The Video/Digital Cinema News Cycle is Eating Itself?
- Thread starter puredrifting
- Start date
Run&Gun
Veteran
Run&Gun
Veteran
And once again the term “Starving Artist” is relevant.
Run&Gun
Veteran
I absolutely love my VariCams. Even though my newest ones are roughly eight years old, from a user standpoint, they blow anything else I’ve touched in the last five years away, including the Amira.
ND: Check. Choice of 0, 2, 4 or 6 stops as fast as you can turn a mechanical dial.
Simple handling and ergonomics: Double check.
Solid mount points: Check, but could be subject to your own subjective standards on what you consider “solid”.
Built-in “lav reciever”: Check. Not a factory item, but built-in slot for two channel receiver. Greatly streamlines production. And leaves two full-sized XLR’s open for quick access, plus I have two dedicated channels always being fed a nat mic that doesn’t have to be rigged and sacrifice audio channels from wireless or mixer feeds.
Controls: Physical knobs and switches for audio, timecode, WB, BB, gain(ISO), etc.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Personally I like cameras of low mass doing lots of gimbals and mounts so I would not want a full eng camera.
Got a rental FS5 in at the mo.. so light.. but that is my point.. the 2/3 cams are designed for using professionally whereas todays cameras seem to have been designed by interns or bloggers or have had critical flaws included to make one desire the next 'upgrade' in the line.
Ive got so cross with my FS7 that Ive thought about finding a 2/3 camera for shoulder work
Run&Gun
Veteran
Personally I like cameras of low mass doing lots of gimbals and mounts so I would not want a full eng camera.
Got a rental FS5 in at the mo.. so light.. but that is my point.. the 2/3 cams are designed for using professionally whereas todays cameras seem to have been designed by interns or bloggers or have had critical flaws included to make one desire the next 'upgrade' in the line.
Ive got so cross with my FS7 that Ive thought about finding a 2/3 camera for shoulder work
Not a bad idea. Quality ENG cam's are pretty inexpensive on eBay, now. Honestly, so much of what I/we do could/should be done with 2/3" ENG cameras and those shoots would be better served being done that way. I've actually taken a 2/3" camera and large sensor camera on the same shoot before. 2/3" for the nuts 'n bolts/off-the-shoulder type stuff and large sensor for the interviews and maybe some b-roll. I had a two-day BTS shoot the other week on a national commercial and when I asked the PC what camera they wanted, she asked what I had. I told her P2 VariCam, C300 and F55. She said it was my choice. I chose P2 Vari. Wide angle servo zoom lens, slot-in wireless for feed from the mixer, on-board nat mic with dedicated channels for it(not sacrificing primary audio), built to sit on my shoulder, can go from shoulder to low to high as fast as I can pick it up/put it down and open the VF(swing diopter open to see internal panel for high/low angles). There was no need for super-shallow DoF and I have reasonable control over DoF with built-in ND. And most importantly, the client(the ad agency) was very happy with it.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
One thing people often forget, including me, is to realy enjoy 'DSLRs' for whath they are. Cameras that are enjoyed most when they are not built up.
A really good thing is mixing a zoom/XLR video camera with something like a Gh4 with a 50 1.2 only
You let the big camera handle sound, shoot on it when you need to move and zoom and use the 'DSLR' for a few locked off 'art' shots, including interviews. As soon as one starts building small cameras it tends to go wrong.
A really good thing is mixing a zoom/XLR video camera with something like a Gh4 with a 50 1.2 only
You let the big camera handle sound, shoot on it when you need to move and zoom and use the 'DSLR' for a few locked off 'art' shots, including interviews. As soon as one starts building small cameras it tends to go wrong.
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
OF course you do.. A 24-105-F4-FullFrame (vista) actually gives about the same DOF as a 2/3 camera wide open - so DOF look on DSLRs is a bit of a myth if you go for a slow zoom to try and turn it into an ENG cams, DLRS only really have a look at T2 or more open.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
2/3" is 4x crop factor. Are f/1.0 zooms standard in 2/3" cameras? Because if you're thinking of f/1.8 zooms, that's like f/7.1 on FF.
