Just bought a DVX100B and then found out about DSLRs. =/

[juanjomora]

DSLR Cameras and the DI Process

DSLR Cameras and the DI Process

Hi.

I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest.

Full disclosure: I work at a major DI facility in Mexico City and have some experience (~7 years) in the so-called 'high end postproduction' market.

From my personal experience you need to have a lot of hands-on practice and a good knowledge of the film production and post workflows to get good results from the DSLRs.

I'm speaking about doing a feature film or documentary for theatrical release in 35mm prints or DCPs.

Most DSLRs record to some flavor of the H.264 codec, nice for viewing or delivery. Not so nice for acquisition and post. It's very processor-intensive. You need to transcode it to a codec more suitable for editing and processing (color grade, compositing, etc.) Apple ProRes 422 is the more popular choice. You need to take that into account.

Personally I don't like the quality of the image: if you load a clip from a DSLR into a good color grading system (i.e. Resolve, SpeedGrade, Lustre, Scratch), visualize it in a proper monitor with a porper LUT and isolate one of the color channels you can see big ugly blocks (from both color sampling and compression schemes). If the material is not exposed carefully there's not much you can do to rescue blown highlights or sub-exposed areas.

For broadcast or electronic delivery one has to be very careful: the risk for concatenation artifacts is high. Yes, I know about the episode from "Dr. House" but if you read carefully you'll find they spent a lot of money in post just to make it look decent...

In the other hand we have finished 5 documentaries that were recorded in a DVX-100B and they looked great in the final 35mm positive print; of course the DoPs in charge of these projects knew the camera and its limitations very well, and the editors were very careful to maintain frame integrity through the whole process.

Of course DV video with its limited color sampling and small frame size also has severe limitations; but the workflow is pretty well understood and (IMHO) very robust.

Also, when working with DSLRs you need to be very disciplined and have experience in what is called separate audio system production: if you are not careful you'll end with takes with no sound or with very serious lip-sync issues.

From the production standpoint (I used to be a camera operator man years ago) I believe the video camera package is more compact and robust: if you don't have a good crew (necessary for separate audio work) you'll encounter a lot of trouble.

In the end, it all boils down to the kind of project you want to make and the resources you have access-to.

Sorry for the long post. English is not my native language so please excuse my poor grammar and orthography.

Regards,

Jj

 

[maranfilms]

so it's either the dvx100, or a DSLR? how about an actual video camera that shoots HD. it's amazing these things don't get mentioned much anymore in certain threads.

+1 , I agree Chris. There are lots of nice Hd camcorders that are selling for low prices. I tested a t2i yesterday against an xha1's with a Redrock M2 encore. The camcorder with adapter was sharper in every test, with little aliasing, and almost no moire. And it had a beautiul organic grainy film like look, that was still very crisp. The t3i on the other hand ruined the same shots due to the moire issue. In a real shooting scenario, I would have been screwed if it were my only cam. Though I do admit, the camcorder dof rig, doesn't compare when it comes to low light. But lighting is part of the gig when it comes to narrative work. Thats something that will need to learned regardless.

Just goes to show you need to use the right tool or the right job.

Dvx footage has been in many festivals, and has one many awards. Not to mention the camera won't help you if your unable to write a good script and tell a story. Thats what will get you noticed, not the camera, we already know any o these cams, whether sd, or hd, are all capable to make beautiul images.

 

[hendosan]

shoot with 35mm lens f2.8 and it will be ok for you.Not so shallow but still good.

And yes, I did mean the Canon 7D has way too shallow depth of field. At least on many short films shot on it on YouTube.

This little bit made me laugh. f/2.8 is not so shallow? It's actually really freaking shallow, I actually don't understand why people think they need to always shoot with a wide aperture/short depth of field all the time. Anybody watch any TV or movies? Professional cinematographers don't compose the majority of their shots like that!

Having a fast lens is great for shooting with available light, but if you're chasing a cinematic look it is not a great idea to have blurred out backgrounds in every shot. Add light, stop down. Hell, I am working on an ad campaign now that will be posted on billboards and bus stops, the photographer is shooting with a 5D and his aperture in those shots is NEVER open past f/5.6.

OP, I think you would do well with a T2i and a kit lens, and a cheapo CFL lighting kit. Maybe buy a Rode Videomic for audio. Once you've understood more of the process you can spend more money on quality gear, but for the same price as your DVX100 you can get a new camera body/lens, a mic, and cheap lighting.

