Filming with an HD DSLR…”The things they don’t tell you”

[Graeme Nattress]

"The codec is full raster 1080p h.264 in 8-bit 4:2:0 at 45Mbps. " - it might record 1920 pixels across, but less than 3/4 of them actually contain any picture information as the measured resolution horizontally is less than 3/4 of what it should be. When downsampling from a much larger resolution there's not excuse for that. All I can say is compare a still shot at the same time as a movie, downsampling the still in photoshop and cropping to match the framing and see how much you're missing through sloppy downsampling.

Graeme

 

[Tyler Lambert]

it might record 1920 pixels across, but less than 3/4 of them actually contain any picture information as the measured resolution horizontally is less than 3/4 of what it should be. When downsampling from a much larger resolution there's not excuse for that. All I can say is compare a still shot at the same time as a movie, downsampling the still in photoshop and cropping to match the framing and see how much you're missing through sloppy downsampling.

What Philip Bloom once said is basically how I calibrate the power of my 7D:

(Quoted from article documenting trip to Skywalker Ranch)

"Not codecs, limitations, bit rates etc…all those are very important but the most important thing by far for them is how it actually looks and it passed with flying colours. That is what they really care about."

If people are purchasing more 7D's than HVX cameras with dof adapters, then they obviously did research, watched test and comparison videos, and made their decision based upon what they saw, compared to price. Nobody has to speak for the 7D, 5d and others, they defend themselves by their image quality vs. price.

 

[Tyler Lambert]

This is not all to say that I don't appreciate RED, I do, and I have full intentions to purchase some type of imaging product from them in the future, (though I don't know when or what that will be) as long as they are staying this far ahead of the industry as they have so far.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

What makes you think that I should do more research? I've already purchased my 7D, and am more than happy with it. I've shot with a variety of different cameras, and have never gotten the results that I have with this camera.

You stated a fact that isn't true.

What s the basis of your truth? I've already said it, and I will say it again; Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I just happen to be on the side that a lot of big name guys are on (Lucas, Bloom, Hurlbut) I've never heard of anybody on this forum (with the exception of a few), including you, and therefore the opinions you throw out are quite useless to me...

Fact is the basis of my truth. Not opinion or product loyalty.

Not sure why Lucas, Bloom or Hurlburt matter? A name doesn't change fact.

Now that will sound offensive, I was considering the HVX with an SGpro, but the footage just didn't cut it, for a lot of different reasons. Just look at the bitrate difference for one major point. Not to mention sensor size and picture control.

Footage didn't cut it... have you shot with this combo yourself? Or, were you viewing online? Doesn't really matteer either way... you're talking about bitrates, sensor sizes and the flimsy "picture control" of a 7D... and then PRICE... well, I'm not sure if you care about fact more than fiction.

Might want to be care what you go out there saying next time. Like I've said, this is a topic open for debate, but when I must refute fallacies all day, I'd rather not.

PS, sorry, I meant XH-a1s

I always look before I type, I said exactly what I meant to. Fallacy? The basis of my statement is ALL logic... strange.

Anyway, All Hail 7D.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

"The codec is full raster 1080p h.264 in 8-bit 4:2:0 at 45Mbps. " - it might record 1920 pixels across, but less than 3/4 of them actually contain any picture information as the measured resolution horizontally is less than 3/4 of what it should be. When downsampling from a much larger resolution there's not excuse for that. All I can say is compare a still shot at the same time as a movie, downsampling the still in photoshop and cropping to match the framing and see how much you're missing through sloppy downsampling.

Graeme

Everyone's still reaming others, who shot charts and more, for bringing this to light. The actual resolution is pretty darned laughable, couple it with the horrid moire and aliasing issues and it's downright scathing.

But, it's a decent tool for the interim...

 

[Tyler Lambert]

You stated a fact that isn't true.

Remind me what isn't true about that? Of course I have shot on lots of cameras, I have worked with lots of pro videographers around here who own a variety of different prosumer to pro level cameras.

Fact is the basis of my truth. Not opinion or product loyalty.

Not sure why Lucas, Bloom or Hurlburt matter? A name doesn't change fact.

Of course you can say that what you are saying is fact, thats what you believe, and its obvious that you are sticking to it.

Name doesn't change fact, those guys who are big time pros use this piece of equipment, and have spent a lot of time working with them. In Philips case, he is creating amazing stuff that has that catches George Lucas's eye. Thats saying something.

