The Great DSLR Question

gonzo_entertainment said:
Everybody is free to do whatever they want with their own camera, but I shoot the 5D with OEM firmware only, no Magic Lantern. If it offered something earth shaking (60 fps, fulls res HDMI out) I'd consider it, but it doesn't because it can't (processor limitations of the camera).
Click to expand...

I hear that. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. For me, I wanted audio control. Monitoring with headphones and disable of AGC was the reason I did it initially. There are times that an external recorder was impractical for me and I like being able to know that my Mic is working and doesn't have any weak connections.

Then once I had it, there were SO MANY useful features. Especially for focus if you can't view full HD out while filming.
Magic Zoom gives you a little square of live magnification area (which can be moved around the screen with the directional controls), so you can pull a more accurate focus on standard definition. Also focus peaking and false colors are useful, but nothing quite like the magic zoom. I don't know how people pull as accurate a focus on a small screen without it. While having full HD out to a monitor would be more ideal, being able to view selective magnification on pixels you want critically focused is really the next best thing.

I don't agree you necessarily need MORE light with DSLR, you just need more carefully designed light. The very narrow dynamic range and tendency to blow out the highlights in very ugly fashion with pretty much all digital cameras means you have to weigh those limitations when you design the lighting.

Bottom line is you can make good looking film with any of the major players if you play to their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. I prefer the look of the 5D, you might not.
Click to expand...

No one is knocking the 5D. :) The FOV alone is worth it, if you can spare the cash.
 
I got most of those ML features via my monitor (DP-6) upscales the output to a crispness that allows good focus, false color, focus assist, crop marks, etc... Granted that's a $1000 solution, but it works. I never run audio to the camera, so the biggie of improved camera audio doesn't do anything for me.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
Same. My DP4 takes care of exposure and focus no matter what camera I'm shooting on.
Click to expand...

Although if you were on any other Canon other than a 7D, focus especially would be severely handicapped as soon as you hit record and the output to your SmallHD drops to SD.

Magic Lantern's focus and exposure tricks continue to work while recording, especially important on the cameras it works on, which all have limited resolution HDMI output during recoding.

I'm sorry, but being "glad" that your camera is unhackable is incredibly silly - if you don't want a hack, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to get the most for your money. I'm sure Canon will gladly take your $20,000 and give you a camera with firmware that fully utilizes its hardware, fully cooked by the OEM and nobody else. I make my living with such rental cameras (mostly Arri and Red these days, but I cut my teeth on Panaflex, Arriflex and Moviecam) but with my personal cameras, I prefer to pay less and get more. (And in case you were wondering, yes I do fully trust Magic Lantern in a professional production environment and would not hesitate to use it were the cameras appropriate for the project.)
 
Last edited:
"Although if you were on any other Canon other than a 7D, focus especially would be severely handicapped as soon as you hit record and the output to your SmallHD drops to SD. "

That's the point, it doesn't. Granted, the chip in the monitor is taking the SD signal from the camera and digitally enhancing it to bring it back to HD resolution, but in practice it's plenty sharp for focusing. Also, the improved focus assist on the new firmware is very usable while shooting.
 
nothing said:
Although if you were on any other Canon other than a 7D, focus especially would be severely handicapped as soon as you hit record and the output to your SmallHD drops to SD.

All Magic Lantern's focus and exposure tricks continue to work while recording, especially important on the cameras it works on, which all have limited resolution HDMI output during recoding.

I'm sorry, but being "glad" that your camera in unhackable is incredibly silly - if you don't want a hack, don't use it. Nobody is forcing you to get the most for your money. I'm sure Canon will gladly take your $20,000 and give you a camera with firmware that fully utilizes it's hardware, fully cooked by the OEM and nobody else. I make my living with such rental cameras (mostly Arri and Red these days, but I cut my teeth on Panaflex, Arriflex and Moviecam) but with my personal cameras, I prefer to pay less and get more. (And in case you were wondering, yes I do fully trust Magic Lantern in a professional production environment and would not hesitate to use it were the cameras appropriate for the project.)
Click to expand...

That's great.

I'm silly for not wanting hacks for a camera when I don't need them, since I invested in products made by cost-driven third parties with customer service?

You can also read my other posts about how this isn't the camera I always shoot on. In fact, I often rent for most of my productions now. So, we're arguing about marbles here with cameras that mean little to us.

Cool.
 
As I said, if it bought me something I really needed I'd use it, but IMO it doesn't do anything (at this stage of the OEM firmware) to be worth screwing with it. For some it might, if so, more power to you.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
I'm silly for not wanting hacks for a camera when I don't need them, since I invested in products made by cost-driven third parties with customer service?
Click to expand...

No, you are being silly for being "glad" that the hacks aren't even available. There is nobody forcing you to use anything you don't want to.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Granted, the chip in the monitor is taking the SD signal from the camera and digitally enhancing it to bring it back to HD resolution, but in practice it's plenty sharp for focusing.
Click to expand...

