We are all aware that shoulder-mounted ENG cameras which mostly feature 1/3-inch, 1/2-inch or 2/3-inch CCD or CMOS sensors are mainly used for news gathering, sports, TV programmes, etc. These cameras also feature 24P beside other frame rates. I wonder if ENG cameras are used for cinematography as well, especially when full depth of field is necessary. Is it an appropriate camera for use in cinematography with ordinary ENG lenses? Is it favored by cinematographers whenever they are engaged in producing featured films? Can anyone clarify this?

First of all, the term "cinematography" has broadened to include many types of productions (see threads here that discuss wedding shooters now describing themselves as cinematographers). If we are talking specifically about feature films, note that with the introduction of the Sony F900 and Panasonic Varicam around 2000 there were a number of features shot on these 2/3" cameras, probably best known being the late-model Star Wars movies. It was more rare for ENG lenses to be used in this scenario, but not unheard of. I shot a feature around 2005 on the F900 and had both primes and ENG style lenses (actually cine style versions that had the same optics as their ENG counterparts but without the zoom servos), and ended up mostly shooting with zooms for speed on set.

As far as these cameras being favored by DP's--well, once the S35 chip cameras arrived (Panavision Genesis, around 2005), most quickly moved on to that format and never looked back. The advantages in recording format, accessibility to PL or Panavision cine lenses, higher sensitivity sensors and later, raw or log output have made these cameras much more suited to DP's in the theatrical realm and it is more rare these days for a smaller sensor camera to be used for this purpose unless there is a specific reason. I myself would (and do) have a hard time thinking about going back!

Thank you for the reply. Yes I am aware that Sony HDCAM and Panasonic Varicam are intended for use in high-end feature films but what about their younger brothers such Sony PMW-400 or Panasonic AG-HPX600? Are they suitable for feature films? Are they favored by DoP?

You can make a film on whatever you choose and some have been done on handycams but as to what is popular that is a different thing.

At the end of the day people will look at the content and much like music recordings don't get too tied up in the tools of the trade.

the 35mm size chip is popular as is the Arri Alexa and the RED but that does not say that the next big blockbuster could be shot on a PMW300 400 or even a HPX600 or an i-fone 5.

I am sure that 35mm sensors are the best choices in the market for feature film in particular. However, with full frame sensors, DPs might run into issues of focus and shallow depth of field causing some objects in the scene to appear blur. For this reason, 2/3" ENG would be a good choices to overcome this issue and get clean results whenever short depth of field is not desired. For this reason, I wanted to know whether ENG cameras are used for feature film or not.

The short answer is no, but that does not mean you can not use one if that is what you own or have access to.

If you are talking about real high end cinema like Hollywood major release level, the budgets are high enough to get any camera they want. They would gravitate to cameras designed for cinema production that create looks closer to what they want with high data worklows.

ENG cameras have a certain look. They are designed for television. Sure there is a fine line, but your question was about cinema production. Unless they want to create a "television" style look in their movie, an ENG camera would not the first or second choice for the production.

I have shot drama on an ENG camera with stock lens and this short for cinema was done on a 1/3" chip HPX371:

The Last Straw 2010 - YouTube

Total budget was around £2,500 and we did the sound with one AT875r plugged straight into the back of the camera.

Good job Gary.

I was just about to say that Cinematography is a broadly used term and usually refers to the way the finished product looks. If it looks movie like due to the aspect ratio, colour, 24p feel, then it's cinematic in my opinion.

You don't always need big sensor cameras although it does help for those shallow depth of field shots.

I use a combination of both. But then i'm talking about the wedding market which is what I cater for.

I shot a pilot presentation on 1/3" cameras this year and really struggled with the look. I had done a lot of narrative work back in the day with this type of camera, from the XL1 and 2 to the DVX100 etc. but having spent the last five years in S35 sensor land, it was really hard to go back.