 

[Joshbalti]

Sd is dead. Having worked extensively with a Dvx you simply cannot compare the quality. Honestly it's not even close, sure a DVX in the right hands can produce a good image, a dslr in the right hands can produce Astonishing drop dead images.

SD is'nt anywhere near dead. of the last 10 or so jobs i have done, only one has been HD, there is still massive demand for standard def, thats why youre seeing standard def being incorporated into new HD cams (sony f3, the new panasonic hpx250 etc). the dvx is getting long in the tooth now, but it's still a lot nicer to use than a dslr for the majority of shooting situations, and the pictures you can get out of it are still amazing. think about from the audiences point of view, not a video geeks point of view.

 

[Snapper123]

Well, to be honest, you really don't need anything special for a DSLR beyond mics. With the Panasonic GH2, T2i ML, T3I, and 60D, which all have more features than the 7D, you have manual audio built in. It's not fabulous, but it's not a ballpark away from the quality you get if you plugged a cheap crappy mic into a DVX.

Also, a thing to consider is that while DSLR's do "1080P", they only have a true resolution chart res of about 640p, in which I believe the DVX cuts out this flimsy rule, meaning that with the DVX, you'll get about the same resolution (though I think a bit lower, like 480P-540p). But however, the true negative to the DVX is not much depth of field (if you don't like depth of field, just stop down the aperture on the DSLR, but if you need it, at least you have it.)

And contrary to what folks are saying, you really only need the same equipment as for a DVX - you're going to have to have equipment regardless. Many simple shoulder systems are in the $300 range, isn't that much. And you sure don't need a bunch of lenses, a set of ND filters will come in handy more than any lens will. At the most, you'd need the kit lens (make sure it's the 18-135mm, 75mm-135mm is an important range to have), and a couple of primes.

Also, consider jumping from Canon entirely and getting a GH2, it has more features than any DSLR to date, has proven better quality than any DSLR to date, and so far, it has the mosy accurate out-of-the-box footage I've seen - people just have had an easier time editing and creating perfection from the GH2, while 99% of the Canon productions are still stuck in a bad skin tone, wonky exposure style. It's really only the complete geniuses who are pulling greatness out of Canon files.

Also GH has no aliasing and moire!

 

[dantakesphotos]

Some basics

Some basics

I have an idea, why don't we ask the OP what he intends to use the camera for (docs, features, shorts, etc) to determine what he needs NOW and how his budget can be spent.

So, OP, what are you planning on shooting? What focal ranges do you like (ie close ups, wides) Do you need something tripod mounted or would you like it on your shoulder? I can come up with recommendations for all of these but we first need to asses your needs.

 

[kevinkt]

To the OP, I would say do a bit more research before you shoot a feature. It is pretty blatantly obvious that a DVX is going to be inferior to any DSLR. And if you haven't had a camera yet, your footage is going to look like it (unless you aren't the cinematographer, but it sounds like you are).

Get a DSLR, practice for a LONG time, then shoot that feature.

 

[Jordan Scott Price]

Anybody watch any TV or movies? Professional cinematographers don't compose the majority of their shots like that!

TV and Film productions usually have millions of dollars behind them, which is funneled into production design. One of the key dividers between student film/low-budget film and TV/major motion picture is the quality of production design. It's expensive, time-consuming, requires a skilled art director and production designer, and often more lights to resolve the set in camera. When all that work is put in, no director would settle for five feet of depth of field on any focal length. You would want to show off all those set pieces with a greater depth of field.

For the micro-budget filmmaker (e.g. YouTubers), letting the lens morph ugly or unfitting backgrounds into sparkling bokeh is as much a creative choice as it is a result of limitations.

 

[arniepix]

I'm really surprised that anyone would seriously consider spending 4 figures on an SD camera at this time. We live in an HD world. There are many great and easy options for SD delivery if you shoot HD. There are very few options for good HD delivery if you shoot SD, and those are all either expensive or very time consuming. Also, shooting SD will really limit your sales these days.

 

[Zxander34]

I'm really surprised that anyone would seriously consider spending 4 figures on an SD camera at this time. We live in an HD world. There are many great and easy options for SD delivery if you shoot HD. There are very few options for good HD delivery if you shoot SD, and those are all either expensive or very time consuming. Also, shooting SD will really limit your sales these days.

Listen, a used lightly used DVX100B is around 800$.

In my opinion, a DVX will teach anyone new to cinematography much more than if they were constantly grappling with the limitations set forth by DSLRs.