XIXAX Film Forum

Creative Corner => Filmmakers' Workshop => Topic started by: RegularKarate on April 13, 2010, 01:16:17 PM

Title: DSLRs for video
Post by: RegularKarate on April 13, 2010, 01:16:17 PM
Not Dick-Sucking-Lip Reduction Surgery.

More like this new step in the digital revolution that has (probably too many) indie filmmakers using DSLRs to shoot film work.

It's been brought up in a bunch of different threads, but let's just have a discussion about it here.

Those that have experience, talk about it here... pros and cons.

Obviously, the main pro is that you get the shallow DoF all in a an HD format.
The list of Cons seems really big though... having to record sound separately (if you want decent sound), having to mount it on something if you don't want the movement to be awkward, the rolling shutter causing the jelly look, mostly inferior encoding formats, etc...

Still, I'm considering selling my DVX100a and picking one of these guys up... especially since I want to get back into still photography and don't really shoot as much video as I used to.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: squints on April 13, 2010, 01:47:19 PM

Still, I'm considering selling my DVX100a and picking one of these guys up... especially since I want to get back into still photography and don't really shoot as much video as I used to.

this is exactly the way i feel cept i've got a gl-2 instead of the dvx.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: picolas on April 13, 2010, 03:00:33 PM
having to record sound separately (if you want decent sound)
for lazy doc purposes i find the internal mic on the 7d is fine. but you can also plug in a mic to avoid resyncing, like magician did. either way, recording sound separately is kind of a necessary evil if you're making something bigger.

having to mount it on something if you don't want the movement to be awkward
image stabilization (in most canon lenses) helps a lot. the motor makes a bit of a sound but it only becomes really apparent with silence.

the rolling shutter causing the jelly look
the smaller sensor on the 7d significantly decreases the chance of jelly.

mostly inferior encoding formats
just convert with mpeg streamclip overnight and you're good.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: RegularKarate on April 13, 2010, 03:49:45 PM
I guess I'm really just playing Devil's advocate here, but I'd like to hear more about it so this is how I'm doing it:

for lazy doc purposes i find the internal mic on the 7d is fine. but you can also plug in a mic to avoid resyncing, like magician did. either way, recording sound separately is kind of a necessary evil if you're making something bigger.
lazy doc's fine and all, but I don't do those.  Plugging a mic in I'm sure is fine for docs or really indie stuff, but there's no XLR so it's not very reliable.

Recording sound separately really isn't a necessary evil for anything but film or high production.  You can mix straight into the camera on "real" video cameras.  You just need a mixer... and I've had pretty good luck with sound just going from a boom directly into the camera and mixing it there.. you've got two channels to work with, which works for the basic stuff I do.

image stabilization (in most canon lenses) helps a lot. the motor makes a bit of a sound but it only becomes really apparent with silence.

I'm sure the image stabilization helps (does it pick up on mic?), but camera movement is still different.  You can usually see camera weight with smaller cameras when they're not mounted.

the smaller sensor on the 7d significantly decreases the chance of jelly.

Still looks pretty bad to me. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANHPJPM0dPs)  Maybe your experience has been different.

just convert with mpeg streamclip overnight and you're good.

more room for loss and artifacts. 

--------------------
Obviously, this is mostly nitpicking, but I'm sure some of this stuff matters and I just want different opinions.  Truth be told, I may end up getting one for video sketches, but might stick to using the HMC150 my friend has for the short I want to shoot this year.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: RegularKarate on April 13, 2010, 04:56:42 PM
Also, this almost has me sold and I've only watched part one so far.

The Great Camera Shootout (http://www.zacuto.com/shootout)

It's comparing DSLRs to each other and to film.  Unfortunately, that's not what I would really like to see (I'd like to see other HD cameras used), but wow, the results are pretty incredible.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: New Feeling on April 13, 2010, 06:02:20 PM
pretty sure I'll be getting a T2i this week.  thanks for the sweet link RK
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ghostboy on April 13, 2010, 06:25:44 PM
I love them. I've shot a lot on the 5D and just did a commercial on the 7D two days ago. I have yet to actually own one, but I need to get with the program. Also, it was just announced that the season finale of House would he shot entirely on the 5D. Yeah, they shoot with H264 compression, but honestly, who can tell on TV or the internet?

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on April 13, 2010, 09:40:22 PM
we'll see if i can either make some money off of one or decide to make a short film before the release of the 5D Mkiii or 7Dmkii, but for me there are still too many cons to buy one without a specific project in mind. in one or two years, this market is going to be really transformed by RAW video, more frame rates, and simultaneous HD output, not to mention cine-for-HDSLR lenses.  i don't expect much progress on the sound front, but really the options that exist currently are suitable.

if canon can do an HDSLR full-frame or larger sensor that can shoot 2k@ 24fps RAW for $3,000 (body), then they are positioned to knock the entry level scarlet out of the market simply because the lenses are so much cheaper... in fact, RED could end up selling its cameras cheaper to attract prosumers out of the HDSLR market. (indie filmmakers win)

canon's cameras are both stunning cameras for the money right now, but again this is going to change really fast. if you can shoot from a tripod and the panning jelly won't be too much of a problem i see no issues with having to sync sound in post (since a separate digital recorder can actually offer more versatility than strictly on-camera  or wireless-to-camera sound options). i've seen people mention anti-jelly plugins but i haven't seen them in action.

the 5D's jelly problem is a dealbreaker for me compared to the 7D, but it's clearly a better camera overall.  the way i feel is that if your project can be shot on an HDSLR without compromising anything-- go for it. the cheaper lenses alone are worth it.

it's worth mentioning that the rebel T2i also shoots approximately 7D quality video and has many of the same features with a cheaper/smaller body-- for $800 with the stock lens.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on April 25, 2010, 06:20:53 PM
These DSLRs usually obtain 1920x1080 from the larger sensor by throwing out lines of resolution rather than intelligently rescaling, so you can get aliasing.  But on the web you can't really tell, and there are filters for this in post.  You also have to convert the H.264 files to ProRes or another file format so you don't have to keep rendering while editing (H.264 is a better delivery format than acquisition format) and so that you can use timecode.  You don't have as much latitude in color correction, but the video can look surprisingly good if it was shot right in the first place.

Editing a multicamera concert shot on Canon 5Ds (http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/ssimmons/story/editing_a_multicamera_concert_shot_on_canon_5ds/)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Gamblour. on July 20, 2010, 02:50:04 PM
pretty sure I'll be getting a T2i this week.  thanks for the sweet link RK

What's your experience been like with the T2i? Anyone else? I'm considering getting one, but the footage from the 5/7d is just beautiful, so I feel a bit underwhelmed when I see footage from the T2i.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Champion Souza on July 20, 2010, 08:41:32 PM
I recently got a T2i.  I like it just fine.  Before purchasing it I did I read a lot online.  Most of what I read said it was practically identical to the 7D as far as video quality.  I've never shot anything with a 7D though, so I don't know...
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Gamblour. on July 21, 2010, 09:45:58 AM
That's what I've read too, and I've been digging through comparisons and tests on Vimeo. It looks very comparable. This would be my first camera purchase, so I'm trying to do as much research as possible. I've been borrowing an HVX for a while for shooting, but it's just got the standard lens, which is pretty awful. It just isn't cutting it anymore.

