My Last Rant

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
WE have all had our rants, and we often rant about the same thing over and over. Here is my last rant, so it is here, and not repeated over and over in countless threads.

You know your rant. Leave it here. The rest of the threads can be for what they are designed for. Hope your rant is constructive, but doesn't have to be if it is fun.
 
My Last rant….


In this rant I will say…
-Why I think many consumers need 4k and 8k, but many pros don't.
-Talk about why camera companies should be able to make cheaper s35 cameras with high image quality (even good s35 4k for that matter)
-Pros should still pay more, because they make money off these things, AND they need things consumers don't.
-What a consumer needs. (yes we need histograms and zebras! No, hdmi is fine.)
-What cameras I believe were game changers.








It is just sad to see what we know to be possible within a price bracket, but it just keeps getting missed, every time, year after year.


I am even surprised that the consumer market doesn't have higher standards than the pro market. Why? More about that later.


Ok, so Canon created the perfect video camera in The C300. Not really. Remember it is aimed at pros, yet it is not going to last for pros, as the cinema industry is on the verge of 4k (but I don't care about pros, they are making money on these tools). The 1d-c which is also aimed at pros is nice, but none standard APS-H and 8bit and limited to 24p make its days numbered too. Meanwhile the consumer end still has the same s35 HD video quality since 2009, when a stills camera "accidentally" started doing video. So, they are not revolutionary, because they are just enough for pros, for now, and out of price for the consumer. They also have functions the consumer doesn't need.


It is sad to see TV productions, like Dexter, being shot on a D800, rather than a C300 (ok, I found out nikon was potentially lending them the gear, but Wilfred is being shot entirely on D800's. Anyway, the D800 is used in season 7, and the gas station scene is all D800 in the first episode, and mainy of the funky high and low angle shots are Nikon). Arri is their main camera, but they use the D800 too. They aren't even shooting uncompressed with the D800, but using the footage from the internal codec. But are productions really not concerned about all the pro ins and outs? (I am not going to put zebras and histograms in the pro arena, because even hobbyists need those.)


In my mind, fiction doesn't need quality, since most fiction is fluff for a profit. It only has to last long enough to turn a profit. The only people that need quality are artist (which many in the commercial world are) and people who want to preserve pristine images, which may be a documentarian, but may just be a father filming his family at those moments between moments, using it to show great grand children what their family was like. Fiction for profit has also many logistics that make higher quality a moot point too: much is watched online via netflix, or the back row of a theater (where resolution benefits are of no consequence). Also, they have budgets to compensate for a cameras limitations. Because even with better cameras, they are still going to have lightingg gurus, so 21 DR doesn't make a huge difference to them, meanwhile consumers are stuck with 8-10.5 stops DR. Ok, 10.5 is nice, and it is really close to keeping me from complaining, but 13.5 is kind of the bench mark. I would probably shut up with a solid 12. But yeah, 18 is my dream. Eventhough 13.5 is "enough" for me, and 12.5 is fine. I can do a lot more with 12.5 than 10, but the difference between 14 and 18 is marginal. But data is data, and options are nice. I do wonder the benefits of storing so much data though. There is a point.


The issue is, that most consumers are unaware that they could get better quality for the same cost. This is in part because of marketing and product tiering. This is also because they do not spend the mental energy on the quality of the consumer camera, and just think that is how things are.


But, regardless of the knowledge that higher quality s35 video could exist, doesn't mean that I think all cameras are crap, or that camera engineers aren't doing great things. I like the C300 and 1d-c. Very useful and many little innovations and seemed to be well thought out little amazing human accomplishments. But so are the machines and processes and marketing departments and infrastructures that allow manufacturers to mass produce cameras cheaply and sell them to more people at smaller profit margins.


Here is maybe the only time I will quote Philip Bloom "...I'm no fanboy to any particular camera manufacturer, I'm a total camera whore. I love them all... well, I don't love them all, I get frustrated by them all. I don't have any particular loyalty to one or the other." They are frustrating.


