what are your thoughts? sure the image might look good. but its not like that's the future for the camcorder. also some of the rigs just look silly, it looks like your a photographer and not a pro videographer.

It's not about to die until we get cameras with similarly large sensors in a proper form factor, that aren't burdened with unnecessary parts such as a mirror and a pentaprism. In addition to the forthcoming RED Scarlet, both Sony and Pansonic are already taking steps in that direction, so your wait should be over within twelve months or so.

See http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/476636-sony-prototype-cinema-camera-shown-nab.html

and http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/digital-video-industry-news/476628-panasonic-ag-af100-4-3-hd-camera.html

I haven't had a client call in six months requesting anything but my 5D and 7D. They clearly don't care about what the camera looks like, and neither do I.

I don't try to predict the future, I shoot in the present, using the best tools available for each client.

It's in it's infancy right now. Until manufacturers (other than Canon) can step up to the plate with better solutions for less money, it's not going anywhere any time soon. I really hope the Panasonic 4/3" will take Canon lenses and cost under $4k but I may be pushing the envelope of reality there!

You won't hear any complaints from me. I'm using my Pentax K-X to shoot B-Roll for my JVC GY-HD100. I have no intention of replacing my shoulder cam as my main weapon of choice. But the ability to carry a large-sensor camera with several fast primes and a small tripod in a backpack -- and all at a ridiculously cheap price -- is like a dream come true.

Establishing shots, cutaways, architectural details, landscapes etc. are so much easier, and it cuts together very well with the stuff from the JVC.

I will admit, though, that I don't quite get the appeal (except for the obvious cheap large sensor) of outfitting your DSLR with unwieldy shoulder braces, stabilizers, etc. The thing I like best about shooting video on a DSLR is the portability.

what are your thoughts? sure the image might look good. but its not like that's the future for the camcorder. also some of the rigs just look silly, it looks like your a photographer and not a pro videographer.

And all this time I've been waiting for cheesy 1/3" chip camcorders to die...

Looking like a photographer isn't the worst thing ever, and has let me shoot tons of stuff that would have got me kicked out if I had a video camera.

If you are worried about what you look like, go into image consulting.

I did a shoot this weekend at an event and several people with very nice cameras approached me a bit confused why I was panning so slowly on a tripod. "And what's that thing sticking off the back of your camera?" (my Z-Finder!)

I explained I was shooting full HD video which really surprised a few of them. I had one guy ask me about the Z-Finder only to look at his camera...a 7D! I asked if he'd ever played with the video on it and he said "no, I'm just a photographer!" I told him he needed to expand into video as he has one of the best cameras for it!

Fun times we're in!

I will admit, though, that I don't quite get the appeal (except for the obvious cheap large sensor) of outfitting your DSLR with unwieldy shoulder braces, stabilizers, etc. The thing I like best about shooting video on a DSLR is the portability.

Its not hard to understand. the cameras make awesome and "arty" images with less trouble. People rig their cameras for what they need to get their shot. Narrative shooters typically what follow focus cabability, a matte box for ease of filtering, monitoring, and rails to hang all sorts of stuff off of. They don't care particularly about size. Some are concerned about looking "Pro" too. If they have a shot that does require more portability, or shoulder configuration, the same camera can do that stripped.

The only thing wrong with DSLRs is the awful videos that people make with them.
If I never see another locked off shot with blurred background video showing someone smiling at the camera, reeds blowing in the wind, etc, I will be a happy man.

No matter how much you may not "like" the DSLR trend you're missing the point.

The whole reason that so many of us are changing is incredibly simple. At some point, we got hold of one, and shot something. Then we took the little card. Read the files onto our desktop. Clicked onto them. And suddenly something in our brain went "Holy Mother - that looks AMAZING"

Not just OK. Not just Good. Not even just Better. Our brains fired off the message "This looks freeking AMAZING!"

Thats what makes trends happen. Not all the marketing hype in the world.