Going back to the main topic, I aggree that the news cycle has slowed down. Years ago, every new camera that came out was a major surprise, today, it's just one or two each year, everything else is just par for the course. And the forum was really alive when we needed to know a lot of minute details in order to use our cameras correctly: you had to get the correct camera and then choose a color profile, and how to expose your image, and how to transcode your footage for optimal image quality, and how to configure your editor so it works well with those files... Nowadays, I just shoot RAW on a p4k and edit in Resolve, and all I needed these boards for was a) checking that the image quality was as good as promised (this is always a major thing) and b) comparing compression options and choosing the flavor of RAW that I'd shoot.
Going back to the main topic, I aggree that the news cycle has slowed down. Years ago, every new camera that came out was a major surprise, today, it's just one or two each year, everything else is just par for the course. And the forum was really alive when we needed to know a lot of minute details in order to use our cameras correctly: you had to get the correct camera and then choose a color profile, and how to expose your image, and how to transcode your footage for optimal image quality, and how to configure your editor so it works well with those files... Nowadays, I just shoot RAW on a p4k and edit in Resolve, and all I needed these boards for was a) checking that the image quality was as good as promised (this is always a major thing) and b) comparing compression options and choosing the flavor of RAW that I'd shoot.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Yep, lets face it, we all come to any forum mostly to solve problems and learn. Cameras are better these days. We are not seeking as much because these forums over the years have shaped camera development on the positive side. Once RAW video shows up on the GH series will one need to mess around with LOG stuff? No. You will just use the camera as Samuel stated, and not need to go a forum as much.
NorBro
Major Contributor
It's also now easier to go to YouTube and watch people talk about and/or solve many of your problems.
If a source of knowledge like that didn't exist the forums would still be rocking more than ever.
On a side note: I remember one of the first issues I had with a camera was with a HMC150 and no one could help me...I even remember Barry Green trying (he's not going to remember). There was a major bug in Compressor that was choosing an upper or lower field for progressive footage while making DVDs and it was ruining my exports. Once I figured it out and chose 'none', the footage looked beautiful (for its time).
If a source of knowledge like that didn't exist the forums would still be rocking more than ever.
On a side note: I remember one of the first issues I had with a camera was with a HMC150 and no one could help me...I even remember Barry Green trying (he's not going to remember). There was a major bug in Compressor that was choosing an upper or lower field for progressive footage while making DVDs and it was ruining my exports. Once I figured it out and chose 'none', the footage looked beautiful (for its time).
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
The electronics are good and getting better.
But ultimately todays cameras fall down on ergonomics, user interface and flimsy cables every where. I have a feeling that the people who dont know this have not used these cameras professionally!
Until R+D try working with a camera before launching it todays cameras are mostly rubbish.
G
Guest
Guest
So very much agree!!!
But that is part due to wanting small bodies and part to ... whatever. In other words, the ergonomics problems can be solved overnight, if there's a desire to solve them. Or, at least, the desire to make every camera heavily customizable to the user preferences.
No. It isn't that you shoot 4K Raw video and edit in Resolve. It's that you shoot 4K Raw and edit in Resolve for $1,300 US. (at least, in the US, one could do it for $1,300 + lenses, media, etc.)
G
Guest
Guest
Someone earlier in the thread said some to the effect that cameras designed today seem to have one inadmisable flaw built in so we keep upgrading. If you think about how a sales person would read these posts, and they are the ones making the cameras. Engineers make them possible, but people in the business of selling cameras are the ones making the final calls. Been a lot of incredible improvements in the digital space, but also really good sales people. I haven’t bought a new camera since 2013, because they never make anything i want.
G
Guest
Guest
Seeing how the latest Mac is being talked about. Seems like mac made a good computer, but the price is too high.
The difference with cameras is, that there isn’t a good video camera at any price. The Sony F55 is close to perfect.
Feels like there are several perfect stills cameras.
Ergonomics are personal, but stills cameras have incorporated acceptable ergonomics on a number of dslr’s.
ENG bodies are too big for modern filmaking, which requires gimbal compatibility. But ENG bodies prove there is a possiblt semi unversal ergonomics to video cameras.
Mirrorless cameras try to be compact, as that is one of the selling points over dslr, however, mirrorless bodies suffer ergonomically.
