I'm not sure the camera guys get it!

M

Mavoz

Well-known member
Was interested to listen to the podcast re: the 7D over at:

http://cameradojo.com/2009/09/04/po...jeff-sipper-and-jason-anderson/#disqus_thread

their conclusion was their wasn't much use for video on a dslr...people would be better off buying a regular cheap video cam...

I'm just not sure traditional photographers really understand what this means for video!

as I said in a comment...imagine the outcry if we told them there was no need for interchangeable lenses on a still cam... all you need is a point and shoot cam for photography...

not to mention all the other benefits of video with a dslr...
 
I agree with you there.

In fact I was asked to come on the show and explain it. So at least Kerry who runs the show is open minded about the whole aspect of it. Unfortunately something came up and I was able to. Perhaps in the future.
 
Their lack of knowledge sometimes scares me ,they indeed dont have any clue ,i thought they would know that depth of field in motion picyure films from tv is comparable to depth of field in film cameras so they would came up to the conclusion that one still is like one frame of motion picture film.
I think its lack of knowledge,they whining about lack of auto focus on new DSLR and in 70s 80s 90s they used only
manual focus on their film camera lenses,this is so weird.
But also they only need to take one frame while wee need to take 24 of them per second so thats the comparision,its laziness on their part to not make any research before making statements such as "buy video camcorder".Theyre scared of jello in footage and lack of auto focus so its a big no no in their opinion.
 
Last edited:
Frame Grab

Frame Grab

editman said:
He who can shoot still and video and edit it all together will have lot of work!
Click to expand...

Shooting HD video, may yield you frames that can be just pulled from the video.
You may not need to shoot stills as well, just do a frame grab from the video.
 
If you are shooting 24p (or even 30p), there's going to be a some motion blur in there. Unless you are shooting an absolutely still shot...at which time I would take a picture. Plus, your image is going to be 1920x1080 or 1280x720 instead of something ridiculous like 4K or 5K so it won't be as useful for prints.

The way RED gets away with the whole video to stills thing is that it does shoot 4K (resolving a bit less than that because of debayering). So its coming.
 
My ultimate scenario would be an s35mm digital camera that continuously shoots high speed frames and shutter with very clean high ISOs yielding crisp like images. In post, the NLE would have the ability (with one click) to give me a motion blur equivalent to 24fps. If I want slow motion I could easily pick out a point in the footage and with one click change the perceived motion and maybe catch a bullet flying through the air smoothly. I would also be able to take a crisp and clean snapshot of any frame regardless of how fast an object is moving in the frame. By this time PC’s and laptops will be so fast that applying motion blur in post would not be such a hassle. Also, this would be much better for keying (which for example is one of the reasons why James Cameron desires digital cams to shoot 48 fps instead of 24fps….but still show the final product at 24 fps). Sure, data storage would be crazy high…but at this time it wouldn’t matter. Storage will be even cheaper, faster and more compact.

Sorry….I was just dreaming out loud.
 
Still photogs are familar with the look a 35mm film camera and digital still camera can produce so they do not see what we see with video backgrounds. Greater control over DoF is something they have always had and use.
 
Is it the photo guys that don't get it?

Or is it us, not seeing the forest because we're looking at some trees?

Video on a DSLR is not the ultimate destination, guys. It's a severe compromise. The DSLR is a lousy form factor for shooting video. It's borderline unacceptable for professional use (no live monitoring? No XLR ports? No zebras or audio levels or waveform monitors or ... *anything* that a pro is used to?) So what are the benefits? The benefits are that they have (usually) large sensors and interchangeable lenses. The End. Everything else about video-on-a-DSLR is worse than anything about a regular video camera. Having been enamored of my GH1, and spending just a day with the tiny little HMC40, I have to say the HMC40 is leagues better for shooting video for professional purposes. If it had shallow DOF, nobody would even be talking about using a DSLR for video...

So, yes, let's embrace that we finally have shallow-DOF without adapters. But to embrace video-on-a-DSLR as the ultimate solution? No thanks (and I say that as the very happy owner of a GH1 and a foaming-at-the-mouth rabidly-waiting-for-my-preorder Canon 7D). It'll do for today. It'll do because it's cheap. But the minute someone makes a proper video camera with such a large sensor and cheaply interchangeable lenses, the SLRs are going on ebay.

Video on a DSLR is a temporary bandaid to get us over this stretch of time where the only proper video cameras we can afford currently have 1/3" or 1/4" chips, until the future when camcorder manufacturers start offering big-sensor video cameras with an SLR lens mount. I happen to think that *has* to be coming.

Until then, we use video cameras for the video-camera usage, and DSLRs for the shallow-DOF.
 
I agree with what you are saying Barry but I’m skeptical about what we might end up seeing in the form of a “dedicated” camcorder. The way these companies operated in the past leads me to think that there will be many compromises in this hypothetical cam. That would be no surprise. But what kind of compromise is the question. A lot of folks speculate that Canon (or fill in the blank) will come out with a sensor the size of 35mm or somewhere around 4/3s etc. I don’t think so. Bigger sensors….yes…but I don’t that big. Sensitivity will not be as good as the 5Dll either. But it will have all the bells and whistles of traditional pro-sumer cams. That’s where folks would have to decide on getting one, the other, or both. They will eventually work their way up to bigger sensors etc., but not right away. So, DSLRs might be a good compromise for some….at least for a time.
 
Barry_Green said:
Video on a DSLR is a temporary bandaid to get us over this stretch of time where the only proper video cameras we can afford currently have 1/3" or 1/4" chips, until the future when camcorder manufacturers start offering big-sensor video cameras with an SLR lens mount. I happen to think that *has* to be coming.
Click to expand...

Agreed 100000%
 
Barry_Green said:
Is it the photo guys that don't get it?
Click to expand...

When the Ford T came out, men on horses where telling the same thing: I can't believe it! It's to fast, to dangerous! You can't be as free as riding a horse! Cars are revolution, DSLR as well. In a couple of years their wont be any differences between video and photo equipment. And with a smile we will be looking back at ourselves from the days we used huge camcorders low end on every aspects of the quality of an image.:)
 
Just like today, when there's no difference between telephones and photo equipment, and we all shoot all our photography on cell phones?

Er... wait...

:)
 
Since I have been using my 5DMKII I have actually really ended up liking the small form factor for many reasons. I have put my XHA1 down to pick up the 5D too many time to justify keeping the A1. I don't see why a smaller DLSR-Camcorder hybrid can't be the future of video work and film making...giving us all the audio and lens options we want and need.
 
Barry_Green said:
Just like today, when there's no difference between telephones and photo equipment, and we all shoot all our photography on cell phones?

Er... wait...

:)
Click to expand...

When I was a kid I always dreamed that I would buy a cell only if it could take pictures, go on the net, see movies and buy stuff online. I waited so long that when the Iphone came out, I didn't even bother with it. Still no cell phone for me. I would rather keep my left side of the brain cancer free. hehe:grin:
 
When it comes down to it, can you make a living with it? Myself, I don't want to line the pockets of everyone making a contraption that makes it easier to work with in the field.
I'd rather make a living with my video camera.
 
I hate my cell phone camera.

My top camera pick right now is the D300s. The reason? Photography. It looks really really good. I'd like some video with it for somethings. But like Barry said ........ there are limits to a VDSLR. Until I work up to a HD video camera my DVXb is going to be what I'll be using for most video.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top