Why do people use DLSRs over camcorders when...?

It's not just shallow depth of field but selective field of view and selective DOF, basically the ability to swap lenses. The ability to rack focus and use the compression of a long lens and the seperation of a wide lens. In short the ability to emulate a movie camera and the grammar available to a movie camera. It's why we suffered the lens adapters. To make movies.

I'm not a DSLR guy. I have an AF100 but that's basically the idea.
 
Ok cool. I guess a DSLR is best then. I haven't been able to find a good focus puller. I would do it myself and have learned some things about it so far, but as director, I prefer to concentrate on the performances. I'll keep looking. Some camcorders can zoom and still have a wide aperture, like f1.8, and I thought that was really cool since DSLRs do not have zoom lenses like that. But those ones are expensive compared to DSLRs.
 
Last edited:
GaryinCalifornia said:
wow dating myself here... but reading made me think of the old days... we used to remove the lens off a video camera... then put panty hose between the lens and the body... gave us a soft film look.. there was even debate about which color and brand worked best..
Click to expand...

That would be Leggs Cocoa Bean, of course!:laugh:
 
Razz16mm said:
The upcoming BMC pocket cam is a nice inexpensive solution that is right in the middle. 16mm sized image format.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately being super 16 instead of standard 16mm eliminates most of the inexpensive 16mm lenses. Anything made to cover the super 16 frame is going to be a premium.
 
ironpony said:
Ok cool. I guess a DSLR is best then. I haven't been able to find a good focus puller. I would do it myself and have learned some things about it so far, but as director, I prefer to concentrate on the performances. I'll keep looking. Some camcorders can zoom and still have a wide aperture, like f1.8, and I thought that was really cool since DSLRs do not have zoom lenses like that. But those ones are expensive compared to DSLRs.
Click to expand...

I have personally not come across a camcorder with a constant F1.8 lens, but I'd be curious to see which models you're referring to. I was unable to find any information on one in a Google search. However, you are incorrect that DSLRs don't have zoom lenses like that. Sigma 18-35mm F1.8. Also, typical camcorders use sensors FAR FAR smaller than DSLRs, so they need every bit of light they can get by using very a fast lens in order to be halfway decent in low light compared to a DSLR using even a slower lens.
 
I just love this discussions. I hate the constant shallow DoF every DSLR owner seems to cherish, using it to extremes. I hate the restriction of being made to look at a certain part of the frame when I wish to see something else. We now have wide screens, decent size monitors/TVs in every home, yet so often we can see the person in the middle sharp, yet most screen area is soft. I know it's by design, but my feeling is that newcomers are treating shallow DoF as the standard way to do everything. How many big budget movies have every shot shallow? I love the images DSLRs can capture but shoddy focus and constant pulling make me heave! Compared to VHS, any budget camcorder produces excellent images. The disadvantages of DSLRs for me rule out the investment. Ease of operation with menus for almost everything, poor sound, and the need for add ons to provide decent control features (often making them huge and ridiculous looking) put me right off. Lenses that because of their stills design, don't stay in focus when zoomed and all manual controls of zoom and focus just make me think of one of those sports cars with mega performance, yet they don't have a roof and make your bum numb after ten miles. I guess I just like the images I get from on-shoulder video cameras that have the facilities I need. For me, it means the deepest Dof I can get, and viewfinders that have zebras and focus guides. I don't, of course make movies - I'm firmly in the information and content camp. I do like those ambient light, evening shots DSLRs can produce so easily, but I don't shoot those. I'm more likely to be hunting for ND, than the gain switch.

DSLRs and conventional video cameras are just different, for different jobs - rather like oil painting vs pastels.
 
Effin a, paulears. Except for the part about not making movies. By the way, not that its relevant for any number of reasons, but the xl1/xl1s/xl2 manual 16x lens will maintain a constant aperature at 1.6 . I know i know, i already said not relevant.
 
Effin A as well. A lot of DLSR filmmakers are using shallow DOF for everything. Even for mastershots. In a master, I think most of the people should be in focus, if not all. But they are only keeping one person in focus at a time, and to me it comes off as very ADD, as if they think people can only concentrate on one person at a time. A DP I met who loves shallow focus even said, modern audiences cannot have one person in focus at a time they will be distracted. I think he just needs to have more faith.
 
FYI.... metalsquid's (aka the OP) M. O. is to troll. So don't be confused.

That's not to say the conversations and thoughts others have in response are of no value (they usually have great value), just that the OP's unending follow up questions presenting additional "problems" or misunderstandings are deliberately confused.


He can't help himself.
 
I've seen your hypothesis before. Are you claiming there's some 55-year old pro cinematographer/director out there screwing with message board folks for kicks (has to be someone with enough knowledge to post coherent questions in the first place)? Is Michael Bay bored this morning?
 
Josh Bass said:
I've seen your hypothesis before. Are you claiming there's some 55-year old pro cinematographer/director out there screwing with message board folks for kicks (has to be someone with enough knowledge to post coherent questions in the first place)? Is Michael Bay bored this morning?
Click to expand...

Hmmm..... I think you could be on to something!
 
The only advantage I see of a dslr is the DOF. Everything else I find very bad even compared to let's say a prosumer camcorder. The amount of moire coming from most dslrs is just funny thing to have in a video.
 
Nope. But there are DSLRs that are greatly improved since the early days. The GH2, the Nikon D5200/7100 all do very well on keeping it under control. They also have advantages in dynamic range and sensitivity. DOF control is not the only advantage.
 
ironpony said:
Funny, I've been shooting with the Canon T3i, since it came out, and I haven't noticed this moire.
Click to expand...

By some fortunate accident you apparently never shot a guy walking down the street wearing a houndstooth coat, or a tall building with long narrow 'window' frames, or the like...

Bravo...

But for those who worry about these things... the DSLRs typically are setup for 4K still images, and their optical 'lowpass' filter is setup for that resolution. When the video mode is used, and results in a approx 2K image, the low pass filter allows for higher spatial frequencies being 'folded' in, aka 'moire' effect.

Put a UV filter, spread with a thin film of petroleum jelly, and that probably will do the trick (testing required of course...)... and needless to say, spend big bux for that super 'sharp' lens first, so you at least have those all important bragging rights...

Another method would be to 'fuzz' up the image with pseudo grain effects... which I'm going to try in the near future... (I tried that several years ago with my SD DVX100 footage for a short clip... and uprezing to 1920x1080. It worked... after a fashion... but the 8 hour render time on my then available hardware sort of indicated this was not a really practical way to go...).


Another method, and perhaps the cheapest... avoid shots that show moire effects most easily, like clothing, or structures with patterns that just beg for moire effects to be seen most visibly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top