FS7: I hate to bring this up but.... why does not everyone go for the URSA MINI PRO?

morgan_moore said:
I think the F5/55 is far better in form and with the modular raw recorder, really on the right lines - just needs HDtransmit module, audio recieve module, FIZ receive module etc to be made available.
Almost my perfect shape of camera (apart from the XLR position)
Click to expand...

The ENG dock addresses most of those shortcomings and adds many additional advantages beyond that. I'd never shoot with a stock F55 again.
 
All these additional anchors strapped to the camera can be intergrated within a SOC today. Heavy cine lenses are beautiful, I've built them for over 30 years, but in current eco system they are obsolete as they are missing AF and IS (VR).
Now, once we throw away this legacy "baggage":
Why would you want or need to put a 3-lbs 6-8inch long (including the lens) camera rig on your shoulder? There is no need for that any more. You can comfortably hold it in your hand just as long as a shoulder cam on your shoulder. And the creative freedom it gives is simply liberating for the operator....
 
Last edited:
Well the first of many reasons to put the camera on the shoulder is that often the lens then sits at the eye height of a human.

Often films look 'right' when seen from the POV of a human - humans react well to that POV

Of course if you are a human like me who is 1.90 tall the POV can be a little odd.
 
optitek said:
. . . but in current echo system they are obsolete as they are missing AF and IS (VR).
Now, once we throw away this legacy "baggage":
Click to expand...

Funny thing is neither of those two features you think are essential mean anything to me. And even if the camera was capable of AF or IS, I certainly would not settle for any lens that had either of those features. All of the best lenses I've ever used (ergonomically, not necessarliy optically) have been fully manual AF only and no IS. I have yet to enjoy using a lens that has any AF focus capability even if AF can be turned off. AF capability is an excellent indicator that I'm gonna a dislike using a particular lens before I even put it on the camera.

BTW, I don't build lenses . . . I use them.
 
Last edited:
I think what we're illustrating here is that camera design is not necessarily 'one size fits all.' And just as we may wear different hats for different kinds of productions, we may also need different cameras as well. If I count the cameras I currently own and still use, my total comes to 6. For one client I may need a parfocal servo zoom and shoot in documentary conditions where I'm often rolling for more than 45 minutes at a stretch. For another I may be doing product ECU's of objects the size of a thumbnail with a macro lens and need to produce advertising-quality high res stills as well. Or have a camera that mounts on a gimbal and will jam timecode. Or be able to shoot at 240fps. Or be able to suspend a camera on a microphone fishpole for a BTS shoot. The list goes on and on... Certain cameras may be more versatile, but I know of none that can do it all. So I find myself taking the sizable investment I might have made in a DigiBeta system in the old days, and spreading the money around to buy the various pieces of the puzzle I need to keep my clients happy. If I want to wear many hats, I may need to buy many hats.
 
I’m a 20+ year ENG/EFP veteran. Both full size ENG and little box styles are appropriate tools for appropriate jobs. I’d hate to shoot reality with the camera handheld out in front of me all day, and it’d be a waste to have a purpose-built shoulder-mountable rig live on a dolly for the entire shoot. But both types of cameras have their place and neither are going anywhere. For me, IS is only useful when I’m telephoto and got no sticks. I’ve only used AF for selfies.
 
optitek said:
That's probably because you haven't used them. I'm sure however you can appreciate the weight difference between a 6lb prime and 2 lb prime....
Click to expand...

You've been on the manufacturing end of things so you can appreciate how much R/D goes in to a product. Do you believe that manufacturers can cram an Alexa or any large form factor camera into a small modular system and still retain all features? I don't see how it can be done. You'd end up buying various modules to built up a system. The cost would be considerably higher. Unless you're saying that you see no future at all for large cameras. For the one-man-band or smaller production companies that could be the case. But the box design just doesn't work for every application. As for a 2lb prime, are you saying that Ziess, Cooke, etc can manufacture a 2lb Master Anamorphic prime but choose not too? Despite the heavy weight of cine lenses, companies are still buying them.
 
I certainly think AF is both under rated and under developed at the moment.

Certainly going forward into the world of 6k and cropping certain deliverables for an upright advertising delivery I can certainly suggest that focussing by hand, especially on a 'puny' 1920 monitor is highly challenging (if not impossible as ones monitor is undersampling the footage and final delivery medium) - techniques learned on 2/3 ENG SD do not apply.
 
morgan_moore said:
DLSRs with wires sticking out the side and stuff bolted on the weak hotshoe are also just toys really, IMO
Click to expand...

If you don't have a bit of that going on, people hold a photographic pose because they are not aware it's video. :happy:

JRJphoto said:
I’m a 20+ year ENG/EFP veteran. Both full size ENG and little box styles are appropriate tools for appropriate jobs. I’d hate to shoot reality with the camera handheld out in front of me all day, and it’d be a waste to have a purpose-built shoulder-mountable rig live on a dolly for the entire shoot. But both types of cameras have their place and neither are going anywhere. For me, IS is only useful when I’m telephoto and got no sticks. I’ve only used AF for selfies.
Click to expand...

I agree, and anyone who's been there knows you can't hold even a GH5 in front over the full course of a wedding shoot. I've never been to one that didn't include the sticks. DSLR lenses breathe too, and iris changes are steps. Servo focus is non-linear. Image stabilization, whether IBIS or OIS cause distortion artifacts, warping, chunking. Manual focus aids like peaking don't work as well as needed and lack adequate customization. They are just not designed for video use. A big reason why it works as well as it does owes to the great post edit tools we have in Resolve, where you can keyframe everything from pans and crops to white balance to motion blur to stabilization. If the only edit tools we had were cuts and splices dslr shooters would be royally screwed.
 
I am sold on AF since pros (people higher up the food chain/ladder than I, by a long shot) have begun using it in their work. Movies/commercials/narrative projects with full crews in relatively controlled settings? Probably not appropriate. ENG/doc/reality where things move fast, critical shots can be easily missed, and its nigh impossible to tell if youre perfectly in focus on one of these large sensor cams without a 19” monitor? Yes please, all day.
 
morgan_moore said:
Well the first of many reasons to put the camera on the shoulder is that often the lens then sits at the eye height of a human.

Often films look 'right' when seen from the POV of a human - humans react well to that POV

Of course if you are a human like me who is 1.90 tall the POV can be a little odd.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it depends on the height of the human with the camera and the human actor height! Sometimes their are big variances.

Like you I am much taller than average, which makes shoulder shooting a pain with almost all actors. One if the biggest reasons I'm considering an easyrig is to that I can comfortably shoot for extended periods at much lower than my shoulder height.
 
dslr and wires
Tom Roper said:
If you don't have a bit of that going on, people hold a photographic pose because they are not aware it's video. .
Click to expand...

My point was once you add 'essentials' - audio and ND (not to mention HD transmit, FF motor and recieve, power splitting, timecode box) to a 'Dslr' you tend to end with a very poor form,
-wire ports are at the side and generall are vunerable
-viewing screen is centre back (unlike an EVF)
-battery often not available to change without removal from sticks
etc.
 
I wouldn’t use AF in an uncontrolled environment because AF means losing control over an aspect of the camera. To have full control of the camera in any environment (and make that final image look controlled) is part of being a pro. I’d prefer a human control focus at all times.
 
I get that, and a year or two ago I would have been with you ("who are all these losers using AF for paid work?"), but mine eyes have seen the light. Since the large sensor cams took over, more or less, and people are using them for everything, AF is a legit and valuable aid. I say the results, not the method, are what make a pro. If you can pull focus on an unplanned shot/subject perfectly, and not end up just a wee bit (remember, sometimes DOF is inches with these cams) off, more power to you. Many folks can't. As I said I have seen people better than myself, higher up, commanding better rates, use it. C300 M2 tracking/touch screen AF? Yes sir. If you want to do cool, artistic pulls or whatever you can do that too. Just turn it off. Turn it back on when you're simply trying to follow a subject and not blow the shot.
 
Yes this is a tough crowd to pitch AF to. The older tech AF was mostly a gimmick and got bad rep. The latest from Sony and Canon featuring PD pixels built into the sensor itself are really working well- AF has become a feature. But the years of the sales departments lying about it have taken their toll. You know what they say- easy to ruin ones (AF in this case)reputation, difficult to restore it...
 
The thing is, how many cine lenses even offer AF? I'm talking Canon CN-E or Ziess CP.2 as a minimum. Even the Fuji MK series don't offer AF. On the 2/3" front there are very few lenses that offer AF. And most operators would opt not to use that feature anyway. If happy using DSLR lenses more power to you. Many of us are not.
 
If you're doing event or documentary, I can see the appeal of AF in some instances.

If your doing scripted with multiple takes, you most likely have an AC. And if you have an AC, during the take you might as well have them pull focus. After all, focus is a creative decision. The timing, the ramp, the pace, the landing...all contribute to a human feel.

If I'm in a scripted narrative and I don't have an AC and all my hands are tied pushing a slider and doing a tilt, and the shot requires a focus pull, then yeah, I'd wish I had AF. But actually I'd wish for an AC first and foremost.

This is not an either or argument. Depends on the requirements of the job and the tools to achieve the job in the best way possible.

Why do we have to strive for one answer when ideally, the more answers we have, the more solutions we can have at our disposal for solving various problems. It's not like AF can only exist at the exclusion of manual focus or vice versa.

Same thing for eng vs. modular. It's not on versus the other. It's when one over the other.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top