That brings me to my second hurdle: what lens should I get? I've read the kit lens with the T2i is pretty bad, but I've seen some stuff where it looks fairly decent. I'm kind of lost here in general, so again, any suggestions or directions to go would be wonderful. I'm going through various telephoto lenses on Amazon right now.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Champion Souza on July 22, 2010, 12:38:56 AM
One thing to consider about the T2i is that it has a smaller sensor that magnifies the lens by 1.6.  So a 50mm lens becomes the equivalent of an 80mm.  I got a 28mm f1.8 lens.  On this camera it's the closest to a 50mm and I'm happy with it. 

If you haven't already then check out http://www.cinema5d.com (http://www.cinema5d.com).  It's one of the best resources I've found for info on the Canon hdslr's. 
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Gamblour. on July 23, 2010, 09:13:48 AM
Awesome, thanks!
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 17, 2010, 05:28:02 PM
did I miss someone posting this link?

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

comparison with a lot of the dslrs out there.

also, the August's print version of American Cinematographer has a good little article with the DP who shot the season finale of House entirely on the 5d mark ii.

I'm learning these cameras, I hate them but I'm still learning just to stay competitive (the result can be seen here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXje8ZPU0OY), as posted elsewhere on the board).  It's like playing Tetris on the gameboy vs. the arcade and how they switched from lefty to right-handed control and even though you know how to kick ass you still can't.

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Pubrick on August 17, 2010, 09:09:32 PM
did I miss someone posting this link?

http://www.zacuto.com/shootout

comparison with a lot of the dslrs out there.

yeah, RK posted it.

The Great Camera Shootout (http://www.zacuto.com/shootout)

It's comparing DSLRs to each other and to film.  Unfortunately, that's not what I would really like to see (I'd like to see other HD cameras used), but wow, the results are pretty incredible.

hmm. i guess people just hate reaing this thread.

and now even moreso since i just pulled a stefen (new page)!
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Neil on August 19, 2010, 03:12:45 PM
So, i'm considering getting this package
http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-Kiss-X4-Rebel-T2i-550D-SLR-Camera-7-lens-Kit-/130421735434?pt=Digital_Cameras (http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-Canon-Kiss-X4-Rebel-T2i-550D-SLR-Camera-7-lens-Kit-/130421735434?pt=Digital_Cameras)

Does anyone have any thoughts on the quality of the lenses that come with it and or if the accessories that come with it are even worth it etc.

I've used the camera and i was very impressed with the footage.  The accessories are what i'm wondering about.  I'm sure the lenses can't be that nice for this price.

Thanks
&
Thanks p for directing me here.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: I Love a Magician on August 26, 2010, 08:22:02 AM
60D, y'all

(http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/EOS-60D-w-EF-S-18-135mm-FRT-LCD-OPEN.jpg)

http://philipbloom.net/2010/08/26/canon-60d-officially-er-official/

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2010/08/25/canon-launch-eos-60d-1080p-articulated-screen-and-manual-audio-levels/
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Pubrick on August 26, 2010, 09:09:21 AM
yeah, fuck, i just read about that on engadget..

to anyone who uses these, how important is it to have an articulated screen really?

the appeal to me is hopefully this will drive the price of the older models down. i love it these days when two-year old technology is still state of the art for my purposes.. i would be very happy with a 550D (maybe not two year old, but two generations or whatever).
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: I Love a Magician on August 26, 2010, 09:34:44 AM
screen wouldn't be too big a deal to me (i like to use a z-finder (http://store.zacuto.com/Z-Finder.html) when i can), but i can see it coming in handy when you don't have a monitor on hand (i never have a monitor on hand). big thing for me is the controls. the t2i doesn't have a wheel so you have to adjust the aperture with buttons and shit, which is a hassle.

the price is nice, but it's still a bit out of my range when you throw in all the other stuff you would need (that z-finder is expensive as hell for some reason, some sort of mic [i use this (http://www.amazon.com/dp/B000I5W7K8/?tag=20001a-20) because i'm usually shooting by myself], LENSES, plus the editing software)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on September 07, 2010, 04:02:17 PM
i thought this article was worth sharing, though it's pretty easy to find:

For image quality buffs, DSLR video is off the table

by Devin Coldewey on December 2, 2008

http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/12/02/for-image-quality-buffs-dslr-video-is-off-the-table/

(http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/zone_crop.jpg)

The 5DmkII is, it should be said first, an excellent camera, and it takes amazing still photos. Many people seem to think, though, that along with their professional still camera they are getting a professional video camera. While the video it takes is leagues ahead of cheapo handheld HD cams like the MinoHD and Zi6, the video is fundamentally lower-quality than true, dedicated digital cinema cameras. This wouldnít need to be said if people werenít saying otherwise, and itís no slur against Canon either, but if misconceptions like this are allowed to continue, thatís a problem.

Above you see a crop of a zone plate, a set of concentric circles often seen in photographic testing (like here but imagine circles) to determine sharpness, chromatic aberration, and that sort of thing. The image above is a still from some 1080p 5DmkII video taken by Jim Jannard, creator of the RED camera which the 5D is mistakenly compared to (partially REDís fault). Hereís a resized version of the full image:

(http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/zone_resize.jpg)

As you can see, there is some really egregious Moirť effect going on. Good example of how the circles should look here. Note that Moirť is seen in almost any capture of a zone plate or focus test, but this is particularly bad. What causes this? An assessment by Pango at the Reduser.net forum based on the sensor size and resolution suggests that the 5DmkII keeps every third line in the 16:9 AR area and resizes it horizontally to 1920 pixels, creating a 1920◊1080 image. No one knows for sure, but something like that is almost certainly going on. The following image is very much an exaggeration, since normally youíd have much more information to interpolate, but it gets the idea across:

(http://www.crunchgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/samus.png)

This method of throwing away lines, resizing and recombining them is of course much more noticeable when you can check out the individual frames and when the pixels are made super-visible, as above. However, when the technique is used to resize video, it results in a predictable pattern of aliasing, or jaggy lines and unnatural motion, along the edges of things that are diagonal, most so when they are close to horizontal. Near-vertical lines, faces and some details are interpreted all right, but edges signs, horizon lines, building edges, all these things, depending on their orientation, may have a shimmer or stepped quality to them. The Moirť pattern seen in the concentric circles above is an indicator of this problem, and shows at what angles and with which colors is it most likely to happen.

Itís true that once resampled down to plain olí HD or lower than that, itís nearly imposible to notice, and perhaps itís not so easy to see in the first place if youíre not looking for it. But for real cinema, itís an insuperable barrier for DSLR video right now because they canít output video from their whole frame ó thus the need to use every third line, or whatever technique is in use. I donít have a Moirť detection plate for a Nikon D90 or Iíd have mentioned it more prominently; it may be that itís better, or worse, although the sensor of the D90 appears to read slower, resulting in more skew and jelly-motion.

Iím not sure how many people were really making a big deal about the new set of DSLRs being professional video cameras, but the few movies weíve seen come out sure arenít doing anything to dispel that notion (other than the first one being really bad). If you were to see 5D or D90 video at full size projected in a theater, the disparities would be obvious.

I just thought Iíd throw this out there so people know whatís going on that makes a professional digital cinema camera different from a professional still camera that shoots video. Doubtless the problems go both ways as well: the RED may show up the 5DmkII in video, as well it should costing over ten times as much, but it canít touch it for still image quality and capability. Letís just stop comparing the two altogether. DSLRs will get better and their video is great for basic stuff, but thereís just no comparison.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on September 07, 2010, 04:40:38 PM
my mentor/ filmmaking partner had a short little bitch session on his blog about this too, recently:
http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on October 08, 2010, 12:11:43 PM
Jim Jannard (head of RED) said last week that the scarlet will not be a prosumer camera, effectively surrendering this part of the market to the big 3 HDSLR makers and Panasonic. So, no competition to encourage RAW video any time soon, and worst of all no scarlet under 10,000.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Gamblour. on October 11, 2010, 01:39:42 PM
my mentor/ filmmaking partner had a short little bitch session on his blog about this too, recently:
http://prolost.com/blog/2010/9/2/ha-ha-very-funny-canon-now-get-back-to-work.html


He makes a good argument. I've had my Canon T2i (same video as the 7d) for about a month, and hadn't noticed the loss in resolution from stills to video. But now that he points it out, I can see it. It's not crystal clear.

However, my camera was $900 with the kit lens, it shoots a really large image, and it's small. For indie filmmakers, this is a game-changer. Instead of the huge disparity between DV and film, you have amateurs looking a lot less amateur. I think trading off quality for cost is worth it, but that's just me.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Pubrick on October 14, 2010, 03:09:18 AM
He makes a good argument. I've had my Canon T2i (same video as the 7d) for about a month, and hadn't noticed the loss in resolution from stills to video. But now that he points it out, I can see it. It's not crystal clear.

However, my camera was $900 with the kit lens, it shoots a really large image, and it's small. For indie filmmakers, this is a game-changer. Instead of the huge disparity between DV and film, you have amateurs looking a lot less amateur. I think trading off quality for cost is worth it, but that's just me.

indeed, i think it's an issue for hardcore image enthusiasts.

i would only be shooting short films that would then be viewed online anyway. how many of these things will actually be seen on a big enough screen to make any discernible difference? even if a short film you make with the t2i gets selected to screen at some festival, they've been dealing with shitty video for so long that this upgrade (albeit imperfect) will just look amazing. also the general public doesn't give a shit, and they're the ones who watch things.

can someone direct me to a reputable non-ebay place to buy this camera in america with a selection of lens kits? it's down to $1300 here but that's way overpriced considering that the australian dollar is worth the same as the american dollar now. i should be able to save a few hundred dollars by importing it but i don't know the names of like respectable camera retailers in the US..
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Gamblour. on October 14, 2010, 03:17:24 PM
I bought mine on Amazon, but there's also this site: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/675618-REG/Canon_4462B003_EOS_Rebel_T2i_Digital.html

I don't know if there's a problem with them shipping to Australia or not.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on October 15, 2010, 03:32:24 PM
it's on sale at J&R in store. check out jr.com to see if they ship to AU
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on November 16, 2010, 10:50:42 PM
ok once again quoting my mentor Stu, this is his blog where he argues why 60D is the best bet for those filmmakers solely interested in getting a HDSLR for video.

http://prolost.com/blog/2010/11/14/hdslr-shopping-what-you-want-is-a-canon-60d.html#comments
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Neil on November 16, 2010, 10:53:17 PM
ok once again quoting my mentor Stu, this is his blog where he argues why 60D is the best bet for those filmmakers solely interested in getting a HDSLR for video.

http://prolost.com/blog/2010/11/14/hdslr-shopping-what-you-want-is-a-canon-60d.html#comments

I doubt that there would be too many people who would argue, but depending on the budget most of these cameras (DSLR) ,are game changers.

I know that isn't really the issue at hand, just adding that obvious bit.

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on November 25, 2010, 08:20:01 PM
http://m.edealinfo.com/deals/dealinfo.php?dealdate=2010-11-25&seqno=201

500 bucks off of canon bundle (not the stock lens) with a mem card and two canon IS lenses. Dunno if you can also apply the code that pete's friend mentions in his blog for another 100 off.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on January 10, 2011, 02:33:18 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on February 15, 2011, 02:18:48 PM
This thread on the Cinematography.com forum (http://www.cinematography.com/index.php?showtopic=50084&st=0&p=343128&hl=aliasing&fromsearch=1&#entry343128) 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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: for petes sake on February 15, 2011, 03:00:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on February 15, 2011, 05:01:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on February 15, 2011, 05:36:22 PM
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?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on February 15, 2011, 05:49:53 PM
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...
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on February 15, 2011, 06:09:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: socketlevel on February 16, 2011, 02:35:10 AM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: RegularKarate on February 16, 2011, 10:40:18 AM

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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on February 16, 2011, 11:00:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: socketlevel on February 16, 2011, 12:09:42 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on February 16, 2011, 12:43:12 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on February 16, 2011, 10:00:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on March 04, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
HDSLR Color Grading Ė Before or After (http://www.hdslrhub.com/tips/hdslr-color-grading-before-or-after.htm)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Pubrick on March 14, 2011, 04:24:17 AM
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?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on March 14, 2011, 04:35:17 AM
yep. still $899, though the $100 discount has long expired.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on March 14, 2011, 04:36:00 PM
5DtoRGB (http://rarevision.com/5dtorgb/)

Looks like this software does a better YCbCr to RGB conversion than Final Cut Pro, Compressor, etc.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on March 14, 2011, 10:11:09 PM
gathered the opinions and tests by them pixelnerds on the internet, this sounded like a waste of time.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on March 15, 2011, 01:43:50 AM
There's only so much quality you can squeeze out of DSLR footage hamstrung at the source by h.264, line-skipping, and 8-bit color. The reviews I've read about 5DtoRGB were mostly positive, though. I don't need it for the DSLR video projects on which I work (its supposedly quite slow), but I will play with the demo version at some point to see if I think its worth using.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2011, 10:55:40 PM
So, I don't like using DSLRs for video. I don't like the way they handle and I do not like the way the video looks (too harsh, heavily compressed, low dynamic range/latitude in exposure, jiggly jello problems).

But I still have this thing where it's like one of my eyes will drift over and look at them and consider getting one, while the rest of myself (including my other eye) just wants to walk away from it. The reason is that I also really want to get back into still photography, which I used to really love. I shot on film and really enjoyed it.

My IDEAL right now would be to get back into film photography, buy a film scanner and be able to play with images in the computer that originated on film, not because I think that would make the best quality or give me the most control, but I believe that it would be the most fun.

Of course, I also want a video camera. I want the Sony EX-1, which can be got on eBay for about $4200 or so.

If I were to do that in the ideal way, it would cost around $5000 for the separate film photography stuff (I already own a good film camera and a couple of okay lenses, but need the film scanner and a couple of other things) and for the video stuff. Not counting the slow and continual acquisition of lenses and having to buy and develop film forever.

That's when I start thinkin', "Well, for around $1000 for one of these DSLRs plus the cost of lenses, I can get photography and video equipment in one, albeit having to compromise on my ideal regarding both aspects of it (not wanting to do digital still photography OR DSLR video)."

Right now, I can't afford my ideal $5000+ solution, but I can afford the compromise of the DSLR. So my impatience is a factor, and I'd obviously rather not spend all my money on this stuff.

I have also thought about just renting my ideal video equipment, or buying it on eBay and then selling it on eBay after a specific project is finished. But this is unappealing because I really, really like just having a camera and being able to go out on my own and just shoot stuff whenever I feel like it.

Anyway, that's my little rant and if anybody has any advice, I'd like to hear it. People who have extensive experience with DSLRs--did you come to love it? Did you even hate it to begin with, or am I the only one that dislikes them? Even if you don't have any experience with any of these things, do you think it's better to compromise and be able to do both at a better price or hold out for the ideal? Keep in mind that all of this is just for my own enjoyment at this point and I have no particular projects or money-makin' schemes that require my ideal equipment. I would simply enjoy my ideal solution more.

I guess another alternative is to own the DSLR for my "whenever I feel like it" creative jaunts, and rent a better camera if I feel that I need better quality. One other plus for the DSLR is that I really like to just go out and shoot around, and that looks weird with a big video camera (and people will look at the camera and wonder what I'm doing and shit), but nobody gives a shit when it looks like you're taking still photos.

So this is some of what's been bouncing around in my head and I'd like to know what you all think, please. Thanks.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 17, 2011, 11:18:47 PM
Side note: I don't like a very shallow depth of field on video. It's another reason why I don't like most of the video that I see from DSLRs.

IF I were to shoot video on a DSLR, how can I maximize the depth of field? Can I maximize it to the point where I don't have to worry very much about focus pulling during a shot? I don't mean for dolly shots where I would expect to have to focus pull, but for things like when an actor moves his or her head (I see it all the time in DSLR video where the actor or the camera moves just a little bit and suddenly everything's out of focus). I want the depth of field to be deep enough for me not to have to use an external monitor to ensure focus.

I would like to shoot without adapters and mounts and various doodads.

(I sound like an old cranky man about this stuff, I know. I'm sorry.)

I know that there are firmware dealies and software that helps to give more control and smooth out some of the flaws (like the jellying). Does that stuff work pretty well?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on May 17, 2011, 11:52:03 PM
If you want greater depth of field, just reduce the aperture setting. The reason so many DSLR videos have such a tiny depth of field is that given the ability to do something on video that they couldn't do before, people tend to overdo the hell out of it. Personally, I love that look, but like anything, it has to make sense as an artistic choice. But the shallow focus is by no means the only thing you can do with a DSLR, and if you want to go another route with it, they certainly have the capability.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on May 17, 2011, 11:58:13 PM
for a deeper DOF, shoot with a ton of high key lighting (so you can lower your aperture) and/or increase the ISO. It isn't a preferable look though, since you won't have a lot of contrast. But you can play around with the lighting in the scene, just make sure you subjects are lit well.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 18, 2011, 10:21:25 AM
Thanks, guys. I guess I knew that stuff from my photography experience, but I didn't really know exactly how this stuff translates to digital because I have limited experience with DSLRs. For example, my preferred way of getting deep DoF on film was simply to expose the image for a long time with the lowest aperture, from 5 seconds to several minutes (I was really into taking pictures of still things in low light). I'm not sure how much this is possible is digital photography. With video, I'd be hesitant to mess around with shutter speed because that would affect blurriness/stutteriness, etc.

I think I'll borrow a friend's DSLR and mess around with it for a while to get a better sense of how they work.

But I'd still like opinions on whether I should get a DSLR in the first place, considering my thoughts in my first post.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on May 19, 2011, 10:26:45 PM
I completely agree with your complaints about DSLRs, even more so lately since I shot some 16mm and it makes the digital stuff look like shit. Bottom line though is, you still get a really nice image, affordable lens options, and pretty amazing flexibility for shooting on the day with a DSLR. If all you're doing is short projects I don't think you'd regret buying a 60d/7d.

I think md is our resident dop with experience with DSLRs so I'd suggest trying to get a response out of him haha
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 19, 2011, 11:42:07 PM
Yeah I did a ton of research since asking about this and decided I'll get a 60D and shoot small things on it, see how I feel about it. If I hate it, I can sell it on eBay because these DSLRs are maintaining their resale value for a pretty long time. I'm also buying it refurbished from Canon so I'm not spending full price on it; I can probably sell it and lose maybe a couple hundred.

Some of my research pointed out various things that you could do to help with the inherent problems. For example, Technicolor created this freeware for a setting designed specifically to get the maximum dynamic range/latitude possible by recording the most information from the image and not worrying about getting it to look good on camera but to allow you the most room to play with in post. There's also freeware and other software that helps with this stuff in post. Not perfect, but I'm believing that I can get it to look good.

Also, I'm becoming convinced that the reason I hate most of what I'm seeing out of these cameras is that people have such a hard on for shooting in low light and shooting with the widest aperture for shallow DoF that they don't really care that they're blowing out their whites and making it look terrible. I feel like a keen eye and getting to know what the camera can do what what I want out of an image will help with a lot of these issues.

Truthfully, it's more than good enough for me to do my more freeform projects that I'll just put up on the internet. If I find myself doing something where I really need it to look much better, or if I feel like I absolutely need a very wide latitude in the image, I can rent a better camera. That'll be way down the line anyway.

So now I'm excited about getting this thing. Really, really looking forward to getting back into photography. Lately, I've been feeling like I have so much more to explore visually than I do with my writing.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on May 21, 2011, 02:57:19 AM
Just bought a Canon 60D of my own earlier today. Haven't had a chance to play with it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. Hopefully I'll get lots of good Rapture pics and video!
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 21, 2011, 01:16:17 PM
Sweet!

Well I'll receive the 60D on Monday. But right after ordering it, I kept on researching and started looking more seriously at the Panasonic GH2. There's a consensus that it's not quite as good of a stills camera as the Canon 60D, but is a significantly better video camera. I've been looking a bunch of videos that were shot with it and I do like the look more than I do with the 60D. It resolves more lines of resolution (I think maybe twice as much), giving full progressive HD and getting rid of moire and having less of a rolling shutter problem, as well as obviously having more detail. I think there's more control over frame rates, as well. It seems like it is a pretty good stills camera, too.

Reviews are saying that, because it uses micro four thirds lenses, depth of field is a bit less shallow. That's a bad thing for most people, but a good thing for me!

