Why dont filmmakers use video cameras?

gonzo_entertainment said:
I pick lenses because of the qualities of that lens not just the focal length.
Click to expand...
Yes, understandable point, which cuts both ways. I have some lenses for effect, but in general I find color-matching and the hassles of post to outweigh the advantages... I guess it's a matter of which do you use most, and if you don't absolutely NEED the footage to match perfectly when using those special lenses, why not just shoot those shots on a GH2?

Edit: In other words, you are taking a tool out of your hands for convenience. Which is trade off each person would have to decide on.
Click to expand...
Pretty much that's exactly the summation of the situation. Zooms are all about convenience, primes are not convenient but they offer choice and flexibility, so yes, that's exactly the tradeoff being discussed.
 
Barry_Green said:
Okay, let's try it a different way:

If you could have a large-sensor camera with a fixed lens, which was a zoom with a, say, in S35 terms, a 15-150 range at a constant f/2, at $7000...

Or the same camera, but with an interchangeable lens mount, at $6000...

Which would you go for?

I think there's a whole lot of reasons to consider the fixed-lens camera. Not the least of which is the thousands and thousands of dollars of lenses you'd have to buy to match the range of the built-in lens, plus the hassles involved in color-matching a lens set (unnecessary when it's all one lens!) plus the convenience factor plus the time savings of not having to change lenses and being able to quickly zoom to the appropriate focal length rather than having to pick up and reposition the camera...

I mean, there's lots of valid reasons why prime lenses are extinct on conventional small-chip video cameras...

Wouldn't anyone here be interested in having those same conveniences in a large-sensor camera? I know I'd be highly interested in it.
Click to expand...

Well... for me... $7K... no...

What I may pay $700 for is a Fixed lens version of the GH-2+14-140mm lens, and attended upgrade of the audio for XLR inputs... wait, that's sort of a AF100... modulo a few items...

Fuji did sort of that. They dropped out of the DSLR world, having used Nikon frames, and now make a unitized fixed lens 'still+video' camera... I actually 'recommended' that to the Boss who wanted a simple point and shoot that had perhaps a bit better something or another...

On the other hand, if I were shooting Weddings weekly... I may think about the AF100... and probably not change lenses willy nilly, but have several bodies with lenses for specific actions.
 
The OP was specifically discussing narrative film-making. A place where changing lenses is certainly not an issue and a place where high-end optical and mechanical quality is revered, if not demanded.

Hence most reasons to use a fixed zoom lens are negated.

Considering the advantages are lost, in order to sway cinematographers to a fixed lens zoom, you'd have to equal the performance, speed, and mechanics of what they have now and offer something more. That won't happen. You'll end up with a compromise.

Fixed lenses are also good for communicating with the camera, but in narrative film-making, what good is that? We don't use auto-focus. The servo zoom is usually done with a micro-force and rock-n-roll handle. I can see a slight advantage to optical stabilization, although we never use it now, and don't have any issues with not having it.

The reason narrative filmmakers don't use fixed zooms is because there is nothing to be gained from it. If made as if it were a proper cinema zoom, it would be virtually impossible to get the range and speed desired. If you did, you'd sacrifice low-cost and size. If they make it lower cost and light weight, it will likely resemble a larger Lumix 14-140, which would be good for super low budget and videography folk, but would send the F3, Red Epic, Scarlet, Alexa, and other crowds running for the hills.

I'm open to suggestions, I also like a friendly debate, so please do not read into my passion for lens talk as being combative. It's not. :)
 
Last edited:
Lens is just one variable, isn't it? If you can get the same result from by affecting a different variable, isn't it the result that counts in the end? So one big knock against zooms today, is that if you have a large range zoom, say a 14mm - 140mm, it will necessarily have to be slow, or else it'll be enormous and expensive. But what about the other variable: sensor. If your sensor can compensate for the speed by giving you extremely clean image at extremely high ISO, why do you care if your zoom is slow? The video camera will evolve to solve the problem at the sensor if the lens evolution stalls due to laws of physics or economics. Personally, I have much bigger expectation of sensor development than optics. I think optics will continue to develop, but at a relatively slow pace compared to electronic sensor development. Though of course, if we are dreaming, the day will surely arrive when dynamic fluid lenses appear, coupled with computational adjustments - basically fluid bubbles that are distorted with a magnetic controller to give you infinite optical adjustment for focal length and aperture etc., all in a small unit. I don't think you'll be breaking any laws of physics, and you can get a small camera with a small size lens that will nonetheless have DR, resolution etc. that exceeds human perception. And the cost will come down. And then nobody will be talking about cameras because that'll be as exciting as talking about hammers. They've reached the pinnacle of commodification, so it's pointless to discuss specs - hard to improve on a hammer. And once cameras reach hammer status, gearheads will have to find something else to obsess over.