They aren't the only ones, I have listened to podcasts, read reviews and discussions online that have shown the many advantages to a canon HD DSLR.

Footage didn't cut it... have you shot with this combo yourself? Or, were you viewing online? Doesn't really matteer either way... you're talking about bitrates, sensor sizes and the flimsy "picture control" of a 7D... and then PRICE... well, I'm not sure if you care about fact more than fiction.

Let me just say this outright. If you would like to discuss HD DSLR's vs what else is out there, that's fine, but in just about every single sentence that you put out is somewhat offensive, its hard, but just try to bite it off....thanks, it makes the discussion much more pleasant.

Of course I care about fact, no, I'll be the first to admit that I have never shot with an HVX with a dof adapter on the front, but in my case, portability and image quality are key, in the HVX's case, you get very decent image quality, amazing, if I do say so myself, but the portability isn't there. And the durability much less, I am planning a trip that will take me to a place where the elements are going to work against my advantage. Is the HVX watertight, dustproof, will it take a 5 foot drop or more?

I always look before I type, I said exactly what I meant to. Fallacy? The basis of my statement is ALL logic... strange.

You haven't even really stated what point you are arguing. At this point, I would like to know. I'm arguing durability, portability, and decent image quality. I know that there are a lot of people who argue different points, so what are yours?

As always, these types of discussions tend to get a little bit heated. I like to shave that off by thanking you for your time you are taking to discuss the differences in certain cameras, and expressing your opinions. I've talked to several people who prefer one look that comes out of a camera than another. Sometimes, they like that yellow look that they think makes their footage look like film, others like depth of field or both.

Have a great day! Looking forward to your reply.

But, it's a decent tool for the interim...

Hmmm, that doesn't add up. George Lucas = Interim? Shane Hurlbut = Interim? Thats odd...Last time I checked, those guys were big time pros.

 

[David Rasberry]

HDSLR's have 3 things going for them as video cameras:
1. price
2. low light sensitivity and noise
3. 35mm DOF

In every other respect they are inferior to any of the under 10k 1/3" or 1/2" prosumer HD camcorders. They work best for mostly static compositions where the camera does not move and there is little or no fast action in the frame. A very limited and limiting style of shooting.
I have seen some pretty footage shot with them when used to best effect within their limits, but I would not personally choose one as a primary motion production camera. Too much of a PITA to deal with.

 

[Tyler Lambert]

Too much of a PITA to deal with.

Thats kind of a funny acronym, definitely better than saying the real thing....

One question though, if all you say is true, then why would Shane Hurlbut, Philip Bloom, George Lucas, and SNL be using this camera as a large part of production...if not the main piece of equipment for their productions?

 

[Kholi Hicks]

Thats kind of a funny acronym, definitely better than saying the real thing....

One question though, if all you say is true, then why would Shane Hurlbut, Philip Bloom, George Lucas, and SNL be using this camera as a large part of production...if not the main piece of equipment for their productions?

I'm not Shane, Phillip or George Lucas (has anyone actually seen anything from George Lucas utilizing these cameras? I haven't... why's his name in here, just because he watched some footage...)

But, I know why I own four of them: money. They've paid themselves off already, and I continue to use them. I dumped my Letus Ultimate and HPX170 combo the second I saw the writing on the wall, and I still look back at what I gave up for convenience.

Anyway, whatever floats your boat. As long as people are shooting GOOD material then, I guess it accomplishes something.

 

[Kholi Hicks]

HDSLR's have 3 things going for them as video cameras:
1. price
2. low light sensitivity and noise
3. 35mm DOF

In every other respect they are inferior to any of the under 10k 1/3" or 1/2" prosumer HD camcorders. They work best for mostly static compositions where the camera does not move and there is little or no fast action in the frame. A very limited and limiting style of shooting.
I have seen some pretty footage shot with them when used to best effect within their limits, but I would not personally choose one as a primary motion production camera. Too much of a PITA to deal with.

Lowlight and Noise I can't agree with, the rest, for darn sure. They are a major pain in the ass to deal with, MAJOR.

The camera's are also grotesque above 320 ISO for anything that you need to go up on a large screen. 640 is pushing it. At that point, the lowlight isn't even an advantage, it's only slightly better than other options.

A major plus is, of course the minor convenience of having a small shooting package. Silliest thing is that the smaller the package, the worse off it is for handling. You need to add weight and a bunch of other stuff to manage the camera.

Go figure.

