Author Topic: DSLRs for video  (Read 23792 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Reinhold

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 2452
  • Respect: +3
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #30 on: January 10, 2011, 02:33:18 PM »
0
http://gizmodo.com/5729720/transform-your-dslr-into-a-supercharged-professional-video-camera

Gizmodo article about Magic Lantern software for canon DSLR's, a free and open source set of very handy tools for filmmakers (i'd get it for the custom crop marks alone, and that's pretty much the least interesting thing it does). what really caught my eye was the programmable rack focus.
Obviously what you are doing right now is called (in my upcoming book of psychology at least) validation. I think it's a normal thing to do. People will reply, say anything, and then you're gonna do what you were subconsciently thinking of doing all along.

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #31 on: February 15, 2011, 02:18:48 PM »
0
This thread on the Cinematography.com forum has charts comparing the Canon 550D T2i, Sony EX3, and the Red One (downscaled to 1080).  Quite a difference.  The DSLR looks like mush, especially on fine detail.

for petes sake

  • The Road of Trials
  • **
  • Posts: 96
  • Respect: +1
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #32 on: February 15, 2011, 03:00:58 PM »
0
Yea but did they shoot the RED at 4k or 1080p?  The little sticky says 4k, so obviously if they shot that it's going to be a lot sharper in a cropped and blown up image.  The sharpness between the EX-3 and 5D is more surprising, but it's kind of like comparing apples and oranges.  The DoF between the 2 cameras is very different and is much more of a factor in deciding which is right for a project.  The 5D is perfectly crisp for almost everything you need, unless you are projecting on an actual movie theater screen or doing digital effects/composting.  The 5D is the only way to shoot 1080p with a 35mm DoF without actual film or adapters.  Even the RED only gives you the DoF of 16mm if you shoot anything smaller than 4k.

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #33 on: February 15, 2011, 05:01:06 PM »
0
The Red footage was shot at 4K and downconverted to 1920x1080, which is the same resolution as the video from the DSLR and EX-3.  Nothing is blown up in those charts.

The only reason you would shoot less than 4K on a Red is if you wanted to do slow-motion, in which case you would switch to 3K or 2K.  By shooting at a higher resolution than what you end up with you get more detail than just shooting natively at that resolution.  Most people who shoot on the Red finish at 2K, 1080, standard definition, or even for the web.

I'm about to do some pickup shots on the 5D for a film we shot on the Red.  They take place inside a car and in low light, for which the 5D works well.  On a previous project we shot some b-roll on the 5D of an artist's canvasses, and we got a lot of moire on the fine textures of the canvasses and pencil drawings.  But our EX-3 footage of the canvasses turned out fine.  Do tests before production under various situations, with different textures, etc., and have a DIT on-set checking the footage.

Focus pulling is an issue on DSLRs, so people end up either getting special focus pulling equipment for their still lenses or putting PL mount cinema lenses on the cameras.  Also, the shallower DOF on the 5D (because of the bigger sensor) means that to get a useable DOF you have to stop down and add more light, unless you have an amazing focus puller who can pull focus on shots in which your focal plane is razor-thin.  Or you avoid the longer lenses and compositions in which you get razor-thin focus.

BTW, if you are shooting on DSLRs, invest in PluralEyes.  It will help you sync the production audio to the camera audio.

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7084
  • Respect: +1835
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #34 on: February 15, 2011, 05:36:22 PM »
0
Canon 550d t2i = $1,000

Red One = $17,000

The Red damn well better give a higher quality image.  The real question is, is the Red's image actually seventeen times better?
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #35 on: February 15, 2011, 05:49:53 PM »
0
I'm not saying "Don't use DSLRs ever, get a Red."  I posted the link to the chart to show where the DSLR stands compared to other commonly used cameras.  People often intercut Red, EX-3, and DSLR footage, so its all about knowing the capabilities and limitations of various cameras.

That $17,000 will only get you the Red body.  You'd rent a Red anyways, unless you knew you were going to use it enough to pay it off.  Besides, there are plenty of accessories that make using a DSLR easier.  Handheld rigs, PL mount adapters, matte boxes, etc.