Bottom line, the reason fixed lens video cameras are not as popular in narrative work, is because the technology is still too crude. Wait another 30* years and maybe there won't be a forum dedicated to discussing only cameras, anymore then there's a forum exclusively focused on hammers (wait, maybe there is?!).

*time frame is pure speculation, no warranty given.
 
Not to sidetrack from how this conversation has progressed, but in response to the posters initial question, I have to agree with a few of the other responders in regards to creativity and options.

It takes a lot of creative decisions to tell a story on film. Choosing the right piece of glass is one of the most important decisions that I make with my DPs for every shot. Being limited to the ranges and capabilities of a fixed lens is more than enough reason to stray away from the traditional video cam for most narrative films. Granted, they can be effective in specific scenarios (Cloverfield for example), however, on the majproty, Ill always stick to a camera that allows me the creative freedom to select the right lens for the job. I just cant justify a reason to do otherwise.
 
Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
28 Days Later was on a Canon XL-1 but that camera was interchangeable and they did use other lenses.

Inland Empire was something very different. Different in the sense that I'd hate life if everything looked like that. Wasn't a fan but appreciated the change of medium, because I can safely say there is nothing quite like that film. lol. Good or bad.

Your other points are good ones.
Click to expand...

Ah, I forgot that the XL-1 was an interchangeable lens camera... and, sh*t I owned one! (didn't care for it actually and sold it and went with Sony cameras).

I love "INLAND EMPIRE".... but it is not for the faint of heart that is for sure. Laura Dern is outstanding in it.

Ryan Patrick O'Hara said:
I looked it up in my American Cinematographer collection but here is a link to the American Cinematographer Article from July, 2003. LINK
Click to expand...

Good article. Man I don't miss SD DV at all; or for that matter fixed lens camcorders. I understand the convenience, but for fictional narrative, having the choice of lenses that are available for today's cameras is just too much of a creative option to give up, IMHO.
 
"If your sensor can compensate for the speed by giving you extremely clean image at extremely high ISO, why do you care if your zoom is slow?"

Because the aperture of the lens affects more than the exposure, it changes other qualities of the image.
 
Barry_Green said:
If you could have a large-sensor camera with a fixed lens, which was a zoom with a, say, in S35 terms, a 15-150 range at a constant f/2, at $7000...

Or the same camera, but with an interchangeable lens mount, at $6000...
Click to expand...

What an unrealistic premise to propose. an s35 15-150 constant f2 would never be in the same ball park as an interchangable lens mount camera unless the ILM camera has double the performance specs. Why even propose such an unrealistic idea. Of course for most things people would take option number 1. I would also choose a porche for only 1k more than a ford taurus. who wouldn't but its not realistic.
 
I think the problem is the inclusion of an S35-sized chip. What about a 2/3" chip at 4k with 12 stops of DR and writing RAW to SSDs? Would a fixed lens mount still be an issue then?
 
Gary Huff said:
I think the problem is the inclusion of an S35-sized chip. What about a 2/3" chip at 4k with 12 stops of DR and writing RAW to SSDs? Would a fixed lens mount still be an issue then?
Click to expand...

Yes, for some people, because again, you are taking a tool out of your hands. It's like anything else, you are trading flexibility and control for convenience. It's an individual choice different people will answer differently.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Yes, for some people, because again, you are taking a tool out of your hands. It's like anything else, you are trading flexibility and control for convenience. It's an individual choice different people will answer differently.
Click to expand...

Well said

Gary Huff said:
What flexibility, besides the ability to change out lenses, am I giving up? And what am I losing by not having the ability to change lenses exactly?
Click to expand...

Lots of lenses have very specific looks and optical qualities that people are after. Also the ability to upgrade your lens rentals with your budget. No zoom will have the optical qualities of high end primes.

The flexability to change lenses isn't something to pass off lightly. the flexability to go wider than 14mm (which on a 2/3 chip isn't that wide) or longer than the longest end of the fixed zoom lens.

Options are good aren't they? Obviously it depends on what you shoot. There is a reason that ENG favours fixed servo zooms.
 
Gary Huff said:
What flexibility, besides the ability to change out lenses, am I giving up? And what am I losing by not having the ability to change lenses exactly?
Click to expand...

Uh.... the ability to use different lenses... special purpose lenses, lenses with qualities you want to take advantage of, etc... you're stuck with the lens on the camera.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
Uh.... the ability to use different lenses... special purpose lenses, lenses with qualities you want to take advantage of, etc... you're stuck with the lens on the camera.
Click to expand...

