Author Topic: DSLRs for video  (Read 23768 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

diggler

  • The Return Threshold
  • ****
  • Posts: 914
  • Respect: +67
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #120 on: July 08, 2013, 06:29:17 PM »
0
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

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
  • Respect: +1689
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #121 on: August 04, 2013, 05:25:52 AM »
+6
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

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +133
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #122 on: August 04, 2013, 09:50:59 AM »
+1
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 --

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
  • Respect: +1689
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #123 on: August 04, 2013, 06:31:33 PM »
0
Thanks for those, here's another guide I came across a few days ago.

GUIDE: Get RAW on a 5D mark III with Magic Lantern

pete

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #124 on: August 05, 2013, 03:21:42 AM »
0
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.

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

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
  • Respect: +1689
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #125 on: August 05, 2013, 04:15:39 AM »
0
I'm mostly comparing the feel of the images from the finished movies I mentioned above to the feel of the images I've seen come out of the Canons, but re: the Dragon sensor you're right it's not fair to judge before seeing it properly graded, and about the flexibility in post, no argument there. The technical aspects of those cameras far outpace the 5D no question. The C500 isn't as advanced as the Red and Alexa on paper, but shoots 4K and C-Log.

For those who haven't seen them, here's the short film Man & Beast DP'd by Jeff Cronenweth and shot with the C500 at 4K:

Man & Beast - Vimeo (Shot at 30p god knows why)

and the Bryce Dallas-Howard directed short When You Find Me, shot with the C300 at 1080p:




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.

HeywoodRFloyd

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +133
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #126 on: August 05, 2013, 11:48:45 AM »
+1
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

  • The Master of Two Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 5516
  • freakin huge
  • Respect: +383
    • my site
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #127 on: August 06, 2013, 02:17:09 PM »
0
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.



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

  • The Vision Quest
  • **
  • Posts: 239
  • Respect: +133
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #128 on: August 09, 2013, 04:35:39 AM »
+1
And this is probably the best comparison video for H.264 vs. RAW (No post):
5D Mark III RAW vs H.264

I spoke too fucking soon

Canon 5d Mark III Magic Lantern (Raw vs H.264) test 2

Amazing

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
  • Respect: +1689
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #129 on: April 26, 2014, 12:15:43 PM »
+1
Not a DSLR, but the recently released Digital Bolex camera shoots 12 bit 2K RAW and is only $3,300. It utilizes a Kodak Truesense CCD sensor instead of the CMOS sensors that Red and the Alexa use, which produces a more traditionally film-like image. Check out some footage from the earlier, now-discontinued Ikonoskop camera which also utilized a Truesense sensor:

Ikonoskop - Coney Island - Vimeo

Ikonoskop - Peter - Vimeo

Ikonoskop - Peter After Peter Teaser - Vimeo

A PL mount for the Digital Bolex is being finalized and will be released later next month, I can't wait to see images from this camera when paired with professional lenses (and shot by people with experience).

Here's one of the more recent videos:

Digital Bolex - Pigeon Point Lighthouse - Vimeo

Here's a thread full of other videos shot with this camera. The earlier ones have a bit of a red hue, which has since been corrected with updated firmware.

Hopefully a 4K, 35mm sized sensor version utilizing this Truesense technology will come out eventually. For my money its film feel blows everything else out of the water.

wilder

  • Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3605
  • Respect: +1689
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #130 on: August 30, 2015, 09:02:18 PM »
+2
Some great footage from the Digital Bolex, especially the stuff from 1:20 forward

Sleepless

  • The Master of Three Worlds
  • *****
  • Posts: 1812
  • I told you I would eat you
  • Respect: +350
Re: DSLRs for video
« Reply #131 on: June 01, 2016, 04:35:51 PM »
0
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?


 

DMCA & Copyright | Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy