What is Needed for Digital Video?

Robert M Wright · December 26th, 2009, 02:51 PM

I can see real uses for HDSLRs, but I can't see them ever dominating HD videography. Let's face it, whatever guts can be put in an HDSLR, can be put in a camcorder.

Ergonomics are part of what makes camcorders generally more suitable for video acquisition. An HDSLR might be fine on a tripod, in a well controlled environment (like a studio setting), but camcorders tend to be designed (for a reason) to be more versatile in handling specifically for shooting video (particularly better suited for hand-held, run-and-gun shooting).

There are also subtle differences (or sometimes not so subtle) in manually controlling a camera for shooting stills and manually controlling a camera for shooting video. Video cameras are designed with manual controls laid out primarily with shooting video in mind, while still cameras are designed with manual controls laid out primarily with shooting stills in mind.

Shooting video is different from shooting stills. Nothing can change that, so there will always be cameras that are designed to generally be more suitable for one than the other.

Enzo Giobbé · December 26th, 2009, 03:31 PM

Robert,

My point was, that the video cam manufacturers have been asleep at the wheel.

I have already seen a DSLR proto that is modular in design (along the lines of the RED Scarlet).

Yes, it's much fatter than the standard DSLR, but it has a bigger processing unit, sound add on modules (including one with XLR ins) and a wonderful VF module reminiscent of the old Arri long tube VF.

Every time the envelope is pushed, no matter who pushes it, we get better and better products and tools to work with, and that much closer to my ideal HD electronic cam (one that is built into a contact lens).

Robert M Wright · December 26th, 2009, 04:43 PM

Red really is about taking the core imaging attributes of DSLR still cameras and re-engineering as a video camera. Essentially, it's about using larger, higher-res, single imaging chips, rather than 3 smaller imaging chips (splitting out the primary colors with a prism) approach, and also designing for really using interchangeable lenses (much more so than JVC's camcorders, or some of Sony's).

That's great for some purposes, but not really all that ideal for others. Run-and-gun (video) shooting, with a 35mm imaging sensor, does make focusing a bit more challenging, to put it mildly (perhaps great for more cinematic style shooting, not so great for ENG style event shooting). You generally don't stop to change lenses in mid stream, when shooting video of live events either.

December 26th, 2009, 03:31 PM	#17
Enzo Giobbé Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Hollywood, CA and Roma, Italia Posts: 155	Robert, My point was, that the video cam manufacturers have been asleep at the wheel. I have already seen a DSLR proto that is modular in design (along the lines of the RED Scarlet). Yes, it's much fatter than the standard DSLR, but it has a bigger processing unit, sound add on modules (including one with XLR ins) and a wonderful VF module reminiscent of the old Arri long tube VF. Every time the envelope is pushed, no matter who pushes it, we get better and better products and tools to work with, and that much closer to my ideal HD electronic cam (one that is built into a contact lens). __________________ Enzo Giobbé www.enzogiobbe.com Last edited by Enzo Giobbé; December 26th, 2009 at 03:34 PM. Reason: typo

December 26th, 2009, 02:51 PM	#16
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	I can see real uses for HDSLRs, but I can't see them ever dominating HD videography. Let's face it, whatever guts can be put in an HDSLR, can be put in a camcorder. Ergonomics are part of what makes camcorders generally more suitable for video acquisition. An HDSLR might be fine on a tripod, in a well controlled environment (like a studio setting), but camcorders tend to be designed (for a reason) to be more versatile in handling specifically for shooting video (particularly better suited for hand-held, run-and-gun shooting). There are also subtle differences (or sometimes not so subtle) in manually controlling a camera for shooting stills and manually controlling a camera for shooting video. Video cameras are designed with manual controls laid out primarily with shooting video in mind, while still cameras are designed with manual controls laid out primarily with shooting stills in mind. Shooting video is different from shooting stills. Nothing can change that, so there will always be cameras that are designed to generally be more suitable for one than the other.

December 26th, 2009, 04:43 PM	#18
Robert M Wright Inner Circle Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Minnesota (USA) Posts: 2,171	Red really is about taking the core imaging attributes of DSLR still cameras and re-engineering as a video camera. Essentially, it's about using larger, higher-res, single imaging chips, rather than 3 smaller imaging chips (splitting out the primary colors with a prism) approach, and also designing for really using interchangeable lenses (much more so than JVC's camcorders, or some of Sony's). That's great for some purposes, but not really all that ideal for others. Run-and-gun (video) shooting, with a 35mm imaging sensor, does make focusing a bit more challenging, to put it mildly (perhaps great for more cinematic style shooting, not so great for ENG style event shooting). You generally don't stop to change lenses in mid stream, when shooting video of live events either.