DSLRs for video

Started by RegularKarate, April 13, 2010, 01:16:17 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

pete

well, gopro looks like gopro. there are other cameras that you can put underwater that isn't gopro. there also have been pretty good casings made. gopro is on whalewatch because sometimes the camera crew isn't around to run it.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

Lottery

Should young Lottery save up for a GH2?

HeywoodRFloyd

Save up for a 16mm Anamorphic lens too, it compliments the GH2 well, for full frame suckers like me (5D Mk II) our anamorphic lens options aren't as broad. You should also get the old Russian m42 lens 'Helios 44 58mm f2.0', fast lens with beautiful spiral bokeh, it's bokeh looks like the lens used in Inglourious Basterds when the Basterds are in the forest before the Bear Jew beats the shit out of the SS Officer. Anyway try to capitalize on the old vintage m42 primes, some have better or should I say more interesting optics than the lenses of today, and when filmmaking you need to pull manual focus anyway, so what's the point of cashing out thousands of dollars for modern autofocus lenses. The Helios 44 can be found on ebay for $40

polkablues

I'm cynical as all get out, but the shot they pulled off with the camera operator on rollerblades, hanging onto the side of the taxi, made me squeal like a schoolgirl.  It was like getting to watch a great magic trick over the magician's shoulder.
My house, my rules, my coffee

Cloudy

Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on March 25, 2013, 11:49:44 PM
Save up for a 16mm Anamorphic lens too, it compliments the GH2 well

This alone makes me want to trade my 60D for the GH2. Is it worth the hassle? I'd love to go anamorphic. Fuck. Conflicted here.

*Edit: your whole post in general just sold me...but still, swapping bodies is such an ordeal....shit...how much is it to adapt these lenses to the GH2?

HeywoodRFloyd

Quote from: Cloudy on April 22, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
Quote from: HeywoodRFloyd on March 25, 2013, 11:49:44 PM
Save up for a 16mm Anamorphic lens too, it compliments the GH2 well

This alone makes me want to trade my 60D for the GH2. Is it worth the hassle? I'd love to go anamorphic. Fuck. Conflicted here.

*Edit: your whole post in general just sold me...but still, swapping bodies is such an ordeal....shit...how much is it to adapt these lenses to the GH2?

The Canon 60d you have is a cropped sensor, so your Anamorphic lens options are broad as far as I'm aware, you don't need to change your body.
Check this site out: http://www.eoshd.com/anamorphic-guide
They're like the anamorphic lens experts on dslr, I haven't bought the ebook yet, but I hear it's all kinds of useful to figuring out which anamorphic lens to buy and how to use it.

Cloudy


diggler

I just picked up a Canon C100 for work. While there are numerous upgrades that I love (continuous shooting, better ISO, XLR input, flip out monitor), I really don't think it was worth the price tag. I could've picked up 2 Mark III's for what I paid for this. The dual SD card slot is a little puzzling as well, why not CF cards? Either way, I like that they're finally correcting all the weird little quirks that made the 5D so limiting.
I'm not racist, I'm just slutty

wilder

So, the first footage from the new Red Dragon sensor was dropped today, and I may be alone, but I think Canon's image from both the C500 and the 5D Mark III with the Raw hack is more aesthetically pleasing in certain areas. To my eye, the Red always looks flat and "cold", detached from the moment, and while the Alexa image appears to have more depth, it feels dead in a different way, too smooth or something, like the characters feel three-dimensional but the environments don't. I don't know how to convey what I mean exactly but it's bothered me ever since I saw a movie shot with it projected for the first time. It's like the Red and Alexa are sociopaths in regards to their subjects but the Canons have empathy, like film does.

Aside from the resolution drawbacks, the Canon cameras yield a softer, "warmer" image that, while lacking in certain technical respects, feels more "alive" to me and populated with human beings who actually have a pulse. When I saw Frances Ha in theaters, which was shot with a regular 5D Mark II, despite the visible camera noise, it was the first time watching a digitally shot feature that I felt video hadn't somehow snuffed out part of the heart on screen. I remember Baumbach saying in the Q&A afterwards that they had done tons of tests with the camera to "try and squeeze some life out of the pixels". He seemed disappointed with the move away from film but accepting that going into the future shooting digitally would be inevitable, and he had gone the extra mile to find something that would capture what he felt was missing.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this. Some of it boils down to the lighting and choice of DP, but even the most technically advanced features I've seen shot with the Red and Alexa (Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Amour, Only God Forgives) seem somehow compromised by the inherent looks these two cameras provide. People seem to accept the images produced by them, but I have a hunch it's more due to familiarity thanks to their pervasive usage (that's how "The Movies" look) rather than an actual preferance for the aesthetics they create. The C500 is available with a PL Mount, I'm baffled why more filmmakers aren't using it. Or maybe they don't care -- film is only a memory, it's not even something to compare to anymore.

Another way to describe the reaction I'm having to Red footage might be that...this is going to sound fucking crazy but it's the only way I can articulate it -- it's as if the elements in the frame: the actors, the props, the location etc. are layers in a Photoshop file with the opacity turned up to 100% so that they look "solid", but the opacity could easily be turned down to make them transparent. Everything in the frame seems to lack weight or feels flimsy, like the event that was recorded is just a ghost of what it could have been.


Some more 5D Mark III Raw videos to consider, unfortunately most of these aren't locked down:

5D Mark III Raw Test - Vimeo

Tokyo Promenade - Vimeo

A Day at the Farm - Vimeo

5D Mark III Magic Lantern Test - Vimeo

Unforseen Hero - Vimeo

Look at the shot of this girl smiling at 33 seconds, or some of the other shots of people in this video:

Honeymoon - Vimeo

HeywoodRFloyd

My goodness. I've been looking into RAW a little bit in the last 2 weeks for my Canon 5D Mk II, but the test footage you've linked are amazing, truly. Would you know of a tutorial online to install the RAW hack onto the 5D Mk II?

