god they're not video cameras. The reason I'm into them is because they're not video cameras. I like that they're small. I like that its made to hold like a still cam. The ergonomics of this camera put me in the mindframe of taking a photo and it really really really helps me get into it. Their size is the biggest plus and I believe if it is truly a competition then their form factor is the biggest plus ever.

It's not bad because we're not used to it. I frankly am sick and tired of the 'box' with three people tethered to it.

I don't like the RED one. It's AMAZING to grade RAW and all that but if you know what you want then post will not be too much of an issue. RED's too big. and 50 grand is 50 grand.

The camera, like most other cameras, very simply can create more than satisfactory images if you pump a lot of light into your scene.

I had a Nikon D90, and made my nicest images out of it. When the D90 came out the net was flooded with d90 movies, way more than 5d movies. I mean neither had manual control back then, but the crap nikon codec filled everywhere up, I think the worse the codec the 'better' the camera cause it's new grounds.

If the codec was awesome, users could be spoiled. Come over to Beirut and check out the RED owners for example . Look how they drive their cars. Seriously it's mad, their behaviour changes as soon as they buy it, and once they're on set I start hearing 'we'll fix it in post' much more than before.

I know that this attitude is not brought on by the cameras, but my D90's codec forces me to expose correctly.

I like having less room on my GH1. I yet have to see a sharper image come out of my 7D than my GH1, and that also goes for noise. The GH1's noise is different.

I don't think they're far from ideal. They're just different. I really think they're only called bad or all that because no one's used to it yet. Even the manufacturers. I think they're way better than video cameras, and yes I believe they may not 'evaporate the market' but will definitely ahve their significant space in it.

I just like em, and the canons are my least favorite cause they've got the most bells and whistles.

I mean I spend time tweaking my 7D and reading about hacks and magic lanterns and updates and noise and tests, but I shoot my brains of with the D90, and a little less with the GH1. Both go out way more than the 7D.

I love my panny. I miss my D90. I want tons more of these things to come out in their 'novelty' state cause it just makes me not even bother with the tech and I find myself with twice as much light on set and twice as much footage after.

Hells yes this is DVXuser, founded around a prosumer camcorder. It's what makes it sweet.

I mean, the big rig is nice, but these dinky little things have that 'miracle factor' to them.

I mean, the best part is after I show someone something, anything, they ask what I shoot it on and I whip out a lil dslr, and they FREAK OUT.

The baddest ass thing about them is their dinkiness.

And yes I like the GH1 far more than the canon. It doesn't turn off, I don't waste time in post, I take lighting way more seriously coz I have to, I can throw ANY lens on it, its got a histogram, and I can see through the EVF. and the composite out works its good enough for me and a few other cats to see.

I mean I am just one guy. Our shop is small. We live in beirut there's no HD here yet.

 

[Ethan Lane]

Why do people come onto a message board for the 7D to point out how it isn't really a video/cinema camera? Let me assure you, we have been adequately warned. We already know that the thing is not a dedicated video camera. We already know that it requires some workarounds. We already know there are limitations for particular subjects and movements.

if you look at what I was quoting you'll see why I wrote that. I'm simply saying that "it looks as good as film" doesn't mean DSLRs are necessarily the right tool for all applications.

 

[ydgmdlu]

I'm simply saying that "it looks as good as film" doesn't mean DSLRs are necessarily the right tool for all applications.

Might I offer a further correction? I think that the idea of a "right" or "wrong" tool is misguided. "Right" and "wrong" imply that something either can or cannot get the job done. If a tool gets the job done, then it's perfectly usable for that application.

But there are "better" and "best" tools for the job. These are tools that also get the job done, but they do it more easily, smoothly, and capably. I think that that's what you mean. I think that these words are more diplomatic to use, less likely to get DSLR fans up in arms, less likely to express sentiments along the lines of, "Don't tell me what I can or can't do!"

 

[ydgmdlu]

I say thank god they're not video cameras. The reason I'm into them is because they're not video cameras. I like that they're small. I like that its made to hold like a still cam. The ergonomics of this camera put me in the mindframe of taking a photo and it really really really helps me get into it. Their size is the biggest plus and I believe if it is truly a competition then their form factor is the biggest plus ever.

It's not bad because we're not used to it. I frankly am sick and tired of the 'box' with three people tethered to it.

I don't like the RED one. It's AMAZING to grade RAW and all that but if you know what you want then post will not be too much of an issue. RED's too big. and 50 grand is 50 grand.

The camera, like most other cameras, very simply can create more than satisfactory images if you pump a lot of light into your scene.