It's private. It's personal. And it's instinctual.

AMAZING gets the juices flowing again. It makes you dream of what you can do now, that you couldn't do yesterday.

And sorry, but the moment I saw this topic headline, my brain just went to "he doesn't get it."

The trick is that just cause you don't get something yet, or someone wants to dismiss it because it's often used poorly early in it's life cycle - does NOT mean that there isn't something fundamentally surprising going on. And dismissing it because you haven't experienced it or don't understand it is silly.

This buzz is NOT the result of people who have experienced LESS suddenly seeing a bit MORE. It's coming from people who've seen a LOT getting surprised because what we're seeing on our monitors in our studios NOW is on a WHOLE DIFFERENT LEVEL from what we've seen before.

Dive in or don't. That's your right. But don't dismiss it as unimportant if you don't yet understand it. A lot of us who have seen a WHOLE lot of professional fads come and go have checked this one out and are getting our brains re-calibrated.

That's the point here.

I just want to say that I'm proud of all of you for having avoided the term "game-changer" (or variations of same) in this thread. Keep up the good work.

Laurence Janus

I think you'll like this article here: Bokeh Porn by Simon Wyndham

http://www.simonwyndham.co.uk/bokeh-porn.html

Dom,

I wasn't much impressed by Mr. Wyndham's article.

It was an excellent example of yet another person trying to shoehorn their myopic view of a small aspect of a subject into a substitute for understanding of the wider implications of that subject.

For example, would it surprise you if I told you that the MOST successful projects I've shot with my 5d had NOTHING to do with either "shallow depth of field" OR of lens bokah?

Mr Wyndham rails against the test videos on Vimeo - which admittedly concentrate on those aspects - probably because we've never had a "cheap" motion picture capture systems that did these particular things so well. But that's not to say that because DSLRs excel in these niche areas they don't also excel in areas that are far more important to the generalist.

For instance, last month I completed a series of videos designed for high def projection in a trade show booth. These were specified to be "high key" composites combining products (cel phone models in this case) with live action shots of people in various costumes using the products in question.

The 5d handled the tabletop cel-phone video with distinction - partially because I could use a tilt-shift lens and therefore keep the geometry of the product true. Try THAT with your video camera.

Then when we went to the shots of the full sized people using the products, again, against a white background for compositing with the product shots - there was no depth of field nor "bokah" considerations whatsoever.

What there WAS was video of outstanding clarity and detail. One actor was dressed as a repair man and with the outstanding detail of the large image sensor - the grain and texture of his leather tool holder fairly jumped off the screen with an clarity and authenticity that I've simply never seen before using standard def camera equipment.

The "richness" of the image itself was what was so impressive.

THIS is what the DSLR revolution is about. Not the thousand boring shallow depth of field test shots the article references.

This technology is the future of video. Not in it's current form-factor - but when the astonishing capabilities of the DSLR *image* meet the convenience of the traditional camera form factor.

So I'm learning TODAY about the new video requirements of the future. e.g. lens choice, the capabilities of technologies like tilt-shift, how to use filters and other tools to control depth of field if and when it's necessary, and how to view a scene with a more critical eye, understanding that the lens and the sensor I shoot on tomorrow will be capturing a whole lot more detail and information than what I've been accustomed to using in the past.

I think that's smart.

And I think folks like Mr. Wyndham are foolish because they are letting their ire at the newbies "first blush" excitement at a few perhaps minor elements of the new tools which may or may not be important to them, blind them to what's really going on here.

It's not just the "bokah" that's better. Or the "depth of field" that's better.

It's that the VIDEO itself is QUALITATIVELY BETTER - by a HUGE margin.

And at the price point - it's nearly UNBELIEVEABLY better.

That's what the DSLR thing is all about.

FWIW.

