Interesting rumor...

Zim said:
I think it is some of the canon people with the agenda. But my point is squig said his care factor for taking pictures is zero. He said half the jello twice the price.
If a someone is buying a camera because they only care about the video why are they buying a DSLR?
Matt this a is a "interesting rumor thread" Not the "lets trash Nikon" thread.
Click to expand...

I had a D90 for 6 months and now I've spent 2 months putting the MKII through it's paces, they are both flawed and capable of making great films depending on the skill of the operator. I am at least in a position to trash both of them because I have extensively tested both of them.

Sure I take a few photo's but I don't really give a damn if a DSLR takes anything less than 24 photos per second and last time I checked this was a filmmaking forum not a photography forum.
 
I showed my dislike for the D90 movie long before it became fashionable to do it around here. But you know what? I love my D90. I still have it and make money with it every single day of the week. Because I have been in the imaging business, stills and moving images, for about 35 years I could tell by the first time I used the dmovie mode on the D90 that it wouldn't cut mustard. It had a lot of potential to be realized in a later model.
Nowadays everybody wants to magically become a pro photographer or make "films" without the proper experience and knowledge. Buying a camera then selling it because it did not have the "magic". Nikon will eventually make a wonderful movie mode, with all the bells and whistles. And they will do it on their own time frame, not ours. And once they are able to produce that "magical" camera we will buy it, and thats it.
 
again if I was only really interested in films , why not invest in a really nice HD video camera? I want a new Nikon with Dmovie and I hope the D300s is a big improvement but I'm not selling my DVX100b either.
You are right this is a filmmaker forum and we are talking about a DSLR camera.
Thanks for your input with both of these camera by the way

squig said:
I had a D90 for 6 months and now I've spent 2 months putting the MKII through it's paces, they are both flawed and capable of making great films depending on the skill of the operator. I am at least in a position to trash both of them because I have extensively tested both of them.

Sure I take a few photo's but I don't really give a damn if a DSLR takes anything less than 24 photos per second and last time I checked this was a filmmaking forum not a photography forum.
Click to expand...
 
I'm trying to make my Okinawa Letters doc and it will have pictures and video. I don't need fancy dolly shos and all that. But to have a camera for this that I could do both pictures/HD video would be awesome. I just don't want to be doning post work to fix some of the problems. I want to be able to do some simple pans etc. If I could get video like Ami Vitale and the other guy got I will be very happy.
 
mhood said:
Why would you want to use a still camera to do HD video? :-)
Click to expand...

show me a camcorder with 36x24mm (or APSC) sized sensor for under 3000 USD. .... DOF, Dynamik Range, Color, Pro lenses ...etc, etc... for payable price.
 
Well since this will be a one man operation it would be nice to go lite for most of it. Plus, like I said it will involve pictures of vets and interviews. I think I want to try in with this camera. If Ken Burns was doing it I'm sure he would use something else!

HD is what the camera takes.
 
Zim, I don't understand. You blast me (and others) for wanting gr8 HD video out of a "still" camera, then say that you want gr8 HD video out of a "still" camera. Zup?
 
Kholi said:
You don't make films, either. Unless you shoot film.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I love RED, but there is nothing better than the look of S35, even loading it is a joy, the smell is addicting and fantastic. Nothing is better than film, but its fun to have something to use like the D90 for testing things you'd never even waste short ends on.
 
film as in what you make as opposed to what you're using to make it. if you go to the theater in most cases what you see is film, regardless of what it was shot on. if you want to argue semantics it would make more sense to not call a film a film if it's on video, even if it was shot on film. as odd as it may sound i've shot almost all my music videos on film and most of my films on video. ;-)
 
This is sooo low... Making Film or video? Come on guys isn’t there something better to talk about? I'm thinking of start to editing some D90 materials together with a cure I’ve done. Based on the looks of the Kodak V2 5229. That is controversial, I know... ;)
 
Originally Posted by Kholi
You don't make films, either. Unless you shoot film
Click to expand...

Exactly. Kodak, Fuji and whoever else is still around makes films. You make Motion Pictures, in the case of digital, Digital Motion Pictures; features; documentaries; music videos.
 
i make films on video all the time. tell my 35mm reels on the shelf that they are not films and they will get pissed off, i promise. again if you really feel the need to make the distinction a video made on film is much less a film than my films made on video. i can spot the difference between a can and a digibeta box from quite far away.

kodak and fuji make film stock, they do not make films, except for the occasional test and maybe a commercial or two i guess.
 
squig said:
So is Slumdog Millionaire not a film?

Don't make me laugh Kholi
Click to expand...

It technically is and technically isn't. / It was shot on film AND video first of all. Then it was transferred to film prints. So yeah, it's a film. Then again, it isn't.

You don't shoot film, there for you do not shoot films. You shoot video, there for you shoot video or motion picture. There's no real arguing the fact that you do not shoot film, and that films are shot on films.

MOtion Pictures are shot on anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top