I had a Nikon D90, and made my nicest images out of it. When the D90 came out the net was flooded with d90 movies, way more than 5d movies. I mean neither had manual control back then, but the crap nikon codec filled everywhere up, I think the worse the codec the 'better' the camera cause it's new grounds.

If the codec was awesome, users could be spoiled. Come over to Beirut and check out the RED owners for example . Look how they drive their cars. Seriously it's mad, their behaviour changes as soon as they buy it, and once they're on set I start hearing 'we'll fix it in post' much more than before.

I know that this attitude is not brought on by the cameras, but my D90's codec forces me to expose correctly.

I like having less room on my GH1. I yet have to see a sharper image come out of my 7D than my GH1, and that also goes for noise. The GH1's noise is different.

I don't think they're far from ideal. They're just different. I really think they're only called bad or all that because no one's used to it yet. Even the manufacturers. I think they're way better than video cameras, and yes I believe they may not 'evaporate the market' but will definitely ahve their significant space in it.

I just like em, and the canons are my least favorite cause they've got the most bells and whistles.

I mean I spend time tweaking my 7D and reading about hacks and magic lanterns and updates and noise and tests, but I shoot my brains of with the D90, and a little less with the GH1. Both go out way more than the 7D.

I love my panny. I miss my D90. I want tons more of these things to come out in their 'novelty' state cause it just makes me not even bother with the tech and I find myself with twice as much light on set and twice as much footage after.

Hells yes this is DVXuser, founded around a prosumer camcorder. It's what makes it sweet.

I mean, the big rig is nice, but these dinky little things have that 'miracle factor' to them.

I mean, the best part is after I show someone something, anything, they ask what I shoot it on and I whip out a lil dslr, and they FREAK OUT.

The baddest ass thing about them is their dinkiness.

And yes I like the GH1 far more than the canon. It doesn't turn off, I don't waste time in post, I take lighting way more seriously coz I have to, I can throw ANY lens on it, its got a histogram, and I can see through the EVF. and the composite out works its good enough for me and a few other cats to see.

I mean I am just one guy. Our shop is small. We live in beirut there's no HD here yet.

Sure, all that's fine, but I still don't know why you would prefer a DSLR such as the D90 to, say, a Flip MinoHD. Flip camcorders are, by all accounts, very fun and easy to use, with almost no bells and whistles. They're very stealthy, fit right in your pocket, and look vaguely like cell phones. And their codec is far from the greatest in the world. Everything that you like about the D90 applies to the Flip, except that the Flip is not a still camera. And it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, which makes it even more limited. Since your entire rant seems to express the idea that the more limitations, the better for you, then the Flip would seem to be most ideal of all.

 

[greymog]

Sure, all that's fine, but I still don't know why you would prefer a DSLR such as the D90 to, say, a Flip MinoHD. Flip camcorders are, by all accounts, very fun and easy to use, with almost no bells and whistles. They're very stealthy, fit right in your pocket, and look vaguely like cell phones. And their codec is far from the greatest in the world. Everything that you like about the D90 applies to the Flip, except that the Flip is not a still camera. And it doesn't have interchangeable lenses, which makes it even more limited. Since your entire rant seems to express the idea that the more limitations, the better for you, then the Flip would seem to be most ideal of all.

Didn't mean to make it a rant. I like the D90 because it came out with interchangeable lens at the time. Was nifty.

I'm totally down with a flip mino. Shot several things for broadcast with it when in Beirut, mainly footage of planes bombing the shite of the buildings next door.

Shot a film for a good friend on a sony consumer camcorder and it won the European film festival here in Beirut, and made it to the Cannes short film corner. Was happy with it.

I am not saying that more limitations make things better, it comes down to the decision you make of whether to criticize those limitations or just shoot. I decide to shoot. If the shot can't happen, then I must accept that, and go after the feature I need.

If I'm getting paid, and don't want to compromise, I go and rent out an ARRI 435s and pop some Kodak inside. Along with the whole shabang of lights etc. It's just a totally different experience.

I'm not ranting. Its best if you can do both.

I read a thread where the poster asked what makes a film look like film. Me being the youngster I am, voted for the shutter angle.

Barry Green (as always) blew my mind and listed a bunch of DPs. And indeed, that's what it comes down to. People make movies.

I'm down with a flip. I'm down with a D90. I like my GH1. I'm down with film.

All I'm saying is that I can do both, and I like the direction DSLRs are going cause they're small.

It's all positive. I can't see where the rant is.

Sorry if I offended anyone.

 

[Ian-T]

LOL...and yet another one.... Rant or not I agree.