Sadly, I am not a pro. Maybe I should be, so I don't have to complain about cameras anymore. But I don't think I ever want to be a pro. It is like enjoying cooking, and someone telling you to run a restaurant. No, thank you.


Not having the perfect camera doesn't stop me from shooting. I shoot all the time. Happily. I just see technology is capable of producing something at a given price, and I see that most people would be able to appreciate the improvement, but all held back by an industry being averse to change. A multimedia industry afraid of losing their investment, and camera companies afraid of losing their high end market to TV shows using dslr's. So, I talk about it. (I'm sure it is more complicated than that, but complicating the issue never gets anything changed, because at the end of the day, it really is THAT simple).


And I end up going on rants here, because I actually read here from time to time. Yes, crazy I know, but there are some real good people on here, and I have learned much, and find the opinions here valuable.


It is exciting to see Red moving off the film standard into new territory, and an over saturated camera market, and the death of film. Seems like cameras could be better in general. Stills photography has been doing it since the Nikon D40. Cheap and basic, but can get good results. Also, the D600 is better than the 1D-X in some image regards. In stills, it seems the basic image is not the deciding factor. The whole package is. Whereas, in video, everything is separated by IQ.


1080p video is no longer an expensive technological feat. $480 cameras have amazing s35 sensors. But you won't find an s35 camera under $10k that is memorable. Ok, I am getting off track, and we all know all this stuff.


Idk, years ago, I told myself 'well, just shoot film if it is so important', but that is not really a reality anymore. Not like it used to be. And now that it is so blatant that manufacturers are avoiding the 'fix', cause only the sick need medicine.


But this is what gets me... consumers are silly, they would pay for the same product if you just changed the cover to something more stylish. That is often what companies are doing anyways, so why not just start doing that, but with better IQ. This is even an issue in the prosumer market, you could release a silver version with an f3 image, first, and two years later keep the same basic IQ components, but release a black version with an instagram-for-video app and time-lapse (maybe up the frame rate to 100?) and you would make more money than releasing a 4k version. 'Cause you gotta have time-lapse.


It is cool to see the tech that has gone into the stills market. In particular the cellphone cameras. Amazing developments in sensor tech have happened there. Look at the iPhone 5. Yes, mass markets are great. But that means nobody will need to buy point-and-shoots, so they will be looking for that large sensor look when they are buying a dedicated camera. So, 5 years from now I am sure I will not be worried about video camera IQ. I am just sad to see it getting missed. So much tech in these little cameras, and major video omissions. An FS100 is very comparable to an f3, and an f3 is a very capable 1080p camera, but neither of them has a very good internal codec. And they both have horrid ergonomics.


That is the thing, every time we think of the thing that will 'be enough', it is always impossible. I attribute that to the perception that if consumer/prosumer priced video rivals pro gear, that there will be no profits for camera companies and an industry (rental companies, production companies, and TV stations) which was built on the assumption that pro gear is ridiculously expensive, will topple. But also, because sometimes our demands truly are unrealistic. Because it is always easy to find fault after the fact.


Look at who has been the most progressive and change making in the motion world... (according to me, not in reality)
-Red: Changed the pro standard. The Genesis was amazing, but Red change the pricing game, changed the form factor game, and changed the resolution.
-BMCC: Brought not only RAW and Prores/DNxHD video into a new price bracket, but 13+ stops DR. Stellar imaging. (sad it wasn't s35)
-Ikonskop: Made a small RAW camera with a shape that makes sense.
- Canon 5dmk2: was an accident. And everything went back to normal after that. No major developments in their dslr video. (The C300 is an improvement on the Red concept, so tip of the hat to red on that.) (The 5dmk2 improvements are offset by a price increase, and very blurry D4-ish video with no DR improvements. The timecode and lowlight are pretty spectacular, but nulled by murky 720p-ish 1080p. Now, that low light ability with clear 1080p would blow my mind. the lack of major IQ improvement...maybe if the 5dmk2 had been silver, maybe the new black 5dmk3 would've sold better.)