For me, the tools of S35 cameras that I mentioned above (Highlight rolloff via log profile, increased sensitivity, cine lens compatibility) are all important when it comes to creating a cinematic look. I had a tough time with the look of the ENG style lens--lens breathing is a very annoying function in a narrative setting--and the lack of depth of field control was a tough one. Yes, Haitham, shallow depth of field is not always wanted but generally it's much more desirable for a narrative situation than the other way around. When your camera can be cranked up to EI2000 or higher without much noise penalty it's easy enough to use that sensitivity to stop down a little if more depth is required.

So the short answer is that the tradeoffs of a broadcast camera to shoot narrative style are significant enough that the gain in depth of field would result in quite a bit of compromise to the overall look. The exception to this would be something like "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia", which uses EX3's for a deliberately low-end feel. I'm hard pressed to think of other examples where a DP has sought out a smaller chip camera for the reasons you mentioned.

Sadly, so many links on forums to 'cinematic' material seem to be far too arty for my liking - exactly the kinds of product I just couldn't sit through. Very narrow DoF, constantly moving cameras, although now with all the gizmos, they no longer shake so badly - and worst of all, composition that just looks thrown together. I'm not even sure that image quality is the be all and end all. The material Gary just showed is a good demonstration of how 720 on youtube can look pretty good. Blown up on a huge screen, and sure, the structure would be evident, but how much ends up on the big screen? If your presentation medium is HUGE - then shooting on something that has extended detail is worth it, but for products displayed at smaller sizes, I can't see that definition is the factor that decides what exactly 'cinematic' means. For me - it just means a style, just as documentary has a style. I try to keep technical quality separate from artistic quality.

Artistry is always more important, Paul, but that's adding an unnecessary factor into the equation (the given is that a great DP can make a 1/3" camera look better than a crap DP with a S35 camera, etc). The question is whether a smaller format camera with ENG lenses can look as cinematic as a larger format camera with cine lenses. My perspective from experience is that it's simply an uphill battle and I for one try to avoid it.

Hopefully this won't be one of those "arty" clips not to your liking, but here's the trailer for a feature I shot 8 years ago, on the F900. At the time it was pretty radical to shoot a film noir with a digital camera but I shrugged and embraced as I had no choice. It doesn't look as good to me as it once did, because my eyes are now attuned to the subtleties provided by modern cameras, but it worked well enough and looked decent in the theatre (35mm transfer). In one instance in a night exterior the deep focus of the 2/3 chips was too much and post work was done to blur the distracting background (it's not in the trailer).

DPtheperfectsleep (http://www.charlespapert.com/DP/DPtheperfectsleep.html)

For me, the keys to narrative cinematography are:
1) To create a audio/visual experience that sets an appropriate mood for the story, and
2) To direct the viewer's focus of attention.

S35 isn't the only way to achieve this, but it's proven to be the most widely successful.

Watch an older, expertly shot, black and white film with deep focus. How does it guide focus? With perspective, lines of action, layered lighting, motion within the scene, etc. And because lens resolution and signal to noise were only so good, the audience wasn't distracted with specs of dust and flaws in the backgrounds.

Now add color, resolution, and signal/noise and we have a real challenge on our hands. Narrow the focus and we can direct the eye very cheaply. One can use deep focus, but are they prepared to use only muted background colors, assemble/clean things perfectly, use layered lighting, and design scenes with lines and perspectives that point to your character? This is difficult and expensive. Let's just open up the aperture, please.

Recently, my wife and I have been watching episodes of Dr. Who. It's well produced, but with the combination of deep focus and a TV budget/schedule, it just doesn't feel cinematic to me. I find it far too easy to look all around the scene and get distracted from what should be the point of focus. And that makes me feel like I'm watching a cheap show, rather than truly being drawn into the story. (It can still be an entertaining romp though!)

Good points Jon.