 

[Michael Hastings]

HDSLR's have 3 things going for them as video cameras:
1. price
2. low light sensitivity and noise
3. 35mm DOF

In every other respect they are inferior to any of the under 10k 1/3" or 1/2" prosumer HD camcorders. They work best for mostly static compositions where the camera does not move and there is little or no fast action in the frame. A very limited and limiting style of shooting.
I have seen some pretty footage shot with them when used to best effect within their limits, but I would not personally choose one as a primary motion production camera. Too much of a PITA to deal with.

I'm a red owner and early adopter and fan. But 7D has a lot going for it. Let me add a few:

4) Weatherproofing
5) Size, Size, Size
6) Lenses, Lenses, Lenses. be they Canon specific or Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, etc. even some PL cine) with adapters.
7) Start up speed
8) Power consumption

And for stills:
9) Mirror/SLR/TTL viewing
10) High speed (8fps), high accuracy multi-mode Autofocus
(Mirror facilitates this beyond what can usually be achieved
with a nomirror/non-SLR system)

11) Say it again, price, price price, "In every other respect they are inferior to any of the under 10k 1/3" or 1/2" prosumer HD camcorders." A 7D is $1700 that's a LOT under $10K.


Modern vDSLRs are a marvel of size and sophistication - and the electronic and physical integration engineering is orders of magnitude higher than the current and next generation RED and Arri products. That comes from continual development of the SLR form factor over the past 50 years - building on top of the autoexposure, then autofocus, then digital sensor eras - and costs spread out over millions of units - and just now adding video capability.

 

[Shayne Cantly]

It's been suggested to me from people in the industry...and it makes sense when you look at the bigger picture.....if Canon were to release a Stills Camera capable of shooting video, with all of the functionality of their stand-alone video cameras, it would do their Video division out of sales, and money.

If the Video division released a camera capable of shooting Hi Def Stills....the Stills Camera division would lose out on sales.

With so much money invested in various areas by these large companies, it would make financial sense NOT to destroy their various markets by releasing a product that sabotages one or the other.

I'm guessing this is what Jim and Red are banking on.

Having said that...there is nothing stopping the DLSR users from using the tried and tested Clapper Board and separate audio recording device.

 

[David Rasberry]

I'm a red owner and early adopter and fan. But 7D has a lot going for it. Let me add a few:

4) Weatherproofing
5) Size, Size, Size
6) Lenses, Lenses, Lenses. be they Canon specific or Zeiss, Nikon, Leica, etc. even some PL cine) with adapters.
7) Start up speed
8) Power consumption

And for stills:
9) Mirror/SLR/TTL viewing
10) High speed (8fps), high accuracy multi-mode Autofocus
(Mirror facilitates this beyond what can usually be achieved
with a nomirror/non-SLR system)

11) Say it again, price, price price, "In every other respect they are inferior to any of the under 10k 1/3" or 1/2" prosumer HD camcorders." A 7D is $1700 that's a LOT under $10K.


Modern vDSLRs are a marvel of size and sophistication - and the electronic and physical integration engineering is orders of magnitude higher than the current and next generation RED and Arri products. That comes from continual development of the SLR form factor over the past 50 years - building on top of the autoexposure, then autofocus, then digital sensor eras - and costs spread out over millions of units - and just now adding video capability.

Great still camera no question, especially for the price. It will take a few more generations of Moore's law improvements in electronics before the kind of video quality produced by a real motion camera will fit in something as small as an SLR form factor, which is great for stills but not well suited for motion shooting anyway.

Personally I think Canon, Sony, et al are right on in their marketing. I don't see the mainstream video production markets moving en mass beyond 2/3" to 35mm sized sensors at any price, its not worth the extra shooting and handling hassles and increase in cost, weight and size of optics, especially fast wide range zooms, just to get shallow DOF. 35mm DOF is more of a problem than a plus for run and gun video production. The big guys know this. Digital video cameras have a far longer development history than digital still cameras and are highly refined instruments themselves, especially the standard over the shoulder one piece ENG/EFP cameras that are as close to perfection for their intended uses as the DSLR is for its primary intended use as a still camera.

 

[Tyler Lambert]

I agree with 99% of what these guys above me are saying, if not 100%. I think that Kholi and I need to agree to disagree. He has his own opinions apart from everyone else, and thats fine.

Have a great day guys, you probably won't see me posting on this thread again, I really can't spend my whole life doing this

 

[Ken Hendricks]

http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=541805&postcount=1

That settles it! :biggrin: