Interesting article about evolution of digital cinema cameras

ahalpert said:
And yet we still complain.
Click to expand...
In another thread someone mentioned the dial on the S1H. That is not a complaint, that is a user request feature improvement.

There are and will constantly be manufacturing issues. A design element that got missed. Just like not all my clients are happy with my work. Should I tell them, "...but you don't know how far I have come!"

For the last two decades, we "killed" film, undercut camera operator salaries, and created the possibility of even being completely replaced by machines in some cases.

I think we'll have plenty to "complain" about for years to come.
 
ahalpert said:
And yet we still complain.
Click to expand...

While the electronics have raced forward we still have full reason to complain.

The fooking awful physical designs!

Think of the Christmas tree that was Canon C300, Sony having the attention to detail of a four year old for ergonomic layout and of a monkey with menu design...

Designers with no concept of how a camera is used.. dont get me started.

ANd the bloody reviewers Allard and his chums considering any of these monsters as something one could stake the reputition of your liveiyhood on or happily go to work to do ones job on.

Its been a double disgrace.
 
The real kick in the nuts: great, established, proven camera design has been around for decades, but the manufacturers took the transition to "large sensor digital cinema cameras" as the opportunity to F it all up and throw all that away.
 
Run&Gun said:
The real kick in the nuts: great, established, proven camera design has been around for decades, but the manufacturers took the transition to "large sensor digital cinema cameras" as the opportunity to F it all up and throw all that away.
Click to expand...

I really wish they would have tried putting larger sensors into the shoulder cameras for people who wanted to use them with photography lenses (besides cine lenses).

I know it was a different time where they didn't really think outside the box and probably thought it would be crazy if a B4 zoom lens wasn't being used (hence the need for the smaller sensors), but wish someone tried it.

So the first one back then could have been the C300's sensor in a Varicam-style body.
 
morgan_moore said:
While the electronics have raced forward...
Click to expand...
Back in 2004, the first "consumer" HD front projector (Sony Qualia 004) was $27,000 and one also had to buy a $3,000 lens for it. Now, one can get a quality HD projector for well under a grand. Lens included.
 
morgan_moore said:
While the electronics have raced forward we still have full reason to complain.

The fooking awful physical designs!

Think of the Christmas tree that was Canon C300, Sony having the attention to detail of a four year old for ergonomic layout and of a monkey with menu design...

Designers with no concept of how a camera is used.. dont get me started.

ANd the bloody reviewers Allard and his chums considering any of these monsters as something one could stake the reputition of your liveiyhood on or happily go to work to do ones job on.

Its been a double disgrace.
Click to expand...

Haha. The point is just that cameras are so much more powerful and so much cheaper than they were 20 years ago that we've been spoiled by the specs. I don't think anything comparable happened with Film technology.

Yes, form factor can be improved. Allard is a harsh critique of usability. I believe he owns/operates an Amira.
 
James0b57 said:
In another thread someone mentioned the dial on the S1H. That is not a complaint, that is a user request feature improvement.

There are and will constantly be manufacturing issues. A design element that got missed. Just like not all my clients are happy with my work. Should I tell them, "...but you don't know how far I have come!"

For the last two decades, we "killed" film, undercut camera operator salaries, and created the possibility of even being completely replaced by machines in some cases.

I think we'll have plenty to "complain" about for years to come.
Click to expand...

I like to critique cameras too. But I think if you cut your rate by 90% and quadrupled your quality for the same client over the last 10 years, they would have very little to complain about!
 
ahalpert said:
Haha. The point is just that cameras are so much more powerful and so much cheaper than they were 20 years ago that we've been spoiled by the specs. I don't think anything comparable happened with Film technology.

Yes, form factor can be improved. Allard is a harsh critique of usability. I believe he owns/operates an Amira.
Click to expand...

So you are saying you enjoy todays cameras?

I spend my whole time mainly fighting dragging cables or trying to see a reflective screen in the sun.
 
morgan_moore said:
So you are saying you enjoy todays cameras?

I spend my whole time mainly fighting dragging cables or trying to see a reflective screen in the sun.
Click to expand...

I enjoy my S1 immensely. It's easy to use - quick to get shooting, great battery life, effective IBIS, low-light monster, strong DR (with NR at least), decent colors. Small enough for my Ronin-S which is easy to fly as long as I need to and pull focus remotely with an onboard motor and my 7" ikan. And the camera was like $2k! It's a treat. Maybe I'm just a glass-half-full guy.

On that particular set-up, I don't have issues in the sun or with my cables. But that's just one set-up. I wish I had remote exposure controls. I wish I had even more DR. I wish I had a 12-bit codec.