EDIT:
Found useful tutorials for beginners of ML and RAW
RAW video & ML -- Beginners Guide, FAQ & Useful Links -- READ FIRST

RAW Video: PostProcessing -- Beginners Guide --

pete

I'm not sure what footage you've been seeing, but RAW images, out of the box, are supposed to look flat, so the colorist can put the finishing touches. the canon cameras came with a smoother preset, but they aren't nearly as flexible as the Red or the Alexa, and they fall apart more easily when you try to play with the digital negatives.

Quote from: wilderesque on August 04, 2013, 05:25:52 AM
So, the first footage from the new Red Dragon sensor was dropped today, and I may be alone, but I think Canon's image from both the C500 and the 5D Mark III with the Raw hack is more aesthetically pleasing in certain areas. To my eye, the Red always looks flat and "cold", detached from the moment, and while the Alexa image appears to have more depth, it feels dead in a different way, too smooth or something, like the characters feel three-dimensional but the environments don't. I don't know how to convey what I mean exactly but it's bothered me ever since I saw a movie shot with it projected for the first time. It's like the Red and Alexa are sociopaths in regards to their subjects but the Canons have empathy, like film does.

Aside from the resolution drawbacks, the Canon cameras yield a softer, "warmer" image that, while lacking in certain technical respects, feels more "alive" to me and populated with human beings who actually have a pulse. When I saw Frances Ha in theaters, which was shot with a regular 5D Mark II, despite the visible camera noise, it was the first time watching a digitally shot feature that I felt video hadn't somehow snuffed out part of the heart on screen. I remember Baumbach saying in the Q&A afterwards that they had done tons of tests with the camera to "try and squeeze some life out of the pixels". He seemed disappointed with the move away from film but accepting that going into the future shooting digitally would be inevitable, and he had gone the extra mile to find something that would capture what he felt was missing.

I'd like to hear other people's thoughts on this. Some of it boils down to the lighting and choice of DP, but even the most technically advanced features I've seen shot with the Red and Alexa (Fincher's Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Amour, Only God Forgives) seem somehow compromised by the inherent looks these two cameras provide. People seem to accept the images produced by them, but I have a hunch it's more due to familiarity thanks to their pervasive usage (that's how "The Movies" look) rather than an actual preferance for the aesthetics they create. The C500 is available with a PL Mount, I'm baffled why more filmmakers aren't using it. Or maybe they don't care -- film is only a memory, it's not even something to compare to anymore.

Another way to describe the reaction I'm having to Red footage might be that...this is going to sound fucking crazy but it's the only way I can articulate it -- it's as if the elements in the frame: the actors, the props, the location etc. are layers in a Photoshop file with the opacity turned up to 100% so that they look "solid", but the opacity could easily be turned down to make them transparent. Everything in the frame seems to lack weight or feels flimsy, like the event that was recorded is just a ghost of what it could have been.


Some more 5D Mark III Raw videos to consider, unfortunately most of these aren't locked down:

5D Mark III Raw Test - Vimeo

Tokyo Promenade - Vimeo

A Day at the Farm - Vimeo

5D Mark III Magic Lantern Test - Vimeo

Unforseen Hero - Vimeo

Look at the shot of this girl smiling at 33 seconds, or some of the other shots of people in this video:

Honeymoon - Vimeo
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

HeywoodRFloyd

Wilderesque you've got me addicted man, my vimeo raw escapades are taking over my daily porn time

A Day In Summer (ML 5D3 Raw)

This one was shot with the 5D Mk II:
ALIGHT

This one is insane:
Beauty (5D Mark III RAW Test)

And this is probably the best comparison video for H.264 vs. RAW (No post):
5D Mark III RAW vs H.264

pete

I don't think the based looks are that important in the cameras, and I don't think any of technology is so advanced that the designers already have "texture" in mind when making them, and that's the fundamental difference between these cameras and film. what you see in the raw tests are just supposed to be some representation of the camera's durability, meaning how much can you knock it around before it starts giving you weird stuff. I love Red and I love c300 and I love FS100 and I love the canon DSLRs, but they all came with their own sets of headaches.

the base looks you mention are not very reliable, because you might also be critiquing the different lenses, or how different cameras treat the lenses and the mounts. bottomline, I think all the cameramakers are still struggling to make something that's portable, affordable and pushable, that a lot of the romantic notions you've observed from the vimeo tests are still very incidental or anecdotal.


Quote from: wilderesque on August 05, 2013, 04:15:39 AM

What I'm curious to know is everyone's thoughts on the base "looks", the textures of these cameras. Each one has specific properties like a built-in film stock you can't change, no matter how much post-processing you do. Or if it can be done, I haven't seen it.
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot."
- Buster Keaton

HeywoodRFloyd


Sleepless

Alright folks, I need some advice to buy a camera. It's for work, so mostly corporate video that will ultimately live on YouTube. We do a lot of green screen stuff, talking heads, but also increasingly seminars/presentations in big rooms. My main things are ease of use, good image quality, flexibility for sound input, and output files are easy to use with Adobe Premiere. Right now, we're using more of a camcorder, but looking to upgrade to something more along these lines: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/buy/Pro-Camcorders-Cameras/ci/16763/N/4256818817?origSearch=professional%20camcorders

So... any recommendations based on what you've used?
He held on. The dolphin and all the rest of its pod turned and swam out to sea, and still he held on. This is it, he thought. Then he remembered that they were air-breathers too. It was going to be all right.