I don't see how the net has anything to do with "a more active
role, producing their own albums and working more live gigs"

Give me one major artist (mainstream, ie on the radio / MTV) or
record label/studio that has benefitted from the net.

Perhaps I'm just mis-understanding everyone, but I'm just not
seeing it. Yes the net is a great place for low and mid-end artists,
but I just don't see it for the high level stuff [at this point in time].

All they seem to do is worry and pursue piracy issues and try to
get control of things like iTunes in my eyes.

Perhaps my view of the music scene has to do with the fact that I am in a different market and that I don't value mainstream media too much. I value music more as an art form than as a business. In this context and in this continent, I have seen artists... --you know, the real thing, the kind that actually say things in their lyrics-- greatly benefit from the Internet. The network gives them a direct connection to their public, who can be informed of concerts and buy albums directly, without paying anything at all to the labels. This means albums can be cheaper and the artists make more per album sold, and I can only see that as a benefit.

Of course labels, which handle mainstream music products, do a lot of PR on behalf of whom they represent, so the public has this idea that artists are pissed of at the Internet, and even though it can be true in some cases, it is not necessarily the way things are. Artists, as long as they find a way to make a living and do their thing, will adapt to the new scenario. Now if when you say artist you are thinking of Madonna, well think again: Madonna, even though she is I guess a respectable person, is to you and me mostly a product, and even though she may sing moderately well, looks nice and knows how to dance, I would not call her an artist. Madonna has probably seen less sales because of the 'net, yes. But I really couldn't care less. Hollywood will also see less sales because of the net, but people like you and me will benefit, because we, as "low and mid-end artists" can benefit.

<<quote: me!: I own a Mini35 myself, but I don't always use it. In fact, I'm shooting a short this weekend and the director decided he doesn't want to bother with it, so it's just a bare DVX. I'll still work hard and make it look great>>

Well, on Friday the director suddenly decided that we should use the Mini after all, which meant a frantic rush to get ourselves set up for the next morning's shoot (thank you Eric MacIver at indierentals.com for supplying the Zeiss lens package!)

There were moments where I longed to be able to shoot without the system for exposure reasons (wide open on the 2.1 primes would have been about the equivalent of shooting around a 5.6 on the DVX100a without adaptor), having to use larger lighting instruments, but it was nice to be able to work the depth of field here and there. Still, however, I think that the film would not have notably suffered if I hadn't had the adaptor. More than anything, it allowed me to use my mattebox and filters--I haven't gotten around to getting the riser plates for the DVX.

I'll post the film shortly.

Here is that film, from Instant Films 17. I should make the disclaimer that it is on the raunchy side--the director chose to take the theme and run with it...! In any event, I'm posting it here for the visuals. It was fun to figure out how to present what was supposed to be high-concept porn, making it cheesy but not bad...

Why are people so obsessed with shallow depth of field?

Has anyone here actually tried to do something like a dolly move, keep the camera framed and constantly adjust the focus at the same time?

Guys, look, if you have very shallow depth of field it would be a nightmare, especially with a handycam camera. Shallow depth of field can be nice, but it can also be a curse.

Why do you think Hollywood productions have a group of people all around the camera? it's because stuff such as very shallow depth of field is hard to control, It needs an extra dedicated (and very skilled I might add) person to be the focus puller.

On your average indy movie is this kind of operation realistic? Further to this what about all the non serious amateur users that may buy some of these cameras? Give them a shallow depth of field when they have the camera on full auto all the time and can you imagine the focus hunting that would result?! Ugh!

Then there's the issue of light. You open the iris all the way you are going to need serious ND to bring things down. Try to get a deep DOF for longer shots and you are going to have to close down the iris all the way. That causes problems with light in itself depending on what is available.

For years film people cursed shallow DoF. At one time they constantly strived for deep focus. Obtaining deep focus with 35mm can be so hard James Cameron even made a specific compliment to his DOP's on the Terminator 2 commentrary because in some shots in the dark they managed to obtain deep focus.

Shallow DOF brings it's own problems people.