I have other issues with it (it records to AVCHD, which I find a pain to work with--but then again I haven't worked with the H.264 that the 60D records to, so maybe both are a hassle, and the screen is low res), but I'm already suspecting that I'm going to have the 60D for a couple of months and then sell it and buy a GH2.

Here's a couple of comparison reviews:

http://dslrhd.com/2010/12/panasonic-gh2-vs-canon-60d/

http://www.eoshd.com/content/459-First-look-Panasonic-GH2-versus-Canon-60D

And a video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6bzQfZ8OCQ
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on May 21, 2011, 04:47:19 PM
well I heard after the quake it's harder than ever to get the GH2 because they're all on back order now or something is that true
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 21, 2011, 07:08:03 PM
It's very difficult, and I looked around and up and down and found a few. BUT, I just found out that a local photo shop has them in stock. They're closed for the day but I'm going to go tomorrow and buy one, and then return the 60D.

I've been looking at GH2 footage on Vimeo all day today and some of it is really gorgeous. In my opinion, it blows away the best 5D/7D/60D footage I've ever seen. There's a smoothness to the image on the GH2 where there's a harshness in the Canons. It resolves nearly twice as many lines of resolution by doing true progressive HD (I think the Canon's scan every other line and then creates the 1080 image out of that). It makes a big difference in stuff like leaves on trees and detail in clothing.

Examples:
http://vimeo.com/23657214
http://vimeo.com/23516112
http://vimeo.com/22806106

You can also shoot video while looking through the viewfinder rather than at the LCD screen, which I think I would like a lot.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on May 21, 2011, 07:30:47 PM
Definitely agree with matt35mm about that GH2 footage.

I haven't been following this stuff too closely but late last year I stumbled upon some GH1 footage that involved some kind of camera hack to allow it to record at a higher bitrate. The resulting footage is the best I've personally seen anything coming from a DSLR look, but like I said I haven't been tracking this stuff in the meantime so maybe you guys have seen better. Anyway here's the video, hopefully this hasn't been posted before:

GH13 Canon FD 50mm f1.4 - http://vimeo.com/12961268 (http://vimeo.com/12961268)

Canon 7D vs Hacked GH1 full series of tests (scroll down) - http://tinyurl.com/3gtzatd (http://tinyurl.com/3gtzatd)

Apparently the hack bumps the bitrate from 20mbps to 32mbps, and can be further fucked with to bump the bitrate to an insane 50mbps but can only record for a short while at that higher level.

How To Hack Panasonic GH1 to Shoot Super High-Quality 24p Video and More - http://tinyurl.com/2wavvtd (http://tinyurl.com/2wavvtd)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on May 22, 2011, 10:47:49 AM
Thanks for those! Yeah the comparison videos there are stark.

That GH13 video is great. It has that quality that you hope for from a still camera that also does video, where it feels like great quality photos coming to life.

The GH2 has a 24mbps maximum, which is higher than the plain GH1 by a bit. It's also got a larger sensor. If there's ever a hack to bump that up, I'd do it. The GH2 also outputs a clean HDMI image that can be recorded at 100mbps ProRes if you get an external recorder.

I'm gonna go get this thing today and maybe in a few days or weeks I'll post a video.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Ravi on May 27, 2011, 04:06:14 PM
GH2 vs EOS 7D Tests Part 1 (http://vimeo.com/17578821)

Canon 7D 1080p vs 720p Panasonic GH2 - Very Surprising results (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ox_EzLXOSzU)

I've looked into the GH2 a little bit, and so far it seems less soft and less contrasty than the 7D. I like the GH2 footage I've seen so far. 5D/7D footage can be a little too contrasty for my taste.

It has a 4/3 sensor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system), which is a good deal smaller than the 7D's APS-C sensor, so the GH2 will have deeper depth-of-field and probably less dynamic range and low-light sensitivity.

I don't know how much glass is available for the GH2, but I assume that the Canon cameras have more lens options.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on June 18, 2011, 03:43:58 PM
Speaking of lenses, I just picked this up this morning, and I'm already in love.

(http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d179/polkablues/12813.jpg)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on July 04, 2011, 11:07:29 AM
Well I've had the GH2 for about 5 weeks now and I really like it. Here's one of the videos that I made with it: www.vimeo.com/matt35mm/brutalday It's just a video that I made from shots taken while my friends were playing Ultimate Frisbee, so I'm shooting pretty wild and loose there, but I think the camera would perform very well when I use it for more controlled shots.

I think the quality looks great before it's compressed on Vimeo/YouTube. It still looks okay, though--as good as anything else on those sites, anyway.

I've also just gotten an additional lens that is much better in low-light, and am looking forward to shooting with that. Taking pictures and making videos has become a lot more fun and I've been doing it so much more since getting the camera.

I'm definitely glad that I got the GH2 over the 60D, although I am envious of the greater lens selection and quality that you have access to with the Canons. The lenses that were made for cameras like the GH2 are actually quite good, though the longer lenses are really slow, and I wish that they had a mechanical focus ring instead of the one that just keeps turning. I'm aware that there are adapters for pretty much any lens that I want, but I'm happy enough with my current set up, for now.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on July 04, 2011, 02:22:27 PM
I'm producing and shooting a feature length action film this summer. We just got the new Sony FS100. Slow Kit lens, but we're getting an adapter and we're gonna have fun.
that thing can really look into the dark.

a slo-mo test:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0_G-wZYcKaE&feature=feedu
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on July 04, 2011, 06:37:38 PM
^^^
That's some weird light pulsing going on there
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on July 04, 2011, 08:00:49 PM
yeah, 25% slo-mo.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: OrHowILearnedTo on July 05, 2011, 12:36:04 AM
wait, so is that an in camera feature? does that mean it's shooting the equivalent of 96 fps? (did i do the math right there?)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on July 05, 2011, 03:15:28 AM
yeah it does these short bursts.
I wasn't there to supervise the camera test, but I imagine the flickring is something that can be taken care of with shutter speed that matches the flourescent etc. etc.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on November 02, 2011, 10:14:15 PM
The (somewhat unstable) GH2 hack is up to 176mb/s (up from the 24 the camera records out of the box). Some video examples below. Make sure HD is on, and try to ignore the shit music choices in some of these. In fact, queue up a score you like and mute the other audio -- it makes a difference I'm telling ya.

http://vimeo.com/30589254 (http://vimeo.com/30589254)

http://vimeo.com/30598805 (http://vimeo.com/30598805)

http://vimeo.com/31332122 (http://vimeo.com/31332122)

http://vimeo.com/31502731 (http://vimeo.com/31502731) (88mb)

If you have a Vimeo account try downloading the less compressed versions linked on the right-hand side of each page after logging in.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on November 03, 2011, 12:13:51 AM
What's the instability you're talking about? Have you tried it? Do you think it's worth it?