Bill:

I too read Simon's article but I took a different tack with it. Looks to me like he was railing against the "test videos" specifically rather than the actual technology of the cameras and the images they can make. Actually I agree with all of his essential points (including his frustration with the rabid obsession regarding absurdly shallow depth of field--who really needs an f1.2 lens, when the camera is capable of ISO's into the thousands?) although I wouldn't state it in quite as snarky a fashion myself, but that's just a stylistic choice.

While I am invested into the DSLR's myself (owning a 1DMKIV and a set of ZE's), I will make no bones about the issues with the imager, particularly the aliasing aspect. That to me is the number one killer as it is the only one that can manifest so intensely on a static frame, which makes it that much more apparent. Codec issues, rolling shutter--these have obvious room for improvement but are for me more subtle issues than the inability to shoot certain brick walls for fear of having them explode into rainbows, or have major twittering pop out even on a human subject (I have in the past referred to the buzzing salt-and-pepper eyebrows on an interview subject I encountered, short of physically blacking the guy's eyebrows, there was no on-set solution I could muster).

In a situation where there is no particularly advantage to using these cameras, such as shooting against a white cyc as you described, I would be interested in seeing a head-to-head test of the DSLR's against a Sony EX3, for example. Certainly if the results were to be keyed I'd go with the EX3 for the improved codec (or an even better one, via external recording from the HD-SDI spigot). I have a major label music video coming out shortly that I shot that included both green screen work and night exteriors--I won the job based on night footage I'd shot with the 1D, but opted to use HVX200's for the green screen elements as I felt the DSLR's would complicate things on a production and post level (I would have spec'd higher-end 4:2:2 cameras for this aspect of it but the director already owned them and with the level of post being done with the green screen work, they were more than adequate--and the footage came out beautifully).

As we all know, the inexpensive nature of these cameras has to be factored with how much one needs to invest in everything else to make them work, starting with an appropriate set of lenses and continuing into whatever else the individual requires to make it work for them. I need HD-SDI monitoring capabilities so for me, that's an HDMI to HD-SDI converter; the difficult nature of pulling focus with the still lenses means I always use my Preston FIZ, which thankfully I already owned; plus the custom base and power mods I've built to power everything off one battery--and this is the absolute minimum I work with for a "real" production job.

So for me, the price point against a smaller chip camcorder is easily equalled out, and the image quality for a certain type of job where shallow depth of field is not an issue has to be weighed against the pitfalls of the technology. I've had wrestling matches with skin tones with these cameras that I'm still working out, and the ergonomics are still painful no matter what kind of external framework I build them into--consider how long it takes to do a custom white balance compared to the single push of a button with a standard video camera. The example of tilt-shift lenses is a good one and accentuates that there are a wealth of still lenses available for use with these cameras, but of course they present their own issues for working with moving objects and being able to accurately follow focus. For me, the aspect of depth of field control is the biggest advantage with these cameras that outweighs the many disadvantages, but I take a different approach to it than the majority of users probably since it's not new to me, having spent 20 years shooting 35mm cine. To further stress the distinction, it's about having a choice of depth of field, not automatically opting for the shallowest possible look (bokeh porn). Every shot requires consideration in dozens of ways; composition, movement, lighting etc...focal length and aperture choices tie into all of this, and along with that the depth of field consideration.

At this point, large sensors are obviously here to stay, so it will be interesting to see if the "shallow masses" will eventually learn to move beyond their current fascination into a more mature approach.

Charles:

Whether or not the term is appreciated, this camera is a game changer.

The assumption sometimes made by many on this forum is that everyone here is working solely in the professional environment. While all of us aspire to producing at professional level, I believe a greater proportion of those involved with these cameras are either aspiring to a future in the business, or are those that are merely making films as a avocation and not ever expecting to make a living in the business. From that stand point, despite the limitations of these cameras, they remain game changers, as they offer a way for us to experience and experiment with large format "film" techniques that just weren't available to us due to cost before.

