How many people on this forum are actually producing material on DSLR? ..... I'm not talking about an occasional 5 minute music / video clip, or loosely edited wedding or YouTube clips, or quick grabs.......
I'm talking about broadcast or cinema released content of 30-60minutes or more.
And if so how many of these movies / programs have you done on this format?

In the market I'm in there seems to be a huge flurry to take up the DSLR format yet in 3-6 months the people seem to have gone back to the conventional video camera and the 'still' photographers that got into video have now faded out of the video scene and gone back just to stills.

I've worked on a few indie features shot with DSLRs, but not as a producer. (prod. sound mixer). Unfortunately there many out there who suddenly call themselves DPs with the acquisition of a DSLR.. including equally naive directors, ADs , ect., ect. Fortunately, I'm spared some of that as most of those idiots have a low to no budget for sound, and end up with a 'hiring' a bozo with a H4n and a video mic. Aside for the lack of timecode, it can work out ok, provided everything is slated properly and with a good pro crew, exceptional results can be obtained with DSLR.

I just finished crewing an Indie Bollywood feature that is now in post. It was shot entirely on DSLR. We did have a dedicated location mixer using a new SD 664 (man that thing is sweet). I would say that I've encountered about 10% of the serious small productions being shot on DSLR's. With the RED Scarlet and Sony F3 and soon F5 I'm seeing fewer and fewer productions going the DSLR route. I also worked on a Papa Roach music video with a decent budget where they used a RED Epic and a Red One.

Brian, why are you asking the question?

Cheers

Grazie

I think initially they gave a cheap?? but easy route to doing shallow DOF but I think that feature has been better defined by camera's that are specifically designed to do video and therefore don't have all the problems that were and still are prevalent with DSLR's

Also as time has gone on most people have found that doing any decent sound can be a real pain for a self op and more importantly the practicalities of trying to keep focus on a small screen with stills lenses has meant that once again there are now better video cameras available.

I also think that the fashion if it ever was one of searching for focus and wobbly cam has had it's 15 mins of fame and people are wanting to do things in a more traditional way as the Alexa has become more prevalent in mainstream TV production.

Who knows as there are still a fair zillion posts on how do I do proper sound on my DSLR with a rode videomic or a zoom whatever but I suspect that the DSLR has gone back to being a hobbyist camera that can allow the stills guys to do bit of video as well.

I always saw it as a trying to re-invent the wheel situation but there are now better defined wheels that do the job more efficiently these days and with the smaller chip cameras like the canon XF300 etc being full broadcast spec and the general rejection of DSLR's now that the testing has been done means that there are far better ways to produce content that can also be broadcast spec.

I also agree with Rick that there have been far too many wannabees calling themselves DOP's just because they have bought a DSLR and like all fashion they have had their day as people now wish to do things more professionally.

Sadly the lo/no new media graduate brigade now think that they must have a RED or an ALEXA to make their no budget movie as the UNI's have churned them out with little practical skills or real understanding of the Film and TV industry.

Nicely put Gary.

As I own an XF300, I know and appreciate exactly what you are saying, both in terms of the quality and just the plain old "plumbing" knobs and switches that making capturing S&V a total pleasure. But, I was wanting to hear from Brian just where his particular "itch" was needing to be scratched, regarding the "market".

For example, I've just purchased a Canon Powershot SX50 HS - the one with the 50x optical zoom - and quite frankly, I will not be ashamed to mix in some B-Roll from it, in with my XF300. Again, as you say the maths and electronics with these pert, chippy-chippies is remarkable. It has the SAME DIGIC technology on the chip as my XF300! - My point is, I wont be neg about DSLRs, and my Bridge-Camera IF they/it will do more than adequate job and it will extend my creativity.

Grazie

The reason why the original question was a general enquiry of the trend of the industry world wide and where it is headed, I normally do a DSLR shoot every couple of weeks which are normally TVC's, short grabs VERY rehearsed and structured.
But my question stems from the possible investment in audio gear for the future, do I go SD788t or SD664 or Tascam DR680 or do I stay with my Marantz recorder teamed up with my SD442.
Most of the shoots I do are are commercial TVC's, corporate doco's or live link stuff, IF the DSLR work was to increase a SD778 or DR680 would be the way to go otherwise the SD664 may be my best alternate option.
It seems that many new / young people into the film industry will go down the DSLR route, do only one production in that format / structure and then move on to an easier format.

I bump into plenty of low budget to broadcast professional crews - In the past ten weeks I've lost count of the number of interviews and shorts that have used the premises, the cast and even me. Not one of these have used DSLRs. The bottom end have all had Sony EX and Panasonic and the broadcasters, their usual bigger Sonys. All have had mics plugged into the cameras - not a Juiced gadget in sight apart from one crew who had a real juicer for making drinks (no idea why!) A couple have been low budget infovision type internet streamers, who perhaps could have been expected to have DSLRs for cost reasons, but didn't. Maybe DSLRs really were misplaced products, that have now been displaced. After all - surely the key issues are quite basic. Image quality in terms of format, and sound quality. You only have to look on ebay to see that the cost of proper sound facilities, focus and the ergonomic side can easily cost three times the cost of the camera - plus the fortune for better glass. I think it's a bit like the fad we had in the 70s for young people's cars. You bought an old Cortina or Capri, and added new wider wheels, flared arches, different seats, clever paint jobs and uprated engine and suspension. The problem was it was still a Cortina!

"I think it's a bit like the fad we had in the 70s for young people's cars. You bought an old Cortina or Capri, and added new wider wheels, flared arches, different seats, clever paint jobs and uprated engine and suspension. The problem was it was still a Cortina!
That's an interesting analogy Paul, and I would agree.
I can't recall who posted the following (or was it this forum) but I recall someone from the UK, said to the effect that "due to the low equipment cost, the skill level needed is equally low, nothing could be farther form the truth."

Agree with you guys! Many pseudo-DP with 5d out there! But i have a question:

Top gear, National Geographic doc are shot with? Pana or Sony with prime lenses?

DSLRs are here to stay. Albeit not in the same crappy quality and functionality.

Everyday I see many people jumping into the DSLR bandwagon, as they think and are erroneously suggested by people to buy a DSLR to improve their films. A few days back, I met a dancer who wanted to record his dance by using a 7D. He had been suggested to buy it. There will be enough people out there to buy DSLRs.

The camera companies are also improving the functionality of DSLRs. You can now record audio to DSLRs without the dreaded Auto gain. It is another matter that, I even found one filmmaker using the auto gain of the C300.

With Canon launching the 1D C with 4 K recording in a DLSR form factor, there will be more such cameras in the future and at lower price points. So wait for the second wave of DSLRs which will be much better. Those would were supposed to graduate from dSLRs to serious filmmaking, have done so and a lot of people with misplaced notions about filmmaking will fall by the wayside. So the sound guys will not have much of problems henceforth dealing with DSLR filmmakers.

Agree with you guys! Many pseudo-DP with 5d out there! But i have a question:

Top gear, National Geographic doc are shot with? Pana or Sony with prime lenses?

More likely shot with Panasonic and Sony ENG camera's with stock or hired in zoom lenses.

I get asked why I am resistant to going hdslr.

To me there are really only three advantages: raw files, bokah, 4k

A major consideration in my case is building out a camera for true production work. A D800 will set you back about $2900.00US. Not bad for a camera that "does it all"

You then need to mouse over to Zacuto, Red Rock, and outfit that unit. And don't get me going on Choziial! This starts your investment. Then you most certainly will need some sort of mixer for sound. And definately an external monitor. $$$$$. And with that gear and weight you'll need something more beefy and as follows exspensive, camera support.

And perhaps you go all out and set yourself up properly, now you might consider a sound person to work that mixer, and maybe someone to pull focus while you are busy being creative.

Don't get me wrong. The samples I've seen from hdslr's is amazing.

One other consideration is how your film will be viewed. I'd guess the majority of all us are doing stuff whether professional or amateur that will be viewed on the web, that big HD tv with blu ray. Do you really need all that 4k has to offer, or are we just pixel pigs.

When I set up lighting well, get my framing in mind, my Canon HV30, still blows me away. Not state of art. Just saying.

In the early 1990's and started a serious digital workflow, the question was always "...but what if I wanto make a billboard from your (then) 5 MP file" And I'd say go ahead. And from a normal viewing distance of about 300 feet, looks pretty damn good.

Bottom line is think about your intended use.

Finally, I've actually thought the camera world has it backwards. I think that they should be making video capture devices that shoot a nice 36MP file. After reading the above do you see the advantages of that?

Jonathan

Guys I am way down the food chain and just a hobbyist. I own an XF300 because I find shooting video with a DSLR a PITA, but by heck, I would hate to be without the things you can do with a DSLR that you can't do with a video camera. I know that the Canon XF series camera are not known for their low light capabilities, but my 1DMK4 is so far ahead in that respect, it is ridiculous. Or I can shoot stills and video from the same angle, and Photoshop the bejesus out of the stills, and garbage matte some video in to bring the stills to life.

But DSLRs are still a PITA to shoot video with. Heck! When I decided to get serious and buy the XF300, I didn't even know about stuff like peaking and zebra stripes and all those features designed to make shooting video, and recording sound, more manageable. But I still think DSLRs shoot great video.

[EDIT] Just a little addendum, but footage from my XF300 is way more forgiving in post. Stretching the point, I also use a little Canon G1X for occasional b-roll because it is so light, and actually shoots really nice video, but if you don't have it right when you shoot it, you are not going to get away with any heavy PP manipulation without the footage falling to bits. My 1DMK4 is rather better, but still can't compete with 50Mb/s MXF footage.

Hi Trevor,
In just finished a shoot and am getting into editing stage. Will soon release the Making of... film. I used C300 and for the B camera I used my trusted 1D Mark IV. However, the difference in quality of footage is huge. Having said that, my previous film was completely done with the 1D Mark IV and is still doing the festival circuit. There are many limitations, however, you can use any of these cameras as a tool and create good stuff. Afterall, you are telling a story through a film. Just that sound and music is very important in this story telling. Perhaps more than 50%.

In the early days of TV when there used to be black out of the picture and only sound used to come, we used to patiently hear and didn't switch off. And in the rare occasions when there was image and no sound, we used to switch off.

So even if a film is shot in DSLR and there are decent sound guys involved, then the production will work out well.

Im planning on shooting one, been for a while but got sidetracked. It can be a pain that's for sure but the footage looks great in the right situations so overall I think it's worth it. Sound is prob the pain in the neck the most for me so. It's like every camera/system out there that has some limitations. There are days where I wish I had a typical camera, and even wonder if I should have just a video camera and skip the dslr, but so far I haven't been able to part with mine yet. It has given me great footage so far.

We had shot a total of seven 15 minute episodes for a show/webshow, although we primarily used a Canon XH A1, we also used a T2i for more difficult shots, or for shallow DOF shots. Probably about 12 total hours of footage between XH A1 with/without Letus or Redrock M2, and 8 hours of just T2i footage. Half way through production we sold the RedRock M2, and about a month later decided to let the XH A1 go. I still wish we had kept the XH A1 and just sold the Letus kit. MUCH easier for so many things, but the image quality of the T2i's is worlds better if you can work around CMOS issues. This was around May of 2010, when the T2i was new and ML did not exist yet, and 35mm adapters were still riding high.

The show was never picked up and we decided against throwing it on the net, i might still have them around. Eventually we switched to all HDSLR's as most of our work is indoors and in controlled environments, plus they are cheaper especially used, but definitely a pain as they are clearly not all-in-one devices.

One thing i DO like about the DSLRs over prosumer camcorders like the HVX-200/XH-A1, it makes you learn about individual components, how they work, workarounds, and more technical aspects versus having everything 'baked in' a camcorder. Also that we could separate departments and jobs. For instance, our sound guy would be trying to mess with the onboard audio while our cameraman was trying to film; with the DSLR kit, we had the audio gear elsewhere, the field monitors and audio monitor with the director elsewhere, the boom op doing his job, and the cam op left to do his job, so no one was interfering with one another.

One thing i DO like about the DSLRs over prosumer camcorders like the HVX-200/XH-A1, it makes you learn about individual components, how they work, workarounds, and more technical aspects versus having everything 'baked in' a camcorder. Also that we could separate departments and jobs. For instance, our sound guy would be trying to mess with the onboard audio while our cameraman was trying to film; with the DSLR kit, we had the audio gear elsewhere, the field monitors and audio monitor with the director elsewhere, the boom op doing his job, and the cam op left to do his job, so no one was interfering with one another.

Isn't this how films are traditionally shot?

yes, my point was that with the 'all-in-one' camcorders we had 3 people clustered around the camera, hence i prefer the DSLR way. it was really low budget, all my equipment and everyones' time when we had time.

if we ever decide to pick up where we left off, it would be much easier now.

One thing i DO like about the DSLRs over prosumer camcorders like the HVX-200/XH-A1, it makes you learn about individual components, how they work, workarounds, and more technical aspects versus having everything 'baked in' a camcorder. Also that we could separate departments and jobs. For instance, our sound guy would be trying to mess with the onboard audio while our cameraman was trying to film; with the DSLR kit, we had the audio gear elsewhere, the field monitors and audio monitor with the director elsewhere, the boom op doing his job, and the cam op left to do his job, so no one was interfering with one another.

Here is what I find objectionable with everyone using dSLRs for productions - overuse of shallow DOF. Not just for dramatic affect but on every shot. Overuse to distraction.

People that lack the knowledge of the language of cinematography grab this stuff and wield it with reckless abandon. Just because you can shoot at f/1.2 with a focus distance of 5' on a S35 sized sensor doesn't mean you should. If you find yourself larger than f/5.6 with a focus distance under 10' you should be asking yourself why.

At least when the cameras that gave you tremendous DOF control also cost huge dollars operators had to work their way up the food chain to get to use them. Along that journey they learned what it took to create a great images. Now anyone can grab a box and crank a knob to 2.8 or less then point it at something where no thought was given to lighting or background (because you can't see it anyway) and call it a film.

I may be in the minority with that opinion but I'll be glad when the shallow DOF craze is done and we can get back to seeing more of the world in our films again.

And many who have bought one, suddenly call themselves DOP as well, with little to no film making experience.

Here is what I find objectionable with everyone using dSLRs for productions - overuse of shallow DOF. Not just for dramatic affect but on every shot. Overuse to distraction.

People that lack the knowledge of the language of cinematography grab this stuff and wield it with reckless abandon. Just because you can shoot at f/1.2 with a focus distance of 5' on a S35 sized sensor doesn't mean you should. If you find yourself larger than f/5.6 with a focus distance under 10' you should be asking yourself why.

At least when the cameras that gave you tremendous DOF control also cost huge dollars operators had to work their way up the food chain to get to use them. Along that journey they learned what it took to create a great images. Now anyone can grab a box and crank a knob to 2.8 or less then point it at something where no thought was given to lighting or background (because you can't see it anyway) and call it a film.

I may be in the minority with that opinion but I'll be glad when the shallow DOF craze is done and we can get back to seeing more of the world in our films again.

i agree. for our production it was used mostly to insinuate things in the background, without directly showing them. one of the characters was constantly engrossed in video games, and in the background, blurred just enough you couldnt tell, it appeared his girlfriend was having sex with his room mate, then the focus would shift and they would be actually moving furniture. we never did the 'shoot half the show at f1.4' thing; it was used for creative masking/effect, and insinuation.

And with bad operation and application of shallow DOF we also get the new media styles of search for focus and wobblycam to justify the poorand sloppy operative ignorance!

Along with that comes the re-inventing the wheels and in built arrogance that has totally de valued TV and film teaching by the uni's in the UK!

There are tools and then there are those who use the tools.

An ASP-C DSLR has roughly the same sensor size as traditional S35 film. Don't blame the tool. It's just that the S35 size just became democratized.

Overly shallow DOF is probably the least of the problems out there. Some shoot fast action handheld with a back-lit scene, poor exposure, bad white balance, a high-contrast profile, and no grading and then ask why it doesn't look like film. There are more sins than shallow DOF available to the novice filmmaker.

DOF, is an artistic choice but it also offers great freedom. I can shoot an interview in a cluttered office, open the aperture, and remove distractions. We once built a cave interior out of chicken wire, grocery bags, and a bit of spray paint, and with some mixed temp lighting and shallow DOF, it looked fantastic. Last week I shot interviews over a black background, but there were some creases in the cloth and some spill from the fill. Shallow DOF to the rescue!

Not to mention that I can shoot with low noise on a modest lighting budget. The DOF might be shallower than ideal, but a large aperture can make a naturally-lit night shot possible.

Can shallow DOF be used poorly? Of course. But thank goodness it's now available when we want it. :)

actually i personally detest CMOS related issues the most; jello on every video users send into news programs, banding/half over-exposed frames with strobe lights/police lights, banding/flickering on vacuum fluorescent displays, MORE banding/sync or flickering issues with televisions or screens, even in films.

Actually the weather channel in the usa is the worst; its as if they intentionally show 320x240 15fps video for EVERY 'user uploaded' feature, and their giant tv screen on their normal programming is not only WAY off in terms of WB (i understand why, but it SHOULD be adjusted to show correct colors) and it flickers. It is so annoying i never watch that channel. also it appears they have far too much lighting directed at their talents.


...and CSI miami. STOP with the filters. seriously.

This is personal, but I didn't go exclusively to DSLR for any of the reasons mentioned above.

I adopted it for one reason and one reason only. Image quality verses cost.

I don't shoot, (nor do I have any desire to shoot) features or documentaries or any other typical long form video productions. I see those industries as tremendously over-crowded and with only marginal room for growth and profit. They have long production schedules and significant waits before you can expect to recover any investment. (And if the project fails, you often don't recoup anything at all!)

In the movie business, the goal is to put butts in seats and sell them tickets and vastly overpriced popcorn and soda - and then to move into the stream of NetFlix or the iTMS, or other secondary markets to keep generating revenue from the original work. And that's well and good, even if very few movies ever recoup their production investment.

I find that a tiresome and risky way to use these tools to generate a living in that arena.

OTOH, the use of video for general video purposes is exploding. Part of that is the web, but it's just as prevalent in general business communications.

At it's heart, video solves problems by allowing one to craft and reproduce a beneficial message for a client. I'm much more interested in using the power of video to solve smaller real-world problems like training, motivation, and driving efficiency in repetitive operations.

I think it's a much more fertile reef than the tremendously over-fished shoals of movie-making.

The DSLR is a fabulous tool for that because it produces sumptuous imagery at an extremely modest investment. It's light and agile and not only solves the need for motion content creation, but also lets you refine your skills in the still image arts - which is in some instances can be a superior communications tool to video.

To get a video device as good as a DSLR that's better suited to video I have to either jump to a C-300 type device and spend 3 times the price (which means I have to treat it as more an investment and less as a simple expense) or I have to go the Black Magic Cinema Camera route and dig into it's RAW workflow hassles and lose the still imaging ecosystem that my 5d gives me.

I think DSLR and FCP-X is still a wonderful production sweet spot for the kind of work I do.

That has NOTHING to do with shallow depth of field aesthetics. It has to do with securing the ability to make more money off a smaller, less risky investment.

Simple as that.