Thanks for posting these!
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on November 03, 2011, 12:32:30 AM
I've installed a lower 44mb hack which is tested and completely stable. Initially I tried installing the 176mb hack but I didn't do it right, I don't think, I'll try it again later. The higher bitrate hacks are still going through testing, so their settings haven't been perfected -- which can result in frames being dropped or going white sometimes. The 176mb hack only came about around a month ago, and it seems like every week progress is being made in improving it. SanDisk Extreme Pro cards are recommended to use with the hack, especially at the higher bitrates. It seems totally trial and error, though, as I've heard of people just doing take after take to get something usable (without errors in the recorded video) especially at 176mb. I'm not really sure about the frequency of the errors, but people have advised against using the 176mb hack for time-sensitive professional purposes.

As long as your camera doesn't lose power while updating the firmware (it's recommended you use a fully charged battery and not AC Power while doing it), there's no danger in damaging the camera. If power were to disconnect while the firmware was being updated the camera would need to be sent back to Panasonic to be serviced and reset. Reverting back to the original firmware or to a lower level, more stable hacked firmware is as easy as copying a new file to your memory card and loading it up.

I've seen some still comparisons -- if you can get usable footage I think it's definitely worth it: even at 44mb the detail in the images seems to dramatically increase. The biggest difference I see is in the blacks and shadows...whereas at lower level bitrates (and especially at the 24mb the camera records out of the box) low light areas can become muddy, the higher level bitrates allow for smoother, cleaner blacks.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Reinhold on November 05, 2011, 09:10:11 PM
canon just announced plans for a 24fps 4k HDSLR for $20,000 -- no word on availability or schedule yet. http://usa.canon.com/cusa/about_canon/newsroom?pageKeyCode=pressreldetail&docId=0901e024803cf0aa#

they also just released this, due out in january-- a much less exciting 1080p camera. the HDSDI output is a nice feature-- it'll be interesting to see if they break into live broadcast with the C300.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/11/03/canon-launches-c300-cinema-camera-prepares-to-take-on-red-scarl/
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on November 05, 2011, 09:34:54 PM
I've installed the GH2 hack at 42 Mbit. Tested it out a little and it seems to work just fine and it looks pretty good. I'll be shooting something with it soon, so we'll see how it goes.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on November 07, 2011, 01:55:41 AM
Well I just shot and cut together something with the hacked GH2 and 42mb/s. (You can view the video here (http://www.vimeo.com/matt35mm/burnthislarry) but it's been graded and has film grain added, so it's not the purest look at the video quality, and it was mostly shot in 720p 60fps for the slow motion.)

It all seemed to work fine, until after shooting for a little while, the camera started to tell me that the write speed on the SD card was too slow. The card has a 20 MB/s speed on it. I guess it just means that I have to get a faster card if I want it to be reliable. But after a few tries, I got it to work for long enough to get the shots I needed.

I THINK I see an improved picture quality, or at least more latitude for me to grade with. I'm not sure how much of that is psychological, but either way, I am pleased with the final picture quality.

I'd like to see some stuff you've shot, wilderesque.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on November 07, 2011, 04:30:44 AM
I downloaded the mp4 file, and to be honest I can't really tell, especially with the grading, but I'd guess if you took the same footage shot at 24mb and put it side-by-side you'd see some difference. The blacks in the shot with the matchbook looked pretty smooth to me, but it's a little difficult to say at the lower hack levels without equivalent comparison footage. I'm in the process of putting together a project and I'll throw something up here eventually when it's finished. It'll be a while, but thank you for your interest.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on February 10, 2012, 04:35:08 PM
Okay, this board has a wealth of great photographers and videographers, so I come to you for some guidance on my next lens purchase.  I have a Canon 60D, and the only lenses I have are the kit zoom lens (which is crap), and the 50mm f/1.4, which I love, but I didn't really realize how much image you lose with the 50mm lens on a crop sensor camera.  So I'm looking at 28mm primes to become my go-to all-purpose lens, and I'm trying to decide between the f/2.8 and the f/1.8.  I can get the 2.8 for around $200, while the 1.8 seems to run around $500.  My question is, would I ultimately regret going with the cheaper option?  Or is the difference in the lenses not great enough to justify the more expensive purchase?  For that matter, am I on the wrong track entirely, and is there some other lens that you would recommend instead?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on February 10, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
60D is not amazing with low-light, so the extra full stop does do a lot. My favorite all around lens is the 35mm @ 1.8, which roughly translates to a 50 on a 5D or any full frame camera.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on February 10, 2012, 09:24:08 PM
Yeah, you're going to want the 1.8, I think. It'll make a difference in the type of shots you can get, I think, if you want to take pictures of people indoors and not have it be blurry and/or grainy.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on February 10, 2012, 09:28:11 PM
My favorite all around lens is the 35mm @ 1.8, which roughly translates to a 50 on a 5D or any full frame camera.

I'm assuming you mean the 35mm f/2.0 (http://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Wide-Angle-Cameras/dp/B00009XVCU)?  I'm not finding a Canon 35mm lens that's f/1.8.

Anyway, I think I've ruled out the 28mm f/2.8, which now leaves me with the choice between the 28mm 1.8 and the 35mm 2.0.  I'm leaning a little bit towards the 28, since it still gives me a pretty much neutral focal length, but there's more of a difference from the 50mm lens I already have than the 35 would be.  But then again, the 35 is about 100 bucks cheaper.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on February 10, 2012, 10:05:57 PM
yeah, sorry.
35mm 2.0 is one of my favorite lenses.
at some point you'd wanna save up for an EF zoom, either a 16-35 (for all your wide angle needs), or the 24-70.
lenses, that's the investment.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on February 11, 2012, 01:41:31 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/viAn8.jpg)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on February 25, 2012, 08:26:52 PM
I ended up buying the 28mm f/1.8 used on ebay.  Ultimately, the build quality and the USM motor were the factors that swayed me to this one over the 35mm.  I originally bid $350, and would have been ecstatic to get it around that price, but I ultimately had to go up to $450, which is still around 50 bucks cheaper than new, plus I'm not paying sales tax on it and the guy was offering free shipping.  Now comes the agonizing part of waiting for it to arrive so I can start playing with it.

I've already got my masking tape and my red paint ready!
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Brando on April 17, 2012, 02:18:38 PM
http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/ (http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/)

This camera was recently announced and some are saying it could be the start of the death of the DSLR. The price is right especially since the recently announced DSLRs have been very expensive. Technically the DSLRs in the hundreds to a few thousand dollar price range are still technically a stills camera that shoots video. Here is a camera at $3000 made for video shooters. The canon cinema line is interesting but right not very expensive.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Pubrick on April 17, 2012, 02:30:08 PM
Wow, how are you supposed to hold that thing.

Also I guess that shootout will become immediately irrelevant once again.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Brando on April 17, 2012, 02:57:17 PM
Wow, how are you supposed to hold that thing.

Also I guess that shootout will become immediately irrelevant once again.

If you go to the second page you'll see a set up for handheld. Here is some test footage. http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera (http://vimeopro.com/johnbrawleytests/blackmagic-cinema-camera)  the sensor size is somewhere near 16mm. So the footage is much softer. I'm not good at tech so maybe someone else can explain it better.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: RegularKarate on April 18, 2012, 11:26:10 AM
No XLR though.  Seems if you're making the jump, why not include XLR in?  Especially since it brags about its audio capabilities.