When the 35mm adaptors first came on the scene, it was interesting to explore and discuss what the most important factors were in recreating the cinematic look. There was a bit of debate whether it was 24p or shallow focus. I did one project with the Mini35 at 60i and found the look disconcerting; the motion cadence of news/sports/live events married to the "dreaminess" of shallow focus resulted in a look that was somehow "off". 24p with deep focus felt more cinematic, and 24p with shallow focus, more still.

I used to use a lot of layering techniques with 1/3 to 2/3" cameras to achieve the effects you described, giving foreground and background different tones and colors and letting the midground fall out. It's a lot easier when you can let the natural falloff create that separation for you, although I still play plenty of attention to the tones even if they are more blobby than anything else. I also regulate the depth of field carefully from shot to shot and will often pull ND to build stop for longer focal lengths so that the background doesn't go too soft. Usually my procedure is to dial the iris as I'm watching the monitor until I get the background to a degree of softness I like, then calculate the appropriate ND to get that to the proper exposure.

Charles - you're safe! My weird and wonderful own opinion of 'cinematic' means yours landed bang in the middle - but I think the thing about the trailer was simply it 'looked' like cinema really ought to - big, with every inch of the frame filled with just the right things, light, shade, contrast and a proper dose of care and attention. I suspect that if you'd shot with almost any camera, the same thing would apply. It's the direct opposite of the people who don't quite 'get it'.

I'm not really sure why, but the depth of field in each shot seemed to be natural - whereas so much I see uses it without thinking. You use it creatively, not destructively, which seems far more common.

I just watched The Perfect Sleep trailer and it simply nails the concepts mentioned above. Nearly every single shot uses multiple techniques to focus the attention right where it belongs. Couple that with a style that compliments the story and it hits the bullseye. I can see why you chose that as an example, Charles!

And I love the idea of adjusting the iris to taste and then choosing the proper ND filter - especially when balancing tight and wide shots. Too often, a master shot will have minimal to moderate background blur and will be cut with a closeup in which the background is all but lost. I find that to be a bit jarring, yet due to lens/camera/light technology we often get that, even from master directors and DPs. Some additional blur is to be expected, but going from details to mush can make it feel like the character is in a completely different space.

I am sure that 35mm sensors are the best choices in the market for feature film in particular. However, with full frame sensors, DPs might run into issues of focus and shallow depth of field causing some objects in the scene to appear blur.
That statement is only true if you're talking about quite wide apertures - if you stop down by about 3 stops an s35 sensor will give similar dof to a 2/3" camera.

Hence it's more accurate to say that an s35 camera will give the OPTION of much shallower depth of field than a comparable 2/3" - it's not automatically the case.

You may be thinking now that it's all very well, but won't that require a lot of extra light? No - because the larger sensor cameras will (all else equal) be rated at a far higher ISO for equivalent noise etc. Hence you may well find that if a 2/3" camera needs f2 for exposure, the s35 may need f5.6 - in which case they will show identical dof. But the s35 will give the OPTION of using ND, setting f2, and therefore getting a shallow dof that is impossible with a 2/3" camera. (Unless you could find an f0.7 lens! :-) )

At the other end (small apertures) then the limit is set by diffraction softening. For a given system resolution, the in terms of f numbers a lens on a s35 camera will be able to be stopped down an extra 3 stops (approx.) cf 2/3" - hence the limit for MAX dof will be the same in each case. (That's no accident - it's due to the limit being down to the actual dimension of the iris. Same diameter will be 3 stops less for s35 than for 2/3", for the same focal length.)

Fundamentally, for what's being termed "cinematic", then whilst 2/3" or smaller may be used, using s35 gives a lot more scope. You certainly don't have to have a shallower dof look - just stop down.

I'm surprised to hear "Sunny" is using EX3s. Not that I ever had any idea of what they might be using. I guess I just didn't associate that look with the EX series. But then, like everything else, it probably has the crap graded out of it.

I have shot drama on an ENG camera with stock lens and this short for cinema was done on a 1/3" chip HPX371:

(The Last Straw url snipped)

Total budget was around £2,500 and we did the sound with one AT875r plugged straight into the back of the camera.

