I think adaptors are still the best bet.

kodjo

kodjo

Active member
There is something to be said about the organic look of an adaptor. By actually adding grain or imperfections the adaptor provides that extra something which counters that "digital" look. It looks analog or organic. For film emulation, I think adaptors can't be beat. Years down the road many people may still be using adaptors to get that "vintage" look. As I am currently cutting a film shot with an adaptor, I realize it is the mechanical side of it which gives it the extra something. The only drawback is weight.
 
(vs a DSLR)

and light loss

and mis focus and your shots are ruined

and pwer goes and your shots are ruined

my EX1/LX does I guess outresolve my 7d however

S
 
I vote with you one this, I still wont use DSLR's on anything but super low budget gigs. Anything "pro" i use a HVX and redrock M2. Although the mythical scarlet, AF-100, sony whatever might change that.
 
I think the image control and manipulation that a traditional prosumer/professional HD-cam offers is better than the image control/manipulation that you get when you use a HDSLR - but as far as sensor size, resolution, and price, you can't beat HDSLRs. They're just different tools for different applications.
 
Dslr faster?

Dslr faster?

Is DSLR faster after or before you synch sound and work your way around the aliasing, wobble effets, overexposed shots and soft shots?

What about the end results? Do you get a film look or a digital look from a DSLR?
 
Well, if you listen to the interview with Rodney Charters, the main reason he likes to use the dSLR (and puts up with all the hassles) is because the end result does indeed look quite film-like.

Obviously you can work much faster with a DSLR than you would with a 150-lb movie camera; the heavier the gear, the bigger and heavier the support equipment, the more people you need just to even move the thing, the bigger the crew you need to keep things moving...

... but as compared to something small and light like an HPX170 or EX1, I don't think the dSLR lets you work any faster, and I actually find that all the conveniences and hassle-free operation of the video camera let me work faster. But adding an adapter to get the same look, kind of cancels that out.
 
Until I see zebras I can't tell if my shot is overexposed. Until I see a focus zoom, I can't tell if my shot is in focus. Until I have headphones, I can't tell if the audio is fine. Once I film, I want to make sure I get the shot and not some aliasing effect.

So I suppose DSLR is a roussian roulette. You pray until you watch the footage on your computer monitor.

That to me is anything but efficient.
 
I feel every mechanic has tools in their toolbox that they feel can help them do their job correctly and more efficiently. So i figure at the end of the day if the tools you use help you do your job well with results you and your client approve of i say its a win-win situation for all involved.my 2...
 
I am an artist. I have no client but myself. To hell with clients. They don't know **** from gold.
 
kodjo said:
Until I see zebras I can't tell if my shot is overexposed. Until I see a focus zoom, I can't tell if my shot is in focus. Until I have headphones, I can't tell if the audio is fine. Once I film, I want to make sure I get the shot and not some aliasing effect.

So I suppose DSLR is a roussian roulette. You pray until you watch the footage on your computer monitor.

That to me is anything but efficient.
Click to expand...
Pretty much agreed. Your tone makes me wonder if we'll agree on much in the future, but what you're saying here is basically accurate.

Now, with that said, there are ways around it, if you choose to employ professional products, or workaround techniques. For example, while the GH1 has a live histogram, the Canons don't. So you don't actually know whether you're overexposed or not. There is a professional-tool way around it, which is to use a monitor that has a waveform built into it. Or the old-school way, use a light meter (and understand the characteristics of overexposure that the camera delivers, which menas doing your own testing first). Or, the no-budget way, is to take a still photo, and use the histogram to tell whether your exposure is "on" or not.

For focus -- all the cameras offer 10x focus zoom. You can't use them during recording however.

For moire -- yep. Gotta play it back to know whether you got away with it or not.

Simple fact is, there are tradeoffs involved when using a product for other than its designed purpose. For many people, a little extra time is a tiny price to pay for the cost savings and they are enthralled with the end result they get. For others, time is the most expensive commodity on set, and whatever cost savings they base camera offers don't make up for the inefficiencies and workarounds that need to be employed.

Fortunately, there are lots of products out there, and people have choices about which way they want to work and how much they want to spend.
 
Last edited:
kodjo said:
I am an artist. I have no client but myself. To hell with clients. They don't know sh*t from gold.
Click to expand...
Then this whole thread makes little sense. If you don't care what anyone else thinks (including clients) -- then why do you care what anyone thinks? Why start a thread at all?
 