BTW, damn you and your hypnotic Alizee avatars!  Can't..stop...staring...

polkablues

  • Child of Myth
  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 7084
  • Respect: +1835
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #36 on: February 15, 2011, 06:09:06 PM »
0
Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I just always get annoyed when I see unlike items like that being compared side-by-side.  But now having read the thread that it was posted in and knowing the context, it makes more sense.
Now you're in the *spoiler* place.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2011, 02:35:10 AM »
0
Canon 550d t2i = $1,000

Red One = $17,000

The Red damn well better give a higher quality image.  The real question is, is the Red's image actually seventeen times better?

well this is the funny thing about red, it doesn't really matter if you shoot 2k or 4k. any digital projector, even ones in large theaters, usually are 2k.

it's all in the lens.
the one last hit that spent you...

RegularKarate

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 6051
  • Respect: +211
    • http://www.livejournal.com/users/regularkarate/
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2011, 10:40:18 AM »
0

well this is the funny thing about red, it doesn't really matter if you shoot 2k or 4k. any digital projector, even ones in large theaters, usually are 2k.

This is kind of out-of-date info.  The Drafthouse here is loaded with 4Ks and more and more theaters are buying 4K projectors.

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2011, 11:00:32 AM »
0
well this is the funny thing about red, it doesn't really matter if you shoot 2k or 4k. any digital projector, even ones in large theaters, usually are 2k.

Sure it matters. In 4K you are using the whole sensor, but in 2K you are using a roughly S16-sized crop of the sensor.  2K and 3K have a smaller field-of-view than 4K, and downrezzing 4K to 2K is sharper and less noisy than shooting in 2K.

Most films, including the ones shot on 35mm, are finished in 2K these days, though gradually more films will be finished and projected in 4K.

socketlevel

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1428
  • Respect: +75
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #40 on: February 16, 2011, 12:09:42 PM »
0
right but for the purpose of shooting a short film, that's really going overkill. i'd rather focus spending money on other things. i assume this was the context.

i'd like to know how many theaters have 4k.
the one last hit that spent you...

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #41 on: February 16, 2011, 12:43:12 PM »
0
right but for the purpose of shooting a short film, that's really going overkill. i'd rather focus spending money on other things. i assume this was the context.

Again, I'm not saying "get a Red."  I'm saying, "know your camera."  It helps to know a bit about what's under the hood if you want to get the most out of your camera.

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #42 on: February 16, 2011, 10:00:09 PM »
0
I'm gonna refer to my mentor again, 'cause I don't really have too much original thoughts when it comes to all the technological stuff.
it is entirely true that a feature can be shot on Red and the Canon DSLRs are subpar even for the HD standard. It relies on a very sloppy compression system, therefore you lose all kinds of footage and your footage acts up in all kinds of ways in post - even for simple things like shooting against a fence or panning with any kind of speed.
but the trade off is the sex factor - you get those smoldering, incredible shallow DOF with just available light. SMOLDERING. that's about it really. it's a shorthand for production value and it really just lives in the mind of the viewers with that type of bias. but that's convincing enough for me to spend $756 on a 60D, plus about 2K on lenses. I think I made that money back in about a month.
You can rent out your Red for a month and make the same money back I suppose.
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.”
- Buster Keaton

Ravi

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 4867
  • Respect: +88
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2011, 07:02:16 PM »
0

Pubrick

  • Admin
  • *****
  • Posts: 12170
  • on the not-face of it
  • Respect: +774
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #44 on: March 14, 2011, 04:24:17 AM »
0
I'm finally able to afford one of these cameras again.. so I'd like your experienced/ informed input before I drop the big bucks on one of these babies and some glass.

I've decide 60D is the way to go because Pete's mentor made the most convincing case but now there appears to be a new contender in the form of the t3i.. it has the swivel screen and the same sensor as the 60D/7d apparently.. it only lacks some features in the still image dept but since I was ready months ago to go with the t2i i think I should be fine with that compromise.

Also is that Amazon offer that was posted a while back still good?
under the paving stones.

 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy