Hi Glen

That's a good idea. I'll have to hunt round on ebay a bit and see what's out there. Or maybe someone's flogging one on DVi.

Those are all great cameras! Eyes widen and tongue lolls out of mouth...

Good idea to make cash in between films as well, time is the problem though as I have a full time day job (a non-video related one).

Stuart

I own a Canon 550D SLR and one thing I've considered is upgrading to a full frame SLR and using its 35mm lenses on both the SLR and my next video camera - thus saving on buying two sets of lenses.

Has anyone else gone down this route?

Would the 35mm lenses have to be from the same manufacturer as the video camera in order for them to work properly?

In other words if I buy Canon EF lenses will they work on a Sony EX3 for instance?

Would you also have to have a 35mm adaptor to attach to the video camera? Or are there video cameras with big enough sensors to take a 35mm lens?

I own a Canon 550D SLR and one thing I've considered is upgrading to a full frame SLR and using its 35mm lenses on both the SLR and my next video camera - thus saving on buying two sets of lenses.

Has anyone else gone down this route?

Would the 35mm lenses have to be from the same manufacturer as the video camera in order for them to work properly?

In other words if I buy Canon EF lenses will they work on a Sony EX3 for instance?

Would you also have to have a 35mm adaptor to attach to the video camera? Or are there video cameras with big enough sensors to take a 35mm lens?

Whoo, Stuart, there's a lot you need to know about 35mm lenses and video cameras.

To put 35mm lenses on a video camera, yes, you will need a 35mm lens adapter, like a Letus or Red Rock. And in that case, there are different lens mounts for different makes of lenses. Use whichever brand of lens you like.

But the problem is, they can be a bit unwieldly and they rob the camera of light sensitivity. If you need the benefits of DSLR lenses, it now makes sense to just buy a HD-capable DSLR and skip the hassles of the 35mm adapter rigs. The Canon T2i, for instance, costs less than an adapter rig and has a large imaging sensor to boot, certainly far larger than the EX3s. Why not just use it when you need the benefits of a DSLR? It can be had for under $1,000, with lens.

As of right now, there are only two video cameras that can accept DSLR lenses right out of the box - and they're not even released yet, although both will be available by year's end: The Sony NEX-VG10 ($1,999) and the Panasonic AF-100 (maybe $6,000?). The Sony will need adapters to accept Canon lenses, not sure what lens mount the Panasonic has, although I doubt it's a Canon. Still, I'm sure it will accept Canon lenses with an adapter.

If you have a DSLR I really don't see the need to get a lens adapter for your video camera. Use whichever camera suits your needs best, the right tool for the job. Because as nice as the images are from DSLRs, in my opinion, they will never truly replace the video camera. But both can work side by side.

Thanks for the help Glen.

Whoo, Stuart, there's a lot you need to know about 35mm lenses and video cameras.

Definitely, I'm quite baffled by all that stuff!

Will things like autofocus and IS work when you use the lens adaptors?

I agree, I don't think dSLRs can replace video cameras. I think I'd find it difficult and frustrating doing video on a dSLR all the time. For one thing I'd miss the zebras and it'd be a job doing smooth zooms. And not being able to angle the viewfinder to make looking into it easier would be very awkward. Worst of all, with a dSLR, you have no XLR inputs for audio and you haven't got manual audio level controls. And no dSLR is going to be broadcast approved.

I'll keep my eyes peeled for those new cameras, it's good to have more options to consider. It's the long term cost saving I'm thinking of mainly - lenses are darned expensive and having two sets of lenses is too dear for me really.

I watched The Stone Tape last night, an old BBC ghost story made in 1972. It was all shot on video and the footage and audio quality were a bit poor in places, but it didn't matter because the story, direction and performances were brilliant. What I'm trying to say is that if a film were shot in HDV, and it were captivating and novel enough, would it need to be in a 4:2:2 50 Mbs format or could it have been shot in HDV and still get on television?


That would've been recorded on 2 inch quad, which was the broadcast format of that period. Most UK made broadcast TV is commissioned rather than an acquisition, so you'd need a stand out production that's of interest or good contacts (or both) to make a sale.

HDV is used on standard def productions, so no problem there.

Thanks for the info Bryan.

Had a look at 2" Quadruplex on Wikipedia, it looks like heavy duty stuff!