I'm less enamored with my FS7. But clients like it.

So yeah, it's relative. There are things I would change about the S1 or any of these cameras.

But compared to a DVX100? That's what the comparison is.

Maybe people took my comment about complaining too literally... I want better designs too! But generally speaking, I'm very pleased with the quality that cameras can produce for very little money these days and I'm willing to bend over backwards for them if need be. I mean, the 5Dmk2 was much more limited in many ways and that was an exciting camera.

Out of curiosity, what would remedy your functionality problems? A brighter screen and wireless cable solutions?
 
morgan_moore said:
So you are saying you enjoy todays cameras?

I spend my whole time mainly fighting dragging cables or trying to see a reflective screen in the sun.
Click to expand...

I don't know which cables those are but let's talk about seeing reflective screens in the sun for a second.

Yes, the manufacturers are being jackasses on that one, but part of this is because of what the users are demanding. Glossy screens with no anti-reflective coatings are terrible for day exteriors, and so are straight sunhoods.

Go back 15 years, and we were using CRT monitors on set. For exteriors, a diagonal Hoodman was attached. It made those screens (very dim by today's standards) entirely viewable because, basic physics--it's reflecting a black surface instead of your face and the bright world behind it. When LCD's became popular, the viewing angles were so limited in comparison that they stopped making the diagonal versions of the Hoodmans as it did't work to be looking down at those screens from a 45 degree angle. These days the viewing angles have improved greatly, especially with OLED's, but yet those angled hoods never came back. I have a few old ones that I use (the one made for the PVM 8020 fits my 9" director's monitor perfectly) and they are always conversation pieces on set because they are so unusual now--and work so damn well.

Here's that hood on my 8020 back in 2003.

chupap-monitor.jpg

Meanwhile, manufacturers are chasing each other to out-do the nit ratings for daylight viewable monitors, and refusing to use anti-reflective coatings which would make much more of a difference. Presumably because it would affect the accuracy of the image--but if the goal is daylight viewability, that shouldn't be a big concern. Outside of an HDR environment, no monitor cranked up to 2500 nits is displaying an accurate image.

It's all a mess.
 
Last edited:
ahalpert said:
I like to critique cameras too. But I think if you cut your rate by 90% and quadrupled your quality for the same client over the last 10 years, they would have very little to complain about!
Click to expand...
I'm sorry?
 
CharlesPapert said:
I don't know which cables those are but let's talk about seeing reflective screens in the sun for a second.

Yes, the manufacturers are being jackasses on that one, but part of this is because of what the users are demanding. Glossy screens with no anti-reflective coatings are terrible for day exteriors, and so are straight sunhoods.

Go back 15 years, and we were using CRT monitors on set. For exteriors, a diagonal Hoodman was attached. It made those screens (very dim by today's standards) entirely viewable because, basic physics--it's reflecting a black surface instead of your face and the bright world behind it. When LCD's became popular, the viewing angles were so limited in comparison that they stopped making the diagonal versions of the Hoodmans as it did't work to be looking down at those screens from a 45 degree angle. These days the viewing angles have improved greatly, especially with OLED's, but yet those angled hoods never came back. I have a few old ones that I use (the one made for the PVM 8020 fits my 9" director's monitor perfectly) and they are always conversation pieces on set because they are so unusual now--and work so damn well.

Here's that hood on my 8020 back in 2003.

View attachment 139036

Meanwhile, manufacturers are chasing each other to out-do the nit ratings for daylight viewable monitors, and refusing to use anti-reflective coatings which would make much more of a difference. Presumably because it would affect the accuracy of the image--but if the goal is daylight viewability, that shouldn't be a big concern. Outside of an HDR environment, no monitor cranked up to 2500 nits is displaying an accurate image.

It's all a mess.
Click to expand...
Yeah, a lot of variables and iterations. funny what sells and what works often doesn't correlate. Seeing those 3000nits LCD's in doors are full bright is ghastly. haha. I do dislike the high gloss trend. SmallHD had a funny issue with their protective screen, it wasn't matte, and yet it wasn't setup to be frequently removed at a moments notice, so it just nulled the matte finish of the screen underneath. I ended up making my own, and used gaff tape so I could flip up the protective screen and just use the bare matte finish any time.

We find a way to get the shot or make it look good. (well others do. I try)

EDIT: also just realized that setup is a DoF adapter (P+S?) going into a Canon chainsaw!
 
Last edited:
I don't know which cables those are but let's talk about seeing reflective screens in the sun for a second.