It does look pretty and seems affordable.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on April 19, 2012, 07:44:23 AM
This (http://nofilmschool.com/2012/04/nab-2012-day-3-recap-4k-raw-data-rates/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29) is an interesting article about the hefty storage cost considerations involved with 4K workflow and backup.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Champion Souza on July 16, 2012, 09:22:41 PM
According To Coppola, A $700 Video Camera Beats A $65,000 One (http://gizmodo.com/5926324/according-to-coppola-a-700-video-camera-beats-a-65000-one)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: diggler on August 25, 2012, 05:43:45 PM
I've got a Canon 60D and am looking to get some more lenses. I'm doing a lot of on the fly shooting lately and I need some zooms because I don't have time to keep switching between primes.

My question is this: I've heard good things about Sigma lenses, and in lieu of the insanely priced Canon 24-70mm 2.8, would the Sigma 17-70 2.8 be a suitable substitute? The difference in price is almost 2,000 dollars, so I'm considering it.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on August 25, 2012, 06:08:00 PM
What are you using it for?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 25, 2012, 06:45:20 PM
just read this, might it apply to your question?
I'm not familiar with sigma lenses.

http://digital-photography-school.com/why-your-kit-lens-is-better-than-you-think
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: diggler on August 25, 2012, 08:02:58 PM
I picked up some wedding gigs for extra cash and needed a more versatile lens. Things happen too quickly/without notice for me to fumble around with prime lenses. I've got my 28 mm 1.8, which is great for low light, but I was looking for something that I could frame shots with handheld and on the fly. I enjoy the Canon 24-70mm but it's just a little out of my price range at the moment. I had a photographer friend swear by the Sigma 70-200 so I was just looking for a second opinion.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 25, 2012, 08:40:40 PM
I think 70-200 is way too tele for your wedding run and gun needs. 24-70 is a great lens that covers the three shot sizes. I don't own one but I've seen it save many a days. if you're a wedding photographer then I'm assuming this lens can pay itself off after half a dozen gigs?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: matt35mm on August 25, 2012, 09:10:33 PM
I've heard nothing but good things about Sigma lenses and I don't see why whatever difference there is between the Canon and the Sigma (except for $2000) would be significant for wedding videos shot on DSLR.

I agree that lenses are worth the money, but only when there is some specific quality to a lens that you want and can take advantage of. I wonder if the difference in quality between the Sigma and Canon would be as noticeable in video, after the loss in resolution and the compression, compared to still images...

For now I'd say do more research and maybe even tests before you buy, if possible. Use it in similar conditions and with a similar style that you'd use for the wedding photography, and do that in video mode. It might even come down to how it handles and feels. I know of lenses that have given me good images but feel plasticky and light and I can't manually focus in the way that I want to, and that's been a bother.

But there are very detailed reviews online, which may suffice, that also cover how the lens feels and handles.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 25, 2012, 09:19:31 PM
my concern wasn't in regards to the make of the lens though; it was that you're comparing a 70-200 to a 24-70, which serve two very different purposes; especially if, like you said, you planned on grabbing shots handheld. you won't get very usable images on the 70-200 handheld on a 60d.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 25, 2012, 09:35:29 PM
Glad I found this thread. Guys, Im in a little bit of a dilemma here. I've been meaning to shoot my short film for a while now, but after shooting a couple "rehearsals" to see what it would look like. I just didn't like the look. I came to the conclusion that it is because of my crappy lenses (I have a 60d but doesn't look that sharp with the 18-55mm lens it came with, I also have a cheap 50mm lens that looks better but still not up to my standards).

So basically, I've been saving up to buy some nice lenses (most of which, actually cost more than the camera), someone recommended me the Canon L lenses, I was thinking of buying the 24-105mm one. But then I saw another short that was shot with a Sankor anamorphic lens and it looked fucking amazing! (the depth of field looks gorgeous on those things) (Here's how it looks: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0RHstupguU).

So now I don't know if I should buy the Anamorphic lens or the L one. I only have money for one (both are super expensive). So, I guess the question is...

Which one would you go for?


P.s:  Most of my short takes place at the beach, I don't know if that influences my decision or not.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 25, 2012, 10:09:47 PM
get this
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/12119-USA/Canon_2507A002_Wide_Angle_EF_35mm.html

or the 50mm 1.4 prime

both in the mid price range, both are lenses you can shoot a majority of a project with.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 25, 2012, 10:38:36 PM
Thanks, Pete. I'll definitely check them out. I think maybe I'll buy a 50mm and an 18mm, to have a nice range.

BTW Do you know of any good water-proof cases? A friend of mine lend me a cheap one and it almost fucked up my camera  :(. I really want one cuz I wanna do some shots inside the water, Like entering the ocean or some crazy shit like that (kinda like in Boogie nights when the camera enters the pool  :)) . 

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: diggler on August 26, 2012, 12:06:54 PM
my concern wasn't in regards to the make of the lens though; it was that you're comparing a 70-200 to a 24-70, which serve two very different purposes; especially if, like you said, you planned on grabbing shots handheld. you won't get very usable images on the 70-200 handheld on a 60d.

Sorry, to clarify, I wasn't looking into buying the 70-200, I was looking at the 17-70. I just heard about Sigma from a friend who had the 70-200 and liked it.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Brando on August 26, 2012, 03:56:52 PM
Thanks, Pete. I'll definitely check them out. I think maybe I'll buy a 50mm and an 18mm, to have a nice range.

BTW Do you know of any good water-proof cases? A friend of mine lend me a cheap one and it almost fucked up my camera  :(. I really want one cuz I wanna do some shots inside the water, Like entering the ocean or some crazy shit like that (kinda like in Boogie nights when the camera enters the pool  :)) .

I would consider a GoPro. I don't think a DSLR waterproof case cost much more than a GoPro. I also wouldn't want to risk my DSLR and Lens to a "waterproof" case. Since you're already shooting digital I think that makes the most since. Is it ideal? no but that's why a lot of films/tv are using DSLRs because they rather risk a DSLR for a risky shot over a more expensive camera.

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 26, 2012, 05:26:49 PM
But wouldn't a Go Pro show a distracting (and annoying) drop quality-wise?  I don't know if I'd like that...  Are there any more options available?

Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Cloudy on August 26, 2012, 05:27:21 PM
Tyler,

I recently used my 60D for my second short. For my first short I had the 24-105L f/4 Canon on me all the time but I never used it. I gravitated towards my primes at all times.

Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 ($~500)

Sigma 30mm f/1.4  (~$300)

Canon 50mm f/1.8 (if you can get the 1.4 that would be amazing, but this is bang for your buck $100)

Find ways of stabilizing your camera, and you will have a lot of control over your image.

I also had a suicide drowning scene shot at the beach, and I used underwater housing for the 60D for it. After that experience, while it was so fun, and the image is spectacular, I'm not sure if it was worth the money. I rented the housing for about $250 for 3 days. The GoPro might be a good call.

I'm really excited to see your short, Tyler. What's the story?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: InTylerWeTrust on August 26, 2012, 05:44:17 PM
Well, I don't really wanna say what is about just yet.. especially because I've been avidly re-writing in the past 2 weeks. (Those 'Master' teasers really inspired me... also watching lots of Elia Kazan and Hal Ashby movies lately, kinda made me realized the tone I wanted to give to it.)

Let's just say it's like a mix between BADLANDS, HAROLD AND MAUDE, ALICE DOESN'T LIVE HERE ANYMORE and THE RED DESERT. It's violent, it's existential, it's funny and it's dark as fuck!

Right now I'm still trying to figure certain things out... But I'll promise to upload the script once I finish shooting.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Cloudy on August 26, 2012, 05:46:34 PM
That sounds great. You got me curious.

FYI, the tone of the first The Master teaser (I finally watched it after I saw the movie) is completely different than how the film actually feels like. That first teaser is pure audio/visual poetry.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Brando on August 26, 2012, 07:49:26 PM
But wouldn't a Go Pro show a distracting (and annoying) drop quality-wise?  I don't know if I'd like that...  Are there any more options available?

Research some video of underwater Gopro videos to find out if the quality is to your standards. I wouldn't suggest it if you were shooting the rest of you short in film but since you'll be shooting it using a DSLR I thought it could work. I think some color correction and post work would create a decent result.  GoPros have become the standard tool in risky situation in digital film making. For example, that tv show Whale Wars uses GoPros when shooting on the small boats going against the whalers.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 29, 2012, 01:57:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on February 05, 2013, 01:40:46 PM
Panasonic GH2 at Sundance and Slamdance: Carruth's 'Upstream Color' and Orbegoso's 'Musgo' (http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/panasonic-gh2-shane-carruth-upstream-color-musgo/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on February 07, 2013, 10:54:30 AM
Panasonic's Revolutionary New 'Micro Color Splitter' Sensor Filter Doubles Light Sensitivity (http://nofilmschool.com/2013/02/panasonic-micro-color-diffracting-sensor/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on March 25, 2013, 05:44:22 PM
De-Clicking Manual Still Lenses (http://nofilmschool.com/2013/03/de-click-manual-still-lenses-budget-diy-tutorial/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+nofilmschool+%28NoFilmSchool%29)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Lottery on March 25, 2013, 07:57:30 PM
Should young Lottery save up for a GH2?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on March 25, 2013, 09:01:35 PM
...yes.

Here's some proof (http://vimeo.com/m/47353243)

and some more (http://vimeo.com/61150114)

Just use a tripod. Please.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on March 25, 2013, 11:49:44 PM
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
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on April 05, 2013, 04:31:24 PM
New camera stabilization system 'MōVI' (http://gizmodo.com/5993678/this-new-camera-stabilizer-could-change-cinematography-forever)

MōVI official site (http://www.freeflysystems.com/products/moviM10.php)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: polkablues on April 05, 2013, 04:56:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Cloudy on April 22, 2013, 03:13:24 AM
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?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on April 22, 2013, 04:37:16 AM
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 (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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Cloudy on April 22, 2013, 11:57:07 AM
Thank you good sir.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on June 27, 2013, 08:14:30 PM
New kid on the block...5D Mark III Raw

http://vimeo.com/66468924 (http://vimeo.com/66468924)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: diggler on July 08, 2013, 06:29:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on August 04, 2013, 05:25:52 AM
So, the first footage from the new Red Dragon sensor (http://vimeo.com/71666317) 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 (http://vimeo.com/69640522)

Tokyo Promenade - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71146225)

A Day at the Farm - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/68503059)

5D Mark III Magic Lantern Test - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/67661209)

Unforseen Hero - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71555563)

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

Honeymoon - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71402300)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on August 04, 2013, 09:50:59 AM
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 (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5520.0)

RAW Video: PostProcessing -- Beginners Guide -- (http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5654.0)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on August 04, 2013, 06:31:33 PM
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 (http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=17898)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 05, 2013, 03:21:42 AM
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 (http://vimeo.com/71666317) 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 (http://vimeo.com/69640522)

Tokyo Promenade - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71146225)

A Day at the Farm - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/68503059)

5D Mark III Magic Lantern Test - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/67661209)

Unforseen Hero - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71555563)

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

Honeymoon - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/71402300)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on August 05, 2013, 04:15:39 AM
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 (http://vimeo.com/43168838) (Shot at 30p god knows why)

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVrW26tkT7Q


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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on August 05, 2013, 11:48:45 AM
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) (https://vimeo.com/71655978)

This one was shot with the 5D Mk II:
ALIGHT (https://vimeo.com/70563857)

This one is insane:
Beauty (5D Mark III RAW Test) (https://vimeo.com/67470057)

And this is probably the best comparison video for H.264 vs. RAW (No post):
5D Mark III RAW vs H.264 (https://vimeo.com/70866993)
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: pete on August 06, 2013, 02:17:09 PM
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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: HeywoodRFloyd on August 09, 2013, 04:35:39 AM
And this is probably the best comparison video for H.264 vs. RAW (No post):
5D Mark III RAW vs H.264 (https://vimeo.com/70866993)

I spoke too fucking soon

Canon 5d Mark III Magic Lantern (Raw vs H.264) test 2 (http://vimeo.com/72008856)

Amazing
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on April 26, 2014, 12:15:43 PM
Not a DSLR, but the recently released Digital Bolex (http://www.digitalbolex.com) camera shoots 12 bit 2K RAW and is only $3,300. It utilizes a Kodak Truesense (http://www.truesenseimaging.com/) 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 (http://vimeo.com/71230008)

Ikonoskop - Peter - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/7810059)

Ikonoskop - Peter After Peter Teaser - Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/52707796)

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 (http://vimeo.com/92567896)

Here's a thread (https://www.digitalbolex.com/forum/up-to-date-info/where-can-i-find-the-latest-digital-bolex-footage/) 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.
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on August 30, 2015, 09:02:18 PM
Some great footage (http://vimeo.com/137778165) from the Digital Bolex (http://www.digitalbolex.com), especially the stuff from 1:20 forward
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: Sleepless on June 01, 2016, 04:35:51 PM
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?
Title: Re: DSLRs for video
Post by: wilder on January 31, 2017, 05:05:29 PM
The Rise and Fall of the Digital Bolex, As Told by Its Founder (http://blog.sharegrid.com/blog/inside-the-rise-and-fall-of-the-digital-bolex)


Digital Bolex footage:

Oona Airola - KAIKU - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/186079488)

Cesar & Oscar - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/159078743)

My Love - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/189548530)

Bolex'n - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/200080159)

Dead Bird Pocket - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/181761674)

Painted Hills - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/143916968)

Prazdna Pamet - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/194337283)

Early Summer Reel - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/168826355)

Digital Bolex Test - Vimeo (https://vimeo.com/159938713)