Nicely done, Gary. I really enjoyed that. I saw a couple of clips you had posted awhile back when I was searching for info on shotgun mics, but it's nice to see them in context. I'm pretty impressed with the quality that was coaxed out of the lower-priced AT875r. I think the only thing keeping me from choosing that mic is its need for phantom power.

Really nice cinematography, too, Gary. Naturalistic lighting and solid compositions added a lot to the tone of the film. Also, the sinister turn it took was interesting to me as a horror fan. As a long out of practice film school grad who has recently acquired his first HD camera (Canon XA20), I find this little short quite inspirational. Thank you for sharing it.

2/3" ENG style cameras have been used in some of the biggest blockbuster movies of all time, including the biggest of them all, "Avatar" (Sony F23, F950 and HDC-1500).

Of course, with the Alexa, F55 and RED cameras, I think there won't be any more big budget films shot on anything less than an S35 sensor.
Come to think of it, with the prices of FS700s and used F3s, even low budget films can have an S35 sensor camera.
That doesn't mean you can't use a 2/3" camera, of course. But I don't see why anyone would choose one now.

2/3" cameras are still great for general use broadcast productions. But cinema? It wouldn't be my first choice, and I like 2/3" cameras.

Regarding Avatar, Star Wars and other films with lots of green screen, 2/3" makes a lot of sense. You can capture characters with crisp edges and create a composite result with almost any DOF that you would like. In some ways, a small or small aperture capture is superior as you can blur a close background, yet keep both of your actors eyes and their nose/ears in sharp focus.

I'm not sure what they shot Gravity with, but for that film, I'd want deep focus. You can make the astronauts sharp, keep the stars sharp, and easily direct the eye with the white space suit over the black background.

It's practical sets where the image capture size and aperture can make a bigger impact. As mentioned above, there are many techniques for directing audience focus and controlled DOF is one of the most cost effective.

I think in a certain way all this quest for cinematic imagery and shallow DOF has reduced standards as I see a lot more searching for focus and over use of shallow DOF these days and I don't think that is down to what camera is being used.

A couple of movies I saw in the cinema recently highlighted this and some shots were just out of focus overall and the picture cuts jarred as they went from one aspect to another.

There have also been several music documentaries on the BBC recently that were spoiled by the shallow DOF and interviewees moved in and out of focus, they were on The Who and Queen and having just one half of peoples faces in focus most of the time distracted from what they were saying.

I also watched the BBC Dr Who 50th Ep last night and there was just far too much shallow DOF with some of the make-up errors and continuity sticking out and a couple of the pull focus shots took a long time to get into sharp focus on my 47" TV so would probably look even worse on a cinema screen.

I am not saying that 35mm chips should not be used for TV but I think you also need the cinema shooting disciplines (+$$$$) and I feel that there are too many directors and DOP's (camera Op's) who lack the experience or discipline to use it creatively.

Quite apart from ENG cameras, super 16 film cameras have been used in a number of recent feature films. It's part the mix of formats on "Captain Phillips" and also "Black Swan". A number of films use a mix, so using format(s) that work to tell your story is key.

My thoughts on ENG cameras are more about the "video look" that you can tend to get, rather the sensor size. Again, that can be something you want, although it has been used some films and tended to work against the story. The RAW 2/3" cameras look more interesting in that regard.

It has been a long discussion and extensive debate on this controversial topic. Anyhow it was very informative and very rich. In fact, I have started this topic in order to get opinions from talents and expert people about ENG and 35mm Cinema cameras and approach towards the best choice for me as an investor who is intending to purchase and start production business mainly in wedding and events. Now for weddings and events in particular, what would be the best choice in terms of auto focus, electronic zooming, large depth of field and probably cinematic look all in one camera and which one of them might be the most versatile in operation and user friendly? ENG or 35mm? Now, I do understand that this would be controversial but I need opinions in this regard.