All the big companies have done some things here or there. But they are largely targeted towards the higher end prosumer and pro market:


The FS700 is amazing frame rates at a new price, but I don't need that, and 48fps on a $2k camera that shoots good 1080p is fine with me. Yes, I prefer 4k or 8k, but I realize that is not cheap enough for consumer video yet. And there are many other examples like that. Panasonic release the HPX500. That changed the 2/3" game, but again, more for the entry level pro.


The DVX100 is perhaps one of the very few video cameras that seemed nearly flawless for its time. We understood that having a tape deck made it difficult to get better ergonomics, but it was small enough that we didn't care. (then they released the HVX nastiness). Canon showed that adding size didn't have to make it worse, and it could still be very portable, enter XL2. But that movement was short lived with HD hitting the market. (I actually like the form of the DVC30 with a foldable butt-stock better than either of those in form. Very much like a dslr or C300. )


SLR and digital imaging technology soared with the digital stills cameras hitting the market. The tech improved so fast that it just accidentally spilled into the video world, and started making better video than dedicated video cameras costing many times more. But even with the stills market giving the video world technology, they still can't get their act together and come up with something as satisfying as the VX/DVX/XL era.


Video camera companies were so incapable, and had such small markets, that the stills market accidentally made better video cameras!!!! Not just in image quality, but in form factor, as well!!!!! Think about it.


Ok, ENG guys and cinema rental guys, you did invest and get good products.


So, are little basic cameras with good IQ a threat to the industry? Will TV shows be required to shoot on dslrs because they shoot 4k 12bit? Why has the stills market not worried about these things? Because the stills market knows you need pro functionality to operate in the pro world. A D800 should not be the A-cam on a show. That would be awful for everyone working. The D800 is actually beating out the C300 as b-cam for the show Dexter. Though if Dexter was choosing an A-cam between those two, I don't know that the D800 would still win. But since they already have an Alexa or two, they probably don't have the budget for a c300. If the C100 had a better internal codec, or was cheaper, it would probably be THE go-to bcam for Alexa productions. Which makes you wonder, how lucrative is the bcam market? But at the end of the day, the shows Fletcher says "It won't ever replace teh Alexa, which is a better form factor..."

I truly believe better image quality is more important for the consumer hobbyist than it is for the pro. Their is no pipeline for high resolution content to get to the consumers, and there is no need for someone relaxing on their couch watching a film to go beyond HD. But a consumer playing back video footage of their kids in 10years is important. That science team, that only has so much in the camera budget, can benefit from 4k 60p. Hollywood and entertainment should never have been the leader in imagining because they only need it to be at a certain level. "Hey film guy, I am glad you only need 720/24p to tell an engaging story that I don't care about."


Well, wish things weren't so complicated. But here is my rant, and I no longer need to go on and on about this stuff. Hope you agree with some of this.
 
Last edited:
Donald Ong said:
We really do need a new DVX100, don't we?
Click to expand...
I actually agree with you there. But remember the DVX100 wasn't the end all be all. It was the perfect compromise of its day.

I remember many of the complaints with each DVX100 model. Ergonomics was always one of them. The list goes on. But it was good enough in all areas based on what was perceived as possible, at that time.

This video reminded me of the 5dmkII (yes, 2) mojo, that kind of makes me feel the mk2 was the DVX100 of its day.

Silly that even 3 years later the dslr tech almost takes a step back in video quality(not really). Although, D800 is also really nice in this. The 5mk3 and D4 have similar appeal to me. The D4 has crop features that appeal to me, if I were shooting SD or Web content. If SD were still the standard, man! the D4 would be amazing.

The D800 is a little under appreciated, I think. That motorcycle video didn't help it, and then the 5dmk3 lowlight footage came out. Even though the footage is mushy it has low noise, so wowed everyone.. turned out that the iso levels were not accurate....

The D800 @ ISO 2000 has almost as much shadow info as the 5DmkIII at ISO6400. Meanwhile, it has more detail.

d800vs5dmk3_iso copy by onesielaff, on Flickr

Here's a dvxuser blast from the past....
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/18212-dvx100a-msrp-release-announced.html

and... a review by Jared Land and Barry Green...

...Are they rating the DVX at 7 stops DR? How did we ever shoot anything?????
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

One thing to remember, is that around the time of the DVX reign, a certain sunglasses mogul was wondering why a dslr couldn't be turned into a video camera.....
 
Last edited:
Large sensors cost MUCH more to manufacture. Far fewer chips on a wafer and still a lot of waste. I think what Thom Hogan wrote about a year ago gives some insight:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]But some of you seem surprised that US$3000 is still the lowest price for an FX body. It's the sensor that does that. Sensor cost goes up rapidly with size. It used to be that it was $5, $50, $500 (compact, DX, FX). While those prices have changed a bit in relationship to one another, FX sensor prices are still very high and ultimately dictate the price of the product. Manufacturing rule of thumb is you multiply parts cost by 3.5 to get retail price impact, so a US$400 sensor means that there is US$1400 worth of cost in the final product implied by the sensor alone. You still need to put electronics, viewfinder, shutter, battery, body, LCD, controls, and more into the product.[/FONT]
Click to expand...

I know people who work at a large company that fabs a lot of silicon that is in products a lot of us own. They've said very similar things about the costs of producing larger sensors.
 
James0b57 said:
I actually agree with you there. But remember the DVX100 wasn't the end all be all. It was the perfect compromise of its day.

I remember many of the complaints with each DVX100 model. Ergonomics was always one of them. The list goes on. But it was good enough in all areas based on what was perceived as possible, at that time.

This video reminded me of the 5dmkII (yes, 2) mojo, that kind of makes me feel the mk2 was the DVX100 of its day.

Silly that even 3 years later the dslr tech almost takes a step back in video quality(not really). Although, D800 is also really nice in this. The 5mk3 and D4 have similar appeal to me. The D4 has crop features that appeal to me, if I were shooting SD or Web content. If SD were still the standard, man! the D4 would be amazing.

The D800 is a little under appreciated, I think. That motorcycle video didn't help it, and then the 5dmk3 lowlight footage came out. Even though the footage is mushy it has low noise, so wowed everyone.. turned out that the iso levels were not accurate....

The D800 @ ISO 2000 has almost as much shadow info as the 5DmkIII at ISO6400. Meanwhile, it has more detail.

d800vs5dmk3_iso copy by onesielaff, on Flickr

Here's a dvxuser blast from the past....
http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/panasonic-dvx-dvc-assistant/18212-dvx100a-msrp-release-announced.html

and... a review by Jared Land and Barry Green...

...Are they rating the DVX at 7 stops DR? How did we ever shoot anything?????
http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/shoot3/

One thing to remember, is that around the time of the DVX reign, a certain sunglasses mogul was wondering why a dslr couldn't be turned into a video camera.....
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering how tests shots like these are able to make the mark3 look so clean. I mean yeh, it's really clean, but 6400 definitely has more noise than in that frame grab...
 
Donald Ong said:
I'm still wondering how tests shots like these are able to make the mark3 look so clean. I mean yeh, it's really clean, but 6400 definitely has more noise than in that frame grab...
Click to expand...

Because of noise reducation, which is why the D800 is noisier but retains more detail. Just look at the detail in the face, which is to say there isn't any.
 
Gary Huff said:
Because of noise reducation, which is why the D800 is noisier but retains more detail. Just look at the detail in the face, which is to say there isn't any.
Click to expand...

Wait...so the test videos apply denoising in post? that's cheating, isn't it? Or do they crank high iso noise reduction in camera all the way up? (I usually have it a standard...haven't tested out this extensively, though)
Because my mark3 high iso footage looks decently sharp but definitely noisier than the test footage people post...
 
No, in the front of the sensor. There's always some big of NR going on even if you set it to 0, at least from what I've seen.
 
Gary Huff said:
No, in the front of the sensor. There's always some big of NR going on even if you set it to 0, at least from what I've seen.
Click to expand...

yeah. I've heard that too.
Stil want to know what those 'tests' are doing to get virtually noise free 6400/12800, though... Maybe it's just Vimeo compression making the noise less visible..?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top