Three Years Later – DSLR Video – One Man's Perspective

[dreed]

Great read!

[OldRoy]

I read this piece with interest. Disclaimer: I retired from professional video production about the time the first CCD sensor cameras appeared so my experience is restricted to shooting and PP with analogue systems. I've often thought about dipping my toe back into this stream but over recent years every time I've investigated a little, I've been put off by numerous different aspects of the current technology. Reading this article didn't exactly restore my enthusiasm.

Firstly, looking at the extraordinary rig illustrating the article, the name "Heath Robinson" came to mind immediately. OK, so you get a big sensor and lots of DOF control, but really, what a contraption! I'd rather have a Sony 330 on my shoulder (or preferably on a Vinten Cygnet) and a recordist trotting behind me toting a VTR, thanks
.
Audio. There's still no bloody timecode on these systems! I mean, how hard can that be in the digital domain? Someone recently assured me that lining up an un-synced PCM recorder track with a guide-track waveform off the camera was SOP these days. Really? I can think of plenty of occasions that it wouldn't work.

The "jelly" effect. Blimey, I thought it was bad enough when the early CCD cameras arrived and we were supposed to accept the picture going completely soft when panning or zooming and then snapping back into focus. It sounds as though DSLR video is even worse.

Lenses. Last time I looked into buying  proper video camera I wasn't too surprised to see that  decent TV zooms were just as (relatively) expensive as they were in the 80s. So now I've got these lovely fast Nikkors... except. Anyone reading this article should also take a look at Roger Cicala's related piece on the Lens Rentals blog. Why wasn't the issue of focus breathing raised at all in the article here? it speaks about follow-focus mods etc, but... er, not really a goer is it?

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2011/06/photo-lenses-for-video-there-is-no-free-lunch

I remain to be convinced about DSLR video, but there again I'm an old f@rt.

Roy

[Christopher Sanderson]

...
I remain to be convinced about DSLR video, but there again I'm an old f@rt.
Roy

I second your opinions (perhaps because I also fall into the OF category). There has been a lot of gung-ho endorsement of DSLR video simply based on the relatively shallow DoF. Perhaps some still/video shooters may not know what they are missing in an under-featured DSLR used for video.

The challenge to the manufacturers remains the production of a large sensor (3K), less than $6K body, properly-featured camera that shoots RAW stills and video with equal success. RED is there at $$$...so

Scarlet on November 3rd?.... or perhaps Canon? Possibly Sony?

BTW Sony seems to have solved the jello-cam effect on their latest still/video cameras: one small step at a time...

Perhaps when the manufacturers finally come up with something, those Heath Robinson DSLR video contraptions will find a dusty resting place on eBay  

[John McDermott]

You might want to correct the title from Thee to Three.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Firstly, looking at the extraordinary rig illustrating the article, the name "Heath Robinson" came to mind immediately. OK, so you get a big sensor and lots of DOF control, but really, what a contraption! I'd rather have a Sony 330 on my shoulder (or preferably on a Vinten Cygnet) and a recordist trotting behind me toting a VTR, thanks.

Most indie productions opt for HDSLR systems to save money. By the time an HDSLR is rigged up to even semi-professional standards, it exceeds the cost of say, an AF100 or an FS100.

Audio. There's still no bloody timecode on these systems! I mean, how hard can that be in the digital domain? Someone recently assured me that lining up an un-synced PCM recorder track with a guide-track waveform off the camera was SOP these days. Really? I can think of plenty of occasions that it wouldn't work.

Oh, they have a clapper for that - usually the director does it himself because he can't afford another AC. Shooting a movie with the kit lens is SOP these days, too.

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

The challenge to the manufacturers remains the production of a large sensor (3K), less than $6K body, properly-featured camera that shoots RAW stills and video with equal success. RED is there at $$$...so

There's the question of frame rates - How hot does a sensor get at 120fps? Also, imagine RAW conversion for thousands of clips on a huge project! I think uncompressed 4:4:4 is good enough for the purposes video/cinema was invented for. But who knows about the future? For resolution's sake, the Epic is right alongside IMAX.

In the digital realm, 2K enough - for two reasons:
1. The average cinema resolution is 1.3K or less, except for the ones with 4K digital projection, which might be around 2.5 to 3K in reality.
2. The standard maximum consumer TV resolution is 1080. Gaming and grading monitors have a slightly larger resolution, but it's still around 2K.

3K really falls in no man's land. There are no display standards for 3K - you either downscale to 2K/HD or upscale to 4K. The question is really not one of resolution but of time and money. If I had enough time and money, why wouldn't I opt for 4K (or even 6K)? The choice is made by how much I have in my wallet.

BTW Sony seems to have solved the jello-cam effect on their latest still/video cameras: one small step at a time...

The F3 and the FS100 have very poor jello-cam (rolling shutter) results - almost on par with HDSLRs. The Alexa is slighty better. The Red MX is worse than the Alexa. The only camera that stands up to film (and high-speed cameras) is the F35, and that's top of the line. (Reference: The Zacuto Tests, part 3).

One must remember the RED has a crappy form factor too, and needs a rig similar to an HDSLR rig.

The key is to know which system to use in any given situation. I can't fault the manufacturers for giving me so many choices in possibly every price bracket (The iPhone 4S supposedly has great HD video). To be really fair to Canon, they initially never marketed their cameras as filmmaking tools. I must blame myself for using my tools clumsily.