If that works for you, great. I've used it and it's not acceptable for me when shooting wide open, critical focus that will hold up on a 50" 1080 display can not be judged from an upscaled SD signal. If you are shooting on a 7D with 1080 output during recording then it's fine, but with any other Canon it just doesn't work well enough to pull focus during a shot at wide apertures.

Plus the added bulk and expense - I like these cameras because of their size and cost. Doubling the price and size (and quadrupling the awkwardness) by adding a monitor makes these cameras much less appealing for my use.

As a side note: I do love the SmallHD when fed by an HD signal. Lately it's been my monitor of choice for use with other cameras - at first I was forced to use it when the Panasonic monitors I had been using wouldn't play nice with the Epic's SDI output, but then as I got to know it and how to set it up, I began to prefer it with other cameras too. Very nice little monitors, I'm not against them per se.
 
Last edited:
I'll have to admit, focus peaking with the new Magic Lantern is a life saver for hitting critical focus regardless if you are using a monitor or not. The latest Dec 12 edition is incredible for pulling focus at f1.8 or lower in a dark environment. Even with my 50 year old eyes it works quite well on the 3" screen. With a monitor it would be untouchable.

ML is so simple and straight forward these days that for that feature alone it is worth it. If you are pulling focus in any way during recording it makes life orders of magnitude easier. I haven't seen another solution at any price that compares.

Cheers,
Pete
 
nothing said:
No, you are being silly for being "glad" that the hacks aren't even available. There is nobody forcing you to use anything you don't want to.
Click to expand...

Yep. I like knowing that the Model X camera I bought is the same as the other guy's Model X.

The variables that hacks/plug-ins/whatevers create seem to distract shooters from the purpose of owning a camera - to create and to make a living, not to shoot test footage and compare bit rate hacks, etc. I'm around people all the time who talk about the next hack or this hack they just tried - it bothers me because it's so not the point of owning a camera, and, to me, it is silly. I don't care if I'm stepping on the toes of GH2 or Magic Lantern fanboys here because I just don't agree with having to hack your camera to get the best. It's not the pursuit I disagree with, but the method.

I prefer a level playing field - that is, if we all bought the same camera and were tasked to shoot a project, it would not be about who has the newest and greatest hack from the far side of the world, but who is the best and executes the best. Like I said before, you don't see anyone hacking cinema cameras because 1) they don't need to be hacked and 2) those shooting with them don't need hacks.

I completely understand wanting to get the most for your money and pushing the limitations of the equipment. There is a whole industry for DSLR video because people did just that. However, it seems to me that all the discussion about DSLR video is not about the quality of the image as it pertains to the production, but rather the effects of the newest hack or plug-in.
 
Excuse me, but how exactly are all the discussions about crazy expensive lenses and accessories any more of a 'level playing field' than a hack to improve something about the camera?
I mean, for every thread/video about pushing the video bitrate of the GH2, I find a "Testing my 5DmII with glidegear 4000 stabilizer and 24mm F/1.2 lens!".
Gosh, why can't everyone just be shooting on the same cheap cameras I can afford and their kit lenses?? Level the playing field, man!

Look, everyone wants to improve the quality of their video.
If that means investing in better lights, great.
Better lenses? Fantastic.
Better stabilizers, rigs, sliders, etc.? Awesome.

But pushing the bitrate of a GH2? No way, man. That's cheating. :/

Listen, I get it, its complicated mumbo jumbo that isn't even compatible with your camera, and just seems like everyone is more concerned about that than the quality of their story telling. But to be fair, this is the DSLR section of a camera forum. People come here to get technical and talk specs. There's a section for cinematography and scriptwriting, as well as viewing area for folks to post their narrative work for us all to watch and critique. But people come here to discuss what we can do to make our cameras look as great as they can. And if that means adding fast lenses and hacking my bitrate, who are you to decide what is "level" and what is going too far? As far as I'm concerned, being required to purchase $2k worth of lenses is going too far. But I don't judge people who do that, and I'm sure their footage looks great in ways mine doesn't because of that. Me? If I can push the quality of my video with a simple hack that doesn't break anything and costs me nothing, why not embrace it?

Oh and for the record- Magic Lantern doesn't really do anything for the quality of the image. I mean, you can technically enhance the bitrate using the Qscale modifier, but there isn't enough of a gain from that for people to be discussing it. Its mostly a tool to help with things like focus, composing, shortcuts to make certain functions more accessible, etc... so in that regard, its more like an improved workflow, like an external monitor any other accessory that helps you do your job. I'm not sure why you keep referring to it as something you are expected to do to get the best quality. It really has nearly nothing to do with IQ.
So really, it just sounds like you're complaining about all the GH2 hack threads specifically. And are they really that common that they bother you so much?
I haven't hacked my GH2 because I haven't needed to yet. One day, I might work on a greenscreen project with it or something, in which that extra bitrate will help me get a clean key due to less compression. Knowing I can do it instead of having to use a different camera is wonderful, and exactly WHY I come to forums like this!
 
