HDSLR Shooters: 1080p or 720p
 

What do you all shoot with using your DSLRs. For the sake of space on CF and SDHC cards, I'd like to think I can get away with 720p.

Also, at what framerate do you usually choose with your resolution?

I'm just getting into this, and I couldn't google or find the answer within this forum.

Peter, I'm a dedicated video man and regard HDSLRs as a passing fad which will be overcome when proper video cameras use bigger chips. However, let that simply represent my opinion, so you know where I'm coming from and pose this question in answer to your query: Why would you pay thousands of dollars/pounds/pesos etc for a camera and then get chintzy about the recording medium? We record to high speed CF cards at £80-£100 a throw but the idea of doing anything less than our best seems odd. Why wouldn't you record the best quality pictures you possibly can?

Hi Peter,

The only time I ever shoot in 720P is when I want 60P ability, which is almost never. Your getting more lines of resolution with 1080 and thats what pro HDSLR shooters want. The correct frame rate depends on the type of feel you want to give your video. I shoot 24P because I like the cinema style look. Then there's 30P, 60P, ect. You have to play around and decide which is best for your application.

Thanks for the input. Very good point on why skimp on the resolution. 1080 it is, then.

Aliasing and Moire are a fair bit worse at 720p too.

720p would only be interesting if you want to slow down your footage as it has the 60p option but other then that I would use 1080 in any case, you would want to get as much as resolution as possible from those dslr's since resolution wise they don't even match up to a small handycam HD camera.

About dslr's being a passing fad, sure the next generation filmcamera's will incorperate the advantages of dslr filming but not with the disadvantages but one thing you can be sure about, it will be at a hugh price difference. As long as there will be 550d alike camera's which offer filmfunctions at that pricepoint, they will remain very popular amongst filmmakers with more limited budgets..

1080P all the way. If I want a smaller image, I'll chose that in post. These cameras struggle with resolution anyway, so starting at 720 seems like a bad proposition unless you are posting to web for a small insert screen and you are shooting fast action (so resolution is totally not important but you want DOF and good slow mo).

Shooting with 1080 allows you a lot of flexibility to pan and zoom digitally in post whereas this can be somewhat complicated in real life with these cameras.

Keep your options open. 1080.

As far as frame rate, and I'm sure I'll catch some flak, I shoot almost exclusively 30P. 24P doesn't make too much sense for the monitor-based work I typcially do.

Remember, when you record in 30p you can always render it at 24p...but if you shoot in 24p rendering to 30p looks like garbage.

Recording in 30p will give you a broader range of options when editing in your nle.

... But 50p/60p is sooo beautiful when slowed down. -:) My opinion is, if you want to build a trailer or something similar that will incorporate slow motion, shoot some parts in 720p60, because slowing down DSLR footage won't give you the best result, unless you go with the time-consuming Twixtor (and then again the results are not equal to the real thing). Other than that, 1080p is totally amazing.

.....and 3D isn't a passing fad???
Technology in this industry is always changing, and to dismiss any of it so flippantly shows a lack of respect for all concerned.

re
 

Here here Aaron

I want my films to look the best they possibly can. Right now, DLSRs provide that, the 1080p looks so sexy compared to my sony z5 at double the cost. One only has to read the top film makers blogs, phillip bloom and vincent laforet to realize that DLSRs are not a passing fad. Im already looking forward to the 5d mark 3 cause i know that no camera will beat it in the next few years. Im pretty sure anyway , unless your spending over 7k.

Aaron, firstly of course it was only my opinion and did say it would set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Secondly, a couple of facts. One, 3D has been a passing fad for about 150 years, but I have serious, and oft expressed, doubts whether 3D television (as opposed to film) will become a feasible reality in my lifetime. Two, if you think that the trade off of limited recording times and crappy sound against control of depth of field is reasonable then you're entitled to your opinion. Three, the only reason we're having this discussion and thousands of dollars are being spent producing VideoDSLRs is because the video industry saw tiny chips as an economic solution.

Thirdly, if Sony (or Panasonic, or JVC, etc) introduced a VG10 with three chips and balanced sound inputs how many video DSLRs do you think you'd find in every packet of cornflakes?

Fourthly, this week I spotted the first posting complaining about the difficulty of focussing a DSLR when the subject was moving.

Aaron, it's still only an opinion and if it encourages you at all let me admit that I was once the owner of an Apricot computer when I could have bought an IBM.

Mr. Phan,

If you can shoot at 1080, I recommend shooting at it. for framerate, if you do not make your final delivery format as DVD, just shoot 24fps. if you want to make DVD, shoot at 30fps. if you not sure, just shoot 30fps.

Depend on what you shoot. 24gig will get you about 1.5hrs, more or less. CF are fairly cheap compare to other solid-state card use by panny or sony.

Philip, as you know 3D comes and goes approximately every 30 years. There is considerably more financial clout this time so it has the possibility of staying around for longer, but we shall see.

You are absolutely correct Philip, the onboard mic on DSLRs are terrible. However, hands up to anyone who uses the onboard mic on their "proper" camera? No one? Thought not.
The 12 minute record limit is really no big issue. There are multiple opportunities to stop and restart during natural breaks during the service or speeches.

To be honest, the DSLR rage is more of a happy accident. Canon admitted themselves that they were not prepared for the interest in our field for video usage.

Building Santa's wishlist are you Philip?

This is true, it can be difficult to focus on a subject when they are in motion. However with practice this is not so bad. We are used to full manual controls on our previous cameras, so it wasn't a real issue to us.

Personally I find the whole discussion of DSLRs as a fad quite tiresome. Since new and different cameras are now coming out at a rate of 1 every 2-3 years, it is quite easy to label each new technology as a fad in its own right. Each to their own, but it doesn't matter if you shoot on VHS, MiniDV, DSLR, RED or the Barbie camera. All that matters is the persons ability behind the camera.

Aaron, I've obviously touched a raw nerve on you somewhere so I'm not going to respond point by point to your sometimes fatuous comments. I know our 3D offering has got up your noise - I've read your dismissive comments elsewhere - but I bet you'd like the enquiries it has generated and anyway, you can't dismiss 3D as a passing fad in one message, then in the next agree with me that it's been around 150 years.

If you're happy working with a DSLR that's fine - though I'm bound to wonder how you record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks.

I started by writing that it was just my opinion and it remains just that.