Didn't realise HDV is used for standard def productions, as long as it's not a HD channel would the broadcaster accept HDV material?

They even accept Mini DV for standard def programmes, so HDV is fine. It's regarded as SD by the the UK broadcasters, but certain percentage of a HD programme's content can be shot on HDV.

BTW They used to edit 2" Quad by physically cutting the tape, rather like you can do with 1/4" audio tape. They had a fluid that revealed the magnetic patterns made by the sync pulses on the tape, so the editor knew where to make the splice.

Once they had multi machine edit suites they no longer had to do this.

Thanks for that Brian, I didn't realise HDV was acceptable for SD programmes.

I'd never have guessed they cut the tape physically, I thought that was just a film procedure, interesting stuff.

Sounds a bit scary to do it, do you know if they'd back up first?

As far as quadruplex goes, then in the earliest days cut editing was indeed the only way to do it. As far as backup went, then two copies would always be made of any important recording - mess up an edit and the other copy could be used. But don't underestimate how much extra work that may cause.

Electronic editing came in after not too long in a basic fashion - and well before the multi-machine timecode suites. Technically, it needed a series of delays to accurately time the switching of various parts from playback to record, a burst of tone on the cue track set everything happening.

Practically, the in point was found on both the recorder and the player, both machines were manually rewound ten seconds (looking at a clockwork counter), then both started together. Initially both were in playback, they both locked up together, then the record machine would flip from playback to record. It would be normal to rehearse the edit, then adjust if necessary. The cueing point was "marked" quite literally with a chinagraph pencil on the back of the tape, and adjusting the edit was a matter of manually moving the tape a few inches to make a new mark!

Electronic and cut editing co-existed for quite a long time, the former gradually taking over. Cut editing was still used (albeit rarely) in the late 70's - it's advantage being speed for certain types of work (such as sport). An example would be shortening a football match for transmission very soon after play. You may want the first and last 15 minutes, but lose the middle. Electronic editing would have meant at least 30 minutes of pure dubbing, let alone the time to set up the edit, cut editing was far faster for something like this.

As far as "The Stone Tape" goes, then the quality issues you noticed and mention are far more due to the cameras used than recording format - "comet tailing" and registration errors were two of the most noticeable problems on programmes of that era.

Just in case anyone has the problem with horizontal tearing artefacts when reviewing footage in the Avid like I did - I've worked out what the problem was. You need to turn V-sync on in your graphics driver. To do that open up your NVIDIA control panel then navigate to:

3D Settings
Manage 3D Settings
Global Settings

Then set "Vertical Sync" to "FORCE ON"

That should be it fixed!

Hope that's of use to someone out there, took me ages to figure it out!

As far as "The Stone Tape" goes, then the quality issues you noticed and mention are far more due to the cameras used than recording format - "comet tailing" and registration errors were two of the most noticeable problems on programmes of that era.

Thanks for all the extra info David :)

I've observed plenty of comet tailing in the old 1970s Tom Baker Doctor Whos I've been watching - boy am I living in the past!

The old Dr Who episodes of that era also had the very earliest chroma-key usage as well. Can't recall the name they had for it at the time, but it was hot stuff at the BBC.

Andrew

Yeah, they seem to use it quite a bit, especially in those sequences with The Doctor and his assistant spinning around in a vortex type of thing that they do :)

In an episode called The Invisible Enemy (with the giant crustaceans in it) the doctor and his assistant Leela get cloned, then miniaturised and are injected into the full size doctor. During the injection you see them swirling around inside the syringe!

I guess they'd use chroma key before then for film though? I'm thinking of Jason and the Argonauts, The Thief of Baghdad and Sinbad and stuff?

Did You Know: Blue chroma key was the colour of choice, but they had to use green instead due to the scenes that required the tardis to be present ... because otherwise it would disappear ... which is strangely ironic.

Yes, I am profound. :-P

Andrew

Ha ha! That's a good insight Andrew!

So the Tardis functions via a sophisticated chroma-key circuit - I wonder if The Doctor knew that?!

Maybe the bit that goes up and down and lights up on the control panel is some kind of optical splitting device?

No wonder the Tardis used to malfunction so often!

Here's a video of the upcoming RED Scarlet if anyone's interested...

RED Scarlet and Bomb EVF surprise hands-on! -- Engadget (http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/09/red-scarlet-and-bomb-evf-surprise-hands-on/)

Looks nice :)