And given the fact that the finale of a popular show like "House" was shot entirely with the Canon 5D, I think game changer is an apt description of the new video DSLRs.

Agreed, Chris--I've just found the term "game changer" to become overused to the point of parody of late (kind of like super-shallow depth of field test videos)!

Bill:

I too read Simon's article but I took a different tack with it. Looks to me like he was railing against the "test videos" specifically rather than the actual technology of the cameras and the images they can make. Actually I agree with all of his essential points (including his frustration with the rabid obsession regarding absurdly shallow depth of field--who really needs an f1.2 lens, when the camera is capable of ISO's into the thousands?) although I wouldn't state it in quite as snarky a fashion myself, but that's just a stylistic choice.

SNIPED TO SAVE SPACE

field, not automatically opting for the shallowest possible look (bokeh porn). Every shot requires consideration in dozens of ways; composition, movement, lighting etc...focal length and aperture choices tie into all of this, and along with that the depth of field consideration.

At this point, large sensors are obviously here to stay, so it will be interesting to see if the "shallow masses" will eventually learn to move beyond their current fascination into a more mature approach.


Charles,

Many of your points (moiré problems, rolling shutter jello, etc) deserve serious consideration, and I know we're both hoping that as the development continues, the engineering teams will address them to the extent possible given this exciting new technology. I have some faith that they will, if for no other reason than the fact that gross unit sales is still a significant factor in profitibility for nearly every manufactured product on the planet.

As to the issue with eyebrows, et al. I fear that's *always* going to be a factor because raster density and the spacing of alternate luminance level content will always interact in some fashion. The tighter packed the image sensors get, the different "frequencies" of pixel change will likely cause them to cycle - but I suspect that as long as discrete pixel sensor arrays are used, we'll have to live with some part of this.
(I continue to have success "solving" most of those problems by simply moving the subject to camera distance or zoom setting subtly until the "ringing" subsides, but I know this isn't always possible and it is clearly a compromise between the shot you want and the shot that that camera/sensor/lens will provide.

Finally, one thing that can't be overlooked is that even with your EX3 example, that represents a camera retailing for approximately 3 TIMES what an 5D Mk ii retails for. I note that because for all of us who make our living making content, it's easy to forget that when we're talking about camera systems that cost less than the craft services budget for many regular gigs. But for the new folks, one-third the camera cost - coupled with an arguably superior image - is a powerful driver.

As I've come to think of, for example, the iPod - I'm not sure the "game changer" was actually the device at all. It was the devices IN CONTEXT of a new ecosystem that made for the runaway success. It was the iPod PLUS iTunes PLUS widespread internet access - all functioning together that changed the game.

For DSLR video we already have Final Cut Pro with a Million paid seats capable of ingesting and editing the result. We have a new taste for HD content based on BOTH the television broadcast conversion AND on the maturing and quickening of the internet. And NOW we have a tool that can cheaply shoot content for the above taking TOTAL advantage of the image density that the system can accommodate.

THAT is the "game changer" NOT the camera.

It used to be that knowledge FOLLOWED equipment. You couldn't learn to make the movie, without access to the tools to do so. Now, the tools are everywhere. So now equipment must follow knowledge.

The camera that everyone can afford is a meaningless camera in terms of barrier for people seeking to communicate through video.

What's left? What was always there in the beginning. Knowledge, experience, talent, drive.

It will be interesting to watch what happens next.

Bill

Don't disagree with you. I bought a 5d myself and i love it, though ideally it would be a 2nd camera to a "real" video camera which i can't afford just now.

I simply thought it was a thread that Simon's article might invigorate. Seems i was right.

I have to say, I haven't run into as many issues of moire and aliasing as others seem to be experiencing- and it has never been to the point of distraction. Maybe that is because of content I shoot, but I also wonder if the fact that I probably shoot lower end economy glass actually shields me from some of the problem that might be apparent in a tack sharp high end lens ? I wonder. A lot of times, just for convenience, I will shoot a lowly Canon 28 to 80 mm zoom, or a Takumar 28 -80 with adapter from Pentax K mount, and without AF. I also have a lot of old Nikon primes I use, and can run into problems with those lenses more.

And talk about aliasing. I have seen an awful lot of it on HD television shows, especially sports programming, so it seems like there is some acceptance of it within the industry.

Finally, one thing that can't be overlooked is that even with your EX3 example, that represents a camera retailing for approximately 3 TIMES what an 5D Mk ii retails for. I note that because for all of us who make our living making content, it's easy to forget that when we're talking about camera systems that cost less than the craft services budget for many regular gigs. But for the new folks, one-third the camera cost - coupled with an arguably superior image - is a powerful driver.

Not if you are talking apples to apples--considering that the EX3 comes with a fast zoom lens, HD-SDI output capability, an onboard monitor/viewfinder, and is handholdable out of the box (this last point is arguable--the EX3 is a lousy handheld form factor in my opinion and the DSLR's can be used bare). Comparably equipping the 5D will ramp up the purchase price notably. Of course there are ways around all of this but it depends on what compromises one is willing to make.

But as the light decreases the EX3 IQ decreases compared to the dreaded vDSLR.

Anyway, I'm not sure what the OP dislikes. Complaining about DOF control on a budget and low light capabilities seems the modern day equivalent of feature films being ruined by sound and color. "I'll be glad when this talkies fad is over".

It seems that in practice that vDSLR may represent the lower end for awhile. Large sensor videocams with ND filters and other niceties we've grown accustomed to may be in the $5K plus range. Or at least that's the big boy's plan. Whether Canon and Nikon are allowed to destroy the traditional better vcam price structure of Sony and Panasonic is unknow to this westerner.

Canon happily sells the T2i, with an excellent optical viewfinder and high res lcd, for $800. They certainly can remove the "SLR" and sell the same guts with an electronic viewfinder and interal ND system for $800. That isn't quite as good as the panny AF100 announced, but it's not far off either.

So I think the answer to the OP's literal question is that it depends what Canon and Nikon do. Some video people will shoot with vDSLRs until they can get similar IQ from a true videocam at a similar price point. But the hope of returning to the good old days of infinite dof and a cheap looking image in anything but good light may be just a dream.

The whole point is that once there are alternatives, the challenges of shooting with a system designed to do one thing and being used for another will force them in to the background. Just a couple of years ago, it was virtually uncool not to be using a 35mm adaptor of one kind or another, despite the light loss, inverted image, ground glass texture, light and focus falloff issues--now they seem amazingly old-fashioned compared to the DSLR's, don't they?

I'm certainly hoping to not buy another vDSLR for the purpose of video.

I have a suggestion for those still wondering what all the vDSLR fuss is about. Go to Vimeo and compare 5DII images to EX3. Or to any interchangeable lens videocam in that price range. I've done this exercise twice and it's rather shocking.
I wouldn't even bother comparing vDSLR to 35mm adapters. That's just depressing.

what are your thoughts? sure the image might look good. but its not like that's the future for the camcorder. also some of the rigs just look silly, it looks like your a photographer and not a pro videographer.

My thoughts:

Choose a camera that suits your needs and stop moaning about people who choose a different route. To some of us the image is everything, how we get there is entirely arbitrary.

I'd rather eat my own arm than shoot on a 1/3 inch chip camcorder or a digibeta, so I'll happily put up with the curious vagaries of the 7D/5D until Scarlet hits the streets. But that's me:)

BTW What does a pro videographer look like anyway?

The only thing wrong with DSLRs is the awful videos that people make with them.
If I never see another locked off shot with blurred background video showing someone smiling at the camera, reeds blowing in the wind, etc, I will be a happy man.

Damn you Laurence! You shouldn't write stuff like this without considering the reader. I have to say, dead on. It is like, "story" is dying. These shots are great as b-roll but watching some video leaves me wanting my time back.