They are different animals at the pro/prosumer level. 35mm look cameras will not electronic zooming or what is known as servo motors on the lenses. Ease of use is in the ENG camp favoring towards the 1/3"-1/2" all in one cameras.

Keeping things in focus is the tricky part of all manual shooting and even worse with 35mm style cameras.

My advice is to try and get one from each camp and a best case scenario being the same brand so the colorimetry will be similar. Tell us your budget and we will find you the best stuff to buy.

If I were to do weddings (which I don't), I'd go for a mix. Traditional camcorders are reliable for capturing the must-have scenes and master shots. DSLRs can capture shallow DOF for a romantic, dreamy feel. Ideally, the DSLR would do 1080/60p for shallow slow motion shots for ultimate dreaminess.

I think the key is how those shots are put together. I wouldn't want to intercut the doc footage with the dream footage. I'd look for a structure that weaves between the realism of the event and the emotions of the couple.

BTW, I do shoot corporate events where we use a DSLR for the tight shot, a camcorder for the wide, master/safety shot, and the PowerPoint slides for the info (over the shoulder or full frame). Then again, my end results for these events are not intended to be cinematic or dreamy/romantic for these projects. :)

Now for weddings and events in particular, what would be the best choice in terms of auto focus, electronic zooming, large depth of field and probably cinematic look all in one camera and which one of them might be the most versatile in operation and user friendly? ENG or 35mm? Now, I do understand that this would be controversial but I need opinions in this regard.
Less controversial, more a case of what is your budget! Are the events mega-concerts with huge budgets or small scale with tens of people there? Are the weddings of super-rich people who want quality, or couples on a tight budget?

That said, then frankly there is no one size fits all at any price level. What's good for cinematic look may be bad for event filming.

If you have to go for one camera, then probably something at the lower end of the 2/3" range may be a good idea. More "cinematic" than anything with 1/3", even 1/2" chips, but arguably better in terms of versatility/user friendliness. Since a lot of the expense of 2/3" ownership is in the lens, probably something with a "package" lens like the PMW400, which also has autofocus if you want it.

Thanks to all for the response. In fact, the market which I am targeting will mainly be weddings and small-to-medium events. For weddings in particular, we have been studying the market and found that some production firms provide media coverage at costs likely to reach $5000 for one wedding event only, and yes there are customers who can afford this cost and probably higher. For events, we usually take part in media coverage for business and corporate events where attendees range between 10-100 people but there are chances that we may be awarded with larger events for media coverage.
I made a plan for my business team and proposed to them to consider choosing 2 Panasonic AG-HPX370, 1 AG-HPX255 and 1-2 Canon DSLR. How about adding Sony NEX-700R to the line? Is it appropriate to replace AG-HPX370 with Sony?

Any response......

Haitham, I think your question would be better served in the Wedding/Event Videography section of the Forum. Please feel free to browse through existing links over there and see if you want to repost into one of them, or start a new one, after which we'll delete it here.

I agree with Charles as the demands of the wedding video shooter are totally different to that of TV and Cinema.

For me though being a panasonic user I would be going for the HPX range but if I were chosing sony I would be looking at the PMW 400 and 300.

I do not like DSLR's as they are not designed for video use and 35mm sensor cameras may have their uses but that also comes with a certain discipline for focus and shooting that is totally alien to some applications such as doco's and fast moving subjects such as news and weddings.

Workflow and ease of operation from location to edit always features high in my priorities but I do find that productions and operators seem to make things very hard at times just to get a shallow DOF camera on set, a recent example is in the panasonic section where a user is asking how to make his HPX250 look like a nikon DSLR. why downgrade the full HD video camera just to suit a flawed DSLR workflow?

Others may disagree but I see so much material that is badly shot and out of focus these days just because people have this quest for cinematic imagery out of context with the delivery platform and without the discipline required for cinematic workflow.

You can but any camera you wish but at the end of the day it is how you use it that matters!