I was thinking of the wires that stick straight forward on my SMall HD monitor. And striaght up on my other Small montiro.

First SDI - which I bumped and broke, and now HDMI.

Losing my 'small' on the rig breaks a whole chain as that feeds my Animon

In my battle with viewability I spent a pile on a Transvideo 240p daylight monitor, back in the day. Its res is usueless.. but at least the wires go in at an acceptable angle.. it stills work and Ive never broken it - its oldschool kit for adults.

I have my monitor forward so I can focus through my homebuild hoodman making the wires vunerable.

Wires also stick out of the back of my camera.

--

Part of the wires thing is the bloody stress that a whole shoot is dangling on an HDMI poking out on my Small HD.

My latest stress is the batt life on my Movi - a device the price of a decent used car - has shi tty batts that are going to leave egg on my face in front of a client. Its up to me to in my time out make a Vlock version.. where the batts sit on a belt or backpack.
 
morgan_moore said:
I spend my whole time mainly fighting dragging cables or trying to see a reflective screen in the sun.
Click to expand...

In fairness though, are you talking about cameras or FrankenRigs?

Most discussions around the proverbial "perfect camera" tend to end up about what compromises are tolerable for one's needs.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, I would say that if you buy a camera and then rig it up to address what you consider its shortcomings, I don't think it's fair to complain about the camera at the core—if you end up with a mess.

Or at least, you need to take your gripes up with the actual inventor of the SamCam... =D *I trust you get that this is tongue in cheek, while I still think there's a point in there somewhere*

Personally, once I've gone through my checklist:

SmallHD? No
Atomos? Unacceptable
Mattebox? Hehe, no
V-mount? Hell, no.

I usually end up with very limited list. Not only in terms of what camera options I have, but unfortunately also what they can do.
 
In fairness though, are you talking about cameras or FrankenRigs?

Yep Im talking about camera systems involving.. (not exclusively)
1) Shooting
2) Recording sound
3) Seeing a picture
4) Monitoring sound
5) being able to gain correct exposure
6) holding the thing still ish for 20 odd seconds
7) being able to transport the thing without breaking it.
8) not injuring the operators back after 8 hours use
9) seeing exposure levels
10) booting before the action is over
11) flattening the batteries while the camera is off

And yes a lot of my critique is towards the accesories that are regularly promoted by Allard and his chums.


I don't think it's fair to complain about the camera at the core—if you end up with a mess.

The rot usually starts with the camera..

Well every DSLR (and bmc pocket) has wires out the side which exclude (7) - th BMC being so wide as not to fit on a Movi Pro.
MOst small cams have one 1/4 attachment.. meaning a sloppy build or cash spent on a cage
The FS7 had no outputs at the front to power or image an EVF - meaning sweeping cable loops from the rear


Random design by fools..

The F5 had the earphone jack placed for failure

'Hot' Shoes not top threads , start rot - featureing on many small cams

The Loupe on the FS7 - is not part of the camera but total crap, and if replaced with a 'pro' EVF, made a requirement for a second power source (no power out on the cam) and extended boot time

THe bmc pocket 4/6k having a completely pointless screen with no tilt.

The bottom of the FS7 not being flat made for unsolid mounts to sticks and shaky telephoto shots

I think arri did this too.

The form of all pre C200 canons was appalling meaning you lost the XLR if you lost the handle

Mirrorless cams that exposed the chip on lens canges
Canons that needed to be shut down to change a lens
Even the position of the lens release on everything but nikon is rubbish

Lens mounts that dont counter FF torque and are too weak to support a telephoto

Yep.. Its not just cameras but they feature quite large!
 
Last edited:
CP you can see my red HDMI, - if this rig is placed in my van or on the floor of a press centre the first thing to be knocked is the red HDMI, I use HDMI because the SDi already got bust :)

You may see my hombuild power is Transvideo style with the connector hugging the monitor (red arrow)

full_rig.jpg
 
Had three SmallHD 702HB and all three got sent in for repair. Two for the HDMI

They didn’t include even a DC power tap. And those dummy batteries came loose occasionally. Glad they changed that.

Also, the joy stick on all of them got wonky after a few months.

The pages and tools thing is ok, but drives one a little nutty after that joy stick starts giving out.

As Sam mentions, the HDMI port might. Have been designed better. Sticking stright out makes the hdmi cable vulnerable to breaking. I use a right angle hdmi and sometike gaff which helps, but i can see what Sam is talking about. Downward facing hdmi ports would likely be my preference. Would make setting up a directors monitor with one easier too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top