You have certain valid point on the geeky side of the dslr world, but it is in general. You see the same thing in photography on forums like dpreview etc. It is annoying in many many ways that the artisctic side of thing is being drown into that. But the hack, I am talking more from the gh2 because I know it ( could apply as much to the magic lantern one, would be nice to have a version with the functionality for the gh2) is bringing cinema like performance to the mass. By cinema performance I mean resolution, true 1080p and solid image quality with a robust codec. But to reach that, there need be a lot of testing, if you follow the gh2 video, more and more you can see artistic ones coming out. There will be a lot of people that will stay at the pixelpeeper/tester level, but the others will have a very very powerful tool for $ 700. The mass will have cinema quality camera, this is liberating.

It is like the guy that just some mod to his car supercharge its horse power to rival a Sport car. Yes the guys that buy cinema camera don't need to hack them, because it like the guy who buys a sport car, does not have to mod it. The sport car is already designed and powered to be very fast.

I always say that I would like to be a writer, he just need a pen and a piece of paper to create. Unfortunately, filming is at the other extreme, I think the costliest of Art form is moving pictures. Until about the dslr revolution, it would would cost you a sport car or a house to be abble to get an s35 camera. People where putting all type of clunky thing to be able to simulate S35 look etc. Yes the camera is not enough, but it is the first step to get the look, everything like lighting etc ads up to that. If you think well, the dslr themself are hacks, they where never meant to be used as cinema cameras, it was just to film some news for photojournalist. People have change and enhanced(by rigging) those tool to completely different function that they where meant.

The camera manufacturer would have liked to sell us there 1/4 inch sensor 24 mbit codec camera. The same as the car manufactures will prefer you to buy there sport model than to mod your car. In time all the technicalities of the hack will have settled, but artist/creators/filmmakers of all horizon will be able to create with cameras that don't need you too mortgage your house. At least we have the pen now, just need the paper and the mind.
 
Look at this example to illustrate my point, shot with a budget of Euro 3500, with a hacked gh2. Not the highest bitrate etc. but already very very good, at a certain quality who cares.

 
Look, everyone wants to improve the quality of their video.
If that means investing in better lights, great.
Better lenses? Fantastic.
Better stabilizers, rigs, sliders, etc.? Awesome.
Click to expand...

Except lights, lenses, and stabilizers have been around forever and are a staple in a production. They are necessary infrastructure in filmmaking.

Hacking? Not so much. I know it's for the pursuit of the best quality video you can get for the money, I just disagree with it.


Danielvilliers said:
but already very very good, at a certain quality who cares.
Click to expand...

Exactly.


Look, I'm not trying to convince anyone I'm right or they're wrong. I'm rebutting on what I felt was a provocation. I left this thread a week ago to "agree to disagree," as M. Gilden put it. Just providing my side of things, since someone asked. I think the need to hack a camera to realize its abilities is ridiculous, but I also know where that comes from and why people do it. Like I said before, I agree with the pursuit, disagree with the method, but that doesn't mean I'm right and you're wrong. I just don't agree with it.

Bye.
 
You guys keep throwing that video up. Yeah, it looks good, is it inherently way better than what can be achieved with the Canon cameras, eh, maybe, hard to tell, and in the end one moderately (but by no means the MOST) important thing in the production of a good movie.
 
Jordan Scott Price said:
Except lights, lenses, and stabilizers have been around forever and are a staple in a production. They are necessary infrastructure in filmmaking.
Click to expand...
As is using the camera in creative ways to get the shot as you imagined it.
Stanley Kubrick famously repurposed NASA satellite lenses in order to shoot at F/0.7, and had to modify a film camera to work with it.
Kubrick essentially shot with a hacked camera, because it allowed him to do something that would not have looked the same otherwise.
Many famous directors (James Cameron, Spielberg, etc) have resorted to custom-built and modified equipment and rigs to achieve something unique and often legendary.

I'd say that hacking is 100% part of creative film making!

Sometimes you have to think outside the box in order to get something exactly the way you want it. You do whatever it takes.
Digital filmmaking is in itself a new medium. You're already not doing things "the traditional way".
For crying out loud, you're using a STILL camera, and recording onto a lossy codec (especially one like H.264 which is normally meant for delivery) to replace what used to be shot on film!
That in it of itself is a form of hacking.
If you could plug a Atomos Ninja into your 7D and record clean HDMI out in 4:2:2 instead of using the internal 4:2:0 H.264 recording onto the card, wouldn't you? Why is changing the recording format acceptable, but changing the internal bitrate not?

Hacking? Not so much. I know it's for the pursuit of the best quality video you can get for the money, I just disagree with it.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the mentality that hacking your camera is wrong. Don't call it a "hack" if that makes it easier to accept. I get the impression that "hack" is a dirty word to you. Indeed it implies something half-baked and unstable, possibly illegal. But none of that applies here. Call it an accessory, call it a setting, call it whatever you want. Its really no different than discovering a really good lens that gives you the picture you couldn't get before. Its just another tool in your arsenal.
 
Last edited:
Any chance of going back to the original question - latest and best options in DSLR's?
Which is more interesting to me, arguably more constructive than an extended debate on hacking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top