I am starting the thread to give my take on things. Isn't that the reason we have forums? To share info? Or is this another one of these forums where moderators intervene on every thread ?
 
kodjo said:
I am starting the thread to give my take on things. Isn't that the reason we have forums? To share info? Or is this another one of these forums where moderators intervene on every thread ?
Click to expand...
You might want to spend a little time learning the "lay of the land." From my point of view, Barry's pointing out that given what you're saying and how you're saying it, this thread could be seen as "baiting."
 
That is a very American thing: looking for the politically correct angle. Why do people get so easily offended by something I could say is incomprehensible to me. I have no time to worry much about who will take offense or who will be bored with my statements. I prefer to discuss or give my opinion on video to whoever might find it useful. This said it's no fun discussing anything if people try to guide every word.
 
you act like making a little effort to be respectful is an inconvenience...

We're a very large board... people don't come on here to read attitudes... it generally just makes threads go bad quickly... they come on here to share information... and the more respectful people can be with one another, the more useful this community can be to its members....

Since you are new here, please read our guidelines... If they don't groove with you, that's cool... plenty of places for you to hang... no hard feelings... but, it's just the way we try to run the place here... and, if you are going to be a contributing member, just like any other place, we've got certain guidelines...
 
Barry_Green said:
Then this whole thread makes little sense. If you don't care what anyone else thinks (including clients) -- then why do you care what anyone thinks? Why start a thread at all?
Click to expand...

Of course it doesn't. It's jujufactory again under another screen name! He can't stay away and since you can make up any screen name you wish, there's no reason for him not to come back every month and ask these questions and use the forum to disparage Red and other work-flows.

I'm astonished that people still respond to him. His posts have a characteristic style and tone.
 
kodjo said:
Until I see zebras I can't tell if my shot is overexposed. Until I see a focus zoom, I can't tell if my shot is in focus. Until I have headphones, I can't tell if the audio is fine. Once I film, I want to make sure I get the shot and not some aliasing effect.

So I suppose DSLR is a roussian roulette. You pray until you watch the footage on your computer monitor.

That to me is anything but efficient.
Click to expand...

This is blown way out of proportion. Aliasing artifacts and rolling shutter effects do exist, but they're avoidable. And while zebras are indeed useful...why not just use a light meter? I don't think that this "Russian Roulette" thing applies when the cameras are being used for high end broadcast television, like House MD and other such shows. I think that just like any other camera, HDSLRs have their strengths and their weaknesses, and part of being a good filmmaker or cinematographer is knowing those limitations and maximizing the strengths. But to me, as a cinematographer, I simply can't stand losing 1-2 stops of light through an adapter.
 
Luckily this kind of thread (adapters VS VDSLR/Camcorders), will soon be over or so I think!

I have an excellent 35mm adapter (was one of the first SgBlade buyers and had the first SgPro as well). I'm not selling it. Call me stupid but I think I'm going to keep it just to have a souvenir of this decade, as I have so many Super8 cameras hanging around...

But lets face it! If Panasonic and Sony gets mud and aliasing fixed on their 4/3 and s35 cameras, adapters are history! And the VDSLR crowd will only have a place relied on budget alone.

Yes! There probably will be guys soothing with them (adapters), for many reasons. The 2 most probables got to be the money involved (cheap adapters on the used market), and things like the starter of this thread mentioned (the looks).

Well... For me looks is kind of a subjective factor. You say adapters are more film like than only video, I say proper DOF, proper cinematography, and proper colour correction will be much more important to achieve that look. And if you want grain... Add it in post!

There are many nostalgia around film, and I understand that. I shoot Super8 films every year, which I develop in my own colour darkroom and edit with splicers and tape. Yes! That's so good to smell the earlies but I'm not pretentious to the point of wanting to make a 2 hour film in Super8 without being financed, so here's the beauty of video!

Lately everybody defends their VDSLR position because House's last season episode was shot with one, but there's no need to defend video on that basis. One of the greatest directors of all time, the deceased Ingmar Bergman, shot his last masterpiece (Saraband) in video! It was a revolution in Europe and you know why? Because every FILMmaker here always treated VIDEOmakers like amateurs... And that ended when Saraband premièred around the globe.

Did you see the film? Can you tell me that it hasn't a film look? Let's face it, it was shot with a video camera alone! Without any adapter. Can you tell me that Lars Von Triers's Antichrist doesn't look like film? It was shot with a Red. Again... No adapters.

So adapters... Yes. They are still fine. Yes. I still use mine. But like many things today, imagery is a precipitating new world everyday. If we like it or not, that is another question. Probably as soon as 3 or 4 years from now AF100's and Sony s35 are already outdated. Did you already think about it?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top