Use of extra LCD monitor on DLSRs in Live View

F

frankoferko

Active member
We shot only on S16mm film before, but now are considering shooting our next feature movie with a DSLR. However, one thing that prevents us from so doing is the terrible way to focus and frame shots, as we are so used to a video assist tap out and watching acquired composition on an 8-inch LCD. All videocams also have this feature. We'll have lots of running handhelds, chase seqeunces, etc, you cannot use the VF nor the little built-in LCD, especially those that do not even swivel.

Inasmuch as the cine-DSLRs (2 Canons, 2 Nikons, Panny Lumix) all have a mini HDMI port out, would this port be active only in playback mode? If yes, does anyone has a workaround to making the mini HDMI port active during image capture, and thus enabling a connected LCD monitor to function as an extra monitor? If not, is there any other way to use a DLSR in video capture mode and have an extra LCD (6 to 8 inch) connected to the camera? Thanx!
 
The MKII outputs are active while recording, the GH1 is playback only. The MKII HDMI out resolution drops to 480p in record mode.
 
In an HDMI out mode there is no problem using a monitor, however the LCD on the back of the camera will not function at the same time. It's one or the other.
 
"The MKII outputs are active while recording, the GH1 is playback only. The MKII HDMI out resolution drops to 480p in record mode."

MY TAKE; Thank you for that, Squiq. That is amazing news indeed, good thing I did not have to purchase one of all DSLRs out there to find this out. Amazing that one camera would have this feature but not the other, of course they are not in the same price range, either. Canon also has the rebel T1i, then the two NIKONs, I was wondering whether they have an active or passive HDMI OUT port in recording.

Most pro-grade LCD monitors have COMPOSITE (1 x BNC) and SDI (1 x BNC) jacks, I'll have to find out if there is such a thing as a mini-HDMI to BNC cable, but of course the HDMI signal is different somewhat then the uncomprssed HD (HD-SDI) signal, right? In that case, one would need a monitor with the HDMI input and again, the better pro LCDs do not have that input.
 
"In an HDMI out mode there is no problem using a monitor, however the LCD on the back of the camera will not function at the same time. It's one or the other."

MY TAKE: Yes, thank you for that. You are talking aof the CANON 5D2, correct, as I just learned that the Lumix GH1 does not have this feature? That still elaves the other Canon model, the Rebel T1i and the two NIKON models, I am not sure if their specs state this for a fact or not, we could not find the relevant section.

Assuming only the 5D2 does this and none of the other models, shutting down the built-in panel is fine, there is no reason to use both. With an extra LCD, one can feed power to the LCD seperately, i.e. not using the camera's battery, which is a good thing.

Also, 480p image is okay, since most LCD monitors in the 5 to 8-inch diagonal size don't have a higher horizonal line count, anyhow. Now, when you shoot video, do you see a black bar on top & bottom of the built-in screen to indicate the 16:9 AR? I was also wondering what is the best way to make markings for a 1,85:1 or 1.35:1 AR capture? Thank you.
 
Marshall and ikan make 7-8" LCDs with HDMI in.

I had a D90 but never used an external display with it, from memory I think it does display externally in record mode but don't quote me on that. The guys in the D90 forum could answer that for you.
 
"Marshall and ikan make 7-8" LCDs with HDMI in. I had a D90 but never used an external display with it, from memory I think it does display externally in record mode but don't quote me on that. The guys in the D90 forum could answer that for you."

MY TAKE: Yes, thank you. Does any of the cameras com with a mini-HDMI to a normal HDMI cable, you know? Or do you have to get that someplace extra? Also, since the HDMI jacks are not lockable, like the BNC and XLR connectors are, I assume the jack can just pop out of the camera easily, especially since it is the min-HDMI conenctor, right?