I'm certainly hoping to not buy another vDSLR for the purpose of video.

I have a suggestion for those still wondering what all the vDSLR fuss is about. Go to Vimeo and compare 5DII images to EX3. Or to any interchangeable lens videocam in that price range. I've done this exercise twice and it's rather shocking.
I wouldn't even bother comparing vDSLR to 35mm adapters. That's just depressing.

Vimeo is not the answer. The 5DMkII that I own does not merit mentioning with the EX3. The problem with moire and aliasing is too severe.

I'm sitting here watching the TV series 'Flash Forward' partly shot with the 5DII. So for the next 20 minutes there's an alternative to Vimeo. The show even has a story line for those bored by pretty images.

My thoughts:

Choose a camera that suits your needs and stop moaning about people who choose a different route. To some of us the image is everything, how we get there is entirely arbitrary.

Agreed.


I'd rather eat my own arm than shoot on a 1/3 inch chip camcorder or a digibeta, so I'll happily put up with the curious vagaries of the 7D/5D until Scarlet hits the streets. But that's me:)

Beta and 1/3" chip cams still have have a place in my shooting inventory. The Beta format is what I HAVE to use when I shoot TV Junkets for the studios, and the form factor of the JVC shoulder mount cams works great when I cover "live events".

Agreed that the vDSLR is not going away, it's only going to get better, and it's not really "new", as the RED is basically a vDSLR, and nobody is making fun of the RED.

While the RED was a great first effort, the Scarlett is still in the vapor stage, and while RED has some great ideas and designs, I'm afraid it's going to be a case of too little, too late for them. They just don't have the design and manufacturing capabilities of the Japanese firms, and you can bet the success of the 7D has not gone unnoticed by those manufacturers.

A year ago, all the independent productions were shooting on the RED, today, they are using the 7D. End users will always determine the success or failure of a a product (good or bad).

In the end, it's us, the end users that win, so it's all good.

Red is hardly dead. Their plan to have successful products in all market segments from high-end consumer on up seems less likely compared to a year ago. All the manufacturers are going to have to deal with commoditization of image quality as happened with film and in the last few years digital still photography. Red is still positioned to provide a well differentiated product line.

That may be, but now that the big players are getting a bit too close for comfort, they are going to have to pay more attention to meeting product release dates.

I really thought that the 5D would level the playing field and be a big game changer for people who think out of the box, but I'm having way too many problems with it on my new feature, "The Fascinating World of Bricks, Shingles, and Gratings" to ever consider shooting with it ever again. It also doesn't really fit in with my Hummer H2 lifestyle.

Please Marcus,

I sometimes read here with my morning coffee. And I resent being made to clean my screen after laughing out loud at stuff.

So stop it, please. ; )

Sanyo | CE42LM4WPNNA 42" Waterproof LCD | CE42LM4WPN-NA

(BTW, I appreciate this discussion, but we need a sticky at the top of every forum that reads, "It is not the tools that create motion pictures but rather the craftsman that wields them.")

Marcus,

what a great thread!

I have been lurking along here until your last post and I too had to clean my screen!!!

It does seem a fad to some degree, but one can't blame people for being excited about new equipment. New stuff is always a great incentive to get out filming!!!

I thought long and hard about a dslr when I was in the second camera market to back up my canon xlh1.

While I paid more for the video camera, a dslr was a whole new learning curve, more accessories, more software, and in the big picture almost nobody really can tell the difference once it is on the TV. some people may notice the depth of field thing, However, video shot properly, without a letus/etc., can be manipulated to have pretty shallow DOF; enough that other than a real critic may not even notice.

When a dslr can shoot variable frame rates up to 200 or more frames a second, retain a full sized (1080x1980) image, allow me to use my canon lenses, then I will have one preordered. But, I may be to old and decreped to get one then, or my pension may be to small to afford one.


dale guthormsen