How often does that need arise? The two circumstances that immediately come to mind are a) super wide angle lenses, which you can always mount an adapter on the front of a fix lens to give it more room on the sides, and b) tilt-shift, which can also be mimicked to some extent in post and isn't one you see very often in narrative work at all.

What besides those two?
 
Gary Huff said:
I think the problem is the inclusion of an S35-sized chip. What about a 2/3" chip at 4k with 12 stops of DR and writing RAW to SSDs? Would a fixed lens mount still be an issue then?
Click to expand...

It is perhaps my prejudice, but the 'fixed' lenses never seem to me to be 'as good' as the equivalent lens alone. For my 'consumer/prosumer' level, I thought the HMC 150 zoom lens at short focal lengths was pretty much 'crap'. In other similar classed cameras that I've seen, the distortion is not as bad... but still pretty obvious...

I can put the Wife's fancy Nikon 17-35 lens on my GH-1... and have a rather good image... maybe even better than when she uses it on a larger sensor, as the GH-1 is using a more central portion of the coverage...

The point being, with a fixed lens one is stuck with the design tradeoffs that pit price vs. performance.

I did a shoot Sunday for an ASL class... the footage will never be seen by anyone other than ourselves and the instructor... but with this thread in mind... I noticed that one of the most significant operational 'problems' with zooms is maintaining the zoom setting, and repeating the setting.

I had adjusted the GH-1 14-140 zoom to have a 25mm setting... well as it was, I had actually set the lens to just a hair to the right of the 25mm mark... well I needed to change the battery, that required that I take the camera off the tripod, take the tripod quick release off the camera... and in the process my zoom setting 'changed'... well when I got everything back mounted up... I think i put the zoom setting to 'just a hair to the right of 25mm'... just like before... but was it 'close enough'... sure for this project... almost anything would be ok...

But for a more careful project... would I then have to resize the image because I was 'off just a bit'... from a previous shot... or take...

With a fixed lens there would be no question...
 
Gary Huff said:
How often does that need arise? The two circumstances that immediately come to mind are a) super wide angle lenses, which you can always mount an adapter on the front of a fix lens to give it more room on the sides, and b) tilt-shift, which can also be mimicked to some extent in post and isn't one you see very often in narrative work at all.

What besides those two?
Click to expand...

This lens has beautiful warm colors that are perfect for this scene, this lens has really nice bokeh for the shallow DOF in this closeup, this lens falls off heavily at the edges, gives a nice vintage look that's perfect for this flashback, etc.. etc... etc.... If I wanted everything to look the same I'd buy a couple of L zooms and forget about it, which is what some people do, and more power to them, to each his own.
 
I mean we're really getting into aesthetics here where there is no right or wrong answer.

I'm kind of anti-VFX, basically never use them (not that I wouldn't in a Sci Fi film for example). I consider any use of VFX (in my own stuff) a badge of failure. It means we couldn't figure out how to do it as a practical effect. Doesn't mean I don't like VFX heavy films, doesn't mean I bash people who use VFX, it's just not my thing. I think this is a similar topic.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
I mean we're really getting into aesthetics here where there is no right or wrong answer.

I'm kind of anti-VFX, basically never use them (not that I wouldn't in a Sci Fi film for example). I consider any use of VFX (in my own stuff) a badge of failure. It means we couldn't figure out how to do it as a practical effect. Doesn't mean I don't like VFX heavy films, doesn't mean I bash people who use VFX, it's just not my thing. I think this is a similar topic.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we are thinking of different things in regard to VFX... but I have no problem with what would have been done in the past with matte painting, to perform set extensions, and similar. I also don't have a big problem with post production effects that have significant impact on the image quality. For example I would never shoot a modern RGB sensor based camera in B&W mode... I would do that in post. Similarly I tend to avoid 'haze/soft' filters, and would do that in post as well.

I did these things with Film Film for my stills... whether shooting B&W in the first place (never did like the C-4 monochrome films...), or a little nose grease on the UV filter... to 'soften' some age lines for some portraits...

But I've been pretty much a capture as 'clean' an image as I can with the camera, and rework it later type person...
 
How about straight up lens quality, like having a voigtlander 25mm f0.95 lens, or the CP.2 lenses, or using lenses not originally made for your type of camera, like putting C-mount lenses on a GH2, or a B4 mount ENG lens. SLR Magic Noktor has a new F0.95 as well, 50mm.

Or making a pinhole video!
 
Is your film really made or broken depending on being able to use these lenses in all circumstances? Isn't where most films fail in the image department usually due to poor lighting rather than having a fast lens or super-shallow DOF, or not using CP.2 lenses?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top