I am sure that the Nikon D90 is a great camera, it's jsut I sort of narrowed down my choices to either the large Canon or the small Panasonic. I was just wondering, which maker will bring out what video DLSR next? Sony is noticeable absent from the frey. not that I would buy any of their cameras, mind you. ;-)
 
The Nikon D300s release is immanent, the D700s is due later this year. There are no confirmed specifications or release dates on either yet. No DSLRs come with a HDMI cable but they are readily available for about $10 or so. The fitting is fairly secure and won't disconnect unless you're handling the DSLR in such a way that your footage would be unusable.

The D90 is great but it doesn't have manual shutter and ISO control, overheats, and has more jello/rolling shutter than the other DSLRs. The mjpeg bit-rate is also very low but none of these drawbacks has stopped others shooting features with it.

The only problem I have with the MKII is that it doesn't shoot 24p but there has been a lot of talk of a firmware update so I expect to happen within 6 months, if not I'll be looking at one of the new nikons provided the video is an improvement on the D90.
 
I have an ikan 7 inch lcd monitor on sale on craigslist!!! If anyone is interested in here let me know. It is in perfect condition!
 
I would not shoot at 24fps anyhow, since that refresh rate is of no use in the video world of today, only the motion picture palaces of yesteryear. These days, you need either 30 or 25, and if you shoot at 30, you'll have a lot less judder and can arrive at a nice 25fps version for the PAL and SECAM territories. If you shoot at 24, you'll have more judder, and then for broadcast and even DVD, you'll need to make two comnversions -- one for the 25p (50 Hertz) markets, and the other for the 30p (60 Hertz) markets. Double pain in the butt.
 
Matt, your profile states you are a DP, is this correct?

Well, I am not sure if you are a member of the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers), well are you? If you are, you probably also know that many DPs shoot at 30fps using FILM cameras.

And in Europe and elswhere in PAL territories, they use FILM cameras to shoot at 25fps.

But hey, if your project really goes out only to those cinema screens at multiplexes that haven't yet switched to digital projectors, I guess you indeed need to think about 24/23.98 acqusition and/or timeline, hmmm?
 
frankoferko said:
Matt, your profile states you are a DP, is this correct?

Well, I am not sure if you are a member of the ASC (American Society of Cinematographers), well are you? If you are, you probably also know that many DPs shoot at 30fps using FILM cameras.

And in Europe and elswhere in PAL territories, they use FILM cameras to shoot at 25fps.

But hey, if your project really goes out only to those cinema screens at multiplexes that haven't yet switched to digital projectors, I guess you indeed need to think about 24/23.98 acqusition and/or timeline, hmmm?
Click to expand...

Yes I am a DP, no I am not ASC.

I know that many film makers shoot at VARIOUS framerates depending on the director, the project, and the final distribution area. So should you.

Slumdog Millionaire, which of course is an international Academy award winning film, was shot 23.976.

To say that 24fps acquisition is outdated is obtuse in the extreme.

Nothing else gives you that cadence like 24fps, which is why Panasonic's US/Japanese cameras do it so well.
 
mcgeedigital said:
To say that 24fps acquisition is outdated is obtuse in the extreme. Nothing else gives you that cadence like 24fps, which is why Panasonic's US/Japanese cameras do it so well.
Click to expand...

Oh, on second thought, I indeed do love 24 fps dearly, only wish I had shot all of my old standard 8mm film footage at 24 fps instead of 16, and has shot all of my Super 8 stuff at 24 fps instead of 18 fps. Love 24 fps much more now than before the HFR stuff started popping up everywhere, as a matter of fact.

But, having jumped 4 years forward to the today, seems that 48p and 60p progressive acqusition AND playout is all the rage. What's your take on those camera recording and playout frame rates, Matt?

I think 48p may be okay for that coveted soap opera look, but I cannot see why one would nwed to shoot HFR at 60 -- probably only because 99.5 percent of the digital cameras out there that record in AVCHD Progressive or in some other 60p refresh rate codec will not give you the option of 48 fps acquisition.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top