I bet if everyone on this thread listed what they waned in a camera, the lists would end up being very similar:
- Global shutter
- 12+ stops dynamic range and 10bit 422 or better
- ~4K resolution
- iso3200 clean, 6400 pushed but very useable
- good color science
- built in ND (a need for video, because of shutter speeds)
- auto focus, even if you never use it
- physical controls for exposure, wb, and ND
- ergonomics at least similar to a dslr, except perhaps more slant to the right hand grip.
- improved connectivity with external devices. (Since we aren’t getting complete cameras like eng days, let’s have real solutions to connectivity)
Those are specs we can all agree on, and yet there is not a camera like it that exists.
The difference with cameras is, that there isn’t a good video camera at any price. The Sony F55 is close to perfect.
Feels like there are several perfect stills cameras.
Ergonomics are personal, but stills cameras have incorporated acceptable ergonomics on a number of dslr’s.
ENG bodies are too big for modern filmaking, which requires gimbal compatibility. But ENG bodies prove there is a possiblt semi unversal ergonomics to video cameras.
Mirrorless cameras try to be compact, as that is one of the selling points over dslr, however, mirrorless bodies suffer ergonomically.
I bet if everyone on this thread listed what they waned in a camera, the lists would end up being very similar:
- Global shutter
- 12+ stops dynamic range and 10bit 422 or better
- ~4K resolution
- iso3200 clean, 6400 pushed but very useable
- good color science
- built in ND (a need for video, because of shutter speeds)
- auto focus, even if you never use it
- physical controls for exposure, wb, and ND
- ergonomics at least similar to a dslr, except perhaps more slant to the right hand grip.
- improved connectivity with external devices. (Since we aren’t getting complete cameras like eng days, let’s have real solutions to connectivity)
Those are specs we can all agree on, and yet there is not a camera like it that exists.
Samuel H
Major Contributor
What I meant is that once I shoot RAW I don't need to come to the forums so often to learn about the 3576252 optimal camera settings (and instead, as NorBro suggested, I go way more often to youtube, e.g. to watch TheModernFilmmaker color grade stuff in Resolve).
In terms of having the perfect camera, I agree we're not there yet, but we're getting very close. My p4k gives me super sharp RAW video with prety good DR, and yes, it does so for what not that many years ago would have been a laughably low price. But I still would like to get, say, an a6500-like successor (I like that form factor, and now that I have the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 I'm very fine with APS-C) with internal 10-bit 422 60fps 4k (Panasonic is nailing it here), matching the DR of the Varicam (Panasonic claims to be nailining it here but I won't be sure until I see some real world tests that are not about charts), the electronic ND of the RX100 but with stronger options (say, 2, 4 or 6 stops), and some crazy eye-detect AF in video mode that works perfectly 99% of the time (like the a6400 does for stills, but for video as well). I'd say this should take at most a couple of years to arrive...
Last edited:
morgan_moore
Major Contributor
Its too wide for a gimbal
the screen has little value being fixed position
no ND
All the wires stick out at horiible angles and are extremely vulnerable
Designed by interns!
Good for shooting the kids 8th birthday. but put it on a set where you need to work with a team and the joy fades away very fast.
How my BM micro ended up once it was kind of crew ready.
http://www.sammorganmoore.com/camera-grip-gallery image 9
Last edited:
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I use it in a small gimbal with the motors on the left, it works great and I even can change batteries without taking the camera off the gimbal. It would be good if the screen could move but it's great as it is (and having false color means I leave my light meter at home most of the time now). Dual ISO means I need ND less often (but I still use them, of course). And I never shot with any wires attached to this camera.
I don't know who designed it, but they designed it for me! (or I jumped all the hoops and made all the workarounds I needed...)
I wouldn't use it with a crew of more than 10 people, though: at some point a battery is going to die mid-shot and everyone would hate me.
I don't know who designed it, but they designed it for me! (or I jumped all the hoops and made all the workarounds I needed...)
I wouldn't use it with a crew of more than 10 people, though: at some point a battery is going to die mid-shot and everyone would hate me.
That's what I meant. A decade ago, F 35 was $250,000 and now we're yawning at a 6K S1H for ~ $4,000. In the next couple of months, Sony will probably reveal an 8K consumer camera for about the same price. It'll be followed by more compelling arguments about the Applle Cheese Grater.