I'm not sure these video guys get it!

H

hermmermferm

Well-known member
So we've (we being the collective dvxuser) decided to shoot video with DSLRs. If so, why are we investing in special rigs, matteboxes and filters made for video cameras? Seems to me there's a ton of still photography equipment available for half the price that does the same job many of these "specialty" rigs claim. Same goes for expensive film lights, ring lights, expensive monitors, expensive steadicams..etc.. We might be quick to critique the photogs for not realizing the video potential, but I think us film guys aren't realizing the potential of the still photog equipment.


IMHO!
 
Still photog guys use shoulder mount rigs, steadicams, jibs, sliders, and swingaway matteboxes with provisions for filters and flags? And its cheaper than our stuff? I'm in. Show me where to buy.
 
Try pulling off a smooth diagonal tilt and pan with a 100 dollar Bogen tripod then come back and let me know how you feel about it.
 
the cost of most of this stuff is insane also. A good ole monopod and a cheap spiderbrace is sufficient for me, maybe I will get the manfrotto shoulder brace as well. I love the Zacuto and Redrock stuff and cool $900 matteboxes but seriously I would not even pay half the price they are asking for that stuff.
 
The problem is that Cokin has never been held in particularly high regard by photographers. They are considered "fun" filters, but not "serious" or quality enough for demanding amateurs or professionals.

And besides, video guys have been using Cokin products for many years. It's not like we don't know about them already.
 
I would say if there is any rig or tool out there that is cost efficient AND worth using, then a video guy has probably tried it.
 
A good tripod and videohead is essential, I agree. But being a hobbyist, I can't afford most of the other high-end equipment. So luckily for me there a good alternatives available in the photog department :)

Lee Filters has some pretty good filterbox and lenshood kits. And a wide choice of ND & Color filters. At a fraction of the cost of a swingaway mattebox with flags (which I don't need). Buy a couple of adaptor rings for all of your lenses and you can easily swap the filterbox/lenshood between them.
 
It isn't beyond the realm of possibility to utilize some photog gear for some production use...but i don't expect anybody to run out and buy strobes to use their model lights as a key source...
 
Cranky said:
You cannot use a low-power flash light for video.
Click to expand...

Hah! I'm not sure a high-power flash would do much good either.

If you use things how their meant for, you avoid LOTS of problems later. I won't even tell you about the time I tried to build a handheld support for my XH-A1 + Letus rig out of plumbing pipes from Lowe's...DIY is great if you're skilled with that stuff (but I'm not)
 
hermmermferm said:
Thought I should give at least one example:
http://www.cokin.com/ico4-p1.html
Click to expand...
Actually, the Cokin filter holder system is great for VDSLR rigs. A conventional mattebox is a pain in the glutes for using with the stock GH1 lens, because that lens will telescope out six inches as you change the zoom, and a mattebox that's not attached to the lens will just be in the way. Whereas the Cokin, because it sits on the lens rings, slides along as the zoom takes it further out or closer in.

Only problem with the Cokin system is the quality of the actual filters. If you can get Lee or Formatt filters in there, I would think the Cokin system is actually something that a no-budget shooter could get into, instead of buying some $2,000 mattebox that's just going to get in the way...
 
To a certain degree, light is light. If you have a way to control it and it throws enough power for what you need, generally it can work. Other things like color temperature, etc may come into play, but something like flashlights (Or I'll one-up Barry, a CLUSTER of flashlights as a spotlight/overhead LOL) is just light, and it works.

To me, the most important piece of equipment is stabilization. The rest can be substituted a lot of the times. French Flag? BLACK WRAP + TAPE.
 
Some more examples ;)

http://www.aerialproducts.com/aerial-photography-systems/large-sized-dslr-balloon-aerial-system.html
balloon.jpg
 
To the original poster: you're right. Video guys don't "get it"

It's us professional filmmakers who are using these and need to add real pro accessories for professional shooting in a pro environment.

yeah, you can run around with a bunch of goofy stills stuff like umbrellas with hot lights pointed into them, but when your cheap chinese umbrella reflectors melt from the 2k fresnel pointed at it, you'll see why we use a c stand with a duckbill clamp to hold foamcore as a reflector. I'm just saying.
 
ydgmdlu said:
The problem is that Cokin has never been held in particularly high regard by photographers. They are considered "fun" filters, but not "serious" or quality enough for demanding amateurs or professionals.
Click to expand...

Barry_Green said:
Only problem with the Cokin system is the quality of the actual filters. If you can get Lee or Formatt filters in there, I would think the Cokin system is actually something that a no-budget shooter could get into, instead of buying some $2,000 mattebox that's just going to get in the way...
Click to expand...

I disagree. Daryl Benson and Dale Wilson both rave about the Cokin 173 in particular (blue/yellow pola) in their book, Canadian Landscapes. I don't think anyone could call them anything but pros.

http://www.dalewilsonphotography.com/
http://www.darylbenson.com/

Considering that the resolution of these DSLR's is so relatively low, and that pro photogs DO use them, I highly doubt quality would be an issue. Even if it were an issue to begin with.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top