Having a large sensor and optics mean you have more light to work with and can *control* DOF creatively. Of course for documentary handheld type work we don't want shallow DOF, so we step down the iris. The point is to have the added control and sensitivity of large optics, and take advantage of the scale and price of 35mm photo lenses, specifically.

As I mentioned this isn't neceserily the case. On face value you do have more control. But there are occasions (the Jim Cameron one being an example) where it is difficult to have your cake and eat it. Controlling DOF can sometimes be logistically difficult as I'm sure some film people can attest. In controlled sets yes, that's okay. But what if you want shallow DOF on a bright sunny day? That's going to be a lot of ND you will need, again pushing up the expense for the level of market I am assuming you would want this camera aimed at. What if you want deep focus in a darker scenario? Again more expense due to the lighting control that is needed.

In a full pro setup the things aren't so much of an issue as the resources are generally there at hand. But for the majority of indies, I'm not sure they are as ready as they think.

Further to this there is still the issue of people in general being ready to handle such a low depth of field during complex camera movements etc. Consumer and prosumer cameras are designed for a wide variety of people to use. Having a shallow depth of field, or neccesitating a full understanding of it, is not practical in a camera that will sell to the masses. Photography was never anything but an enthusiasts past time until the arrival of the quick snap style camera and instant Polaroids. Any video camera with 35mm sized CCD's and lense to match would be way out of most peoples pockets and hence going against what you are wanting to have in the first place, ie and affordable camera with 35mm sized CCD's and the ability to mount your own lenses.

That kind of camera is for the big guys, and it would have a price to match, purely because the demand for such features on a consumer/prosumer level wouldn't be there. Us dedicated guys are not the majority market for that level of camera.

As I mentioned, at one time 35mm films shallow DOF was the bain of many a DOP's life. If DOF was so controllable it wouldn't have been looked down up as much as it once was.

But hey, nobody said anthing about stopping people if they wanted to try. I just think many people miss the wider issues and implications.

well said Simon!

The market (xl2, dvx 100 market) isn't ready for shallow DOF's yet, cause nobody is asking for it. Nobody asked for film look like material 5 years ago and look how things changed. They add more and more functions cause that is the way companies can compete with each other., they need to OR low the price to compete or they CAN add MORE value to compete and sell more. SO the market is allready pretty cheap but it will fall more and more, but adding value (more functions; maybe more shallow DOF in the future???) can do sooo much more.

I won't mind having 2 options on my cam. Shallow DOF if I wanna use it. If not, deactivate it. Shallow DOFS looks just soo warm and so fantasy-like. Silence of the lambs would not be that good without those shallow DOF moments. It would not be that scary, cause shallow means vague picture and vage=scary=horror (not able to see it clearly). You know what I am saying?

It is just how people look at film vs video. Accept that.

"It's highly unlikely that there will ever be a system that produces results like the above AND has anywhere close to a prosumer price tag."

People said the same about BetaSP cameras, then we got DV cameras. The same thing is happening with HD as we speak. If someone had told me 2 years ago that by NAB 2005 we'd see Panasonic releasing a DVCProHD camera for under ten thousand dollars, I would have called them crazy, yet here we are a month away from that.

Hell, no one ever though people would be shooting feature films on video...yet here we are with Star Wars, Sin City, Spy Kids 2 & 3, and a ton of indie films shot on both the Varicam and the F900.

There was a time when 24P seemed like a pipe dream, when XLR inputs at a prosumer price seemed like a long shot, when a removable lens on a 1/3 chip camera was unheard of.

Technology will always advance, it will get smaller and cheaper with time. It's inevitable.

We are no longer talking about specialized physical gear, about film stock, developing, etc. There is only so cheap that 35mm film will ever get. But, once things move to Hard drive or solid state recording (which they are already doing) then we are only dealing with ones and zeros.

As the technology advances, it will only become cheaper and faster to write more ones and zeros per second.

With so many people longing to make movies, it is only a matter of time before you will have the video equivalent of 35mm film at the price of a DVX100.

Put it this way, what do you think the next generation, or the generation after that, will be shooting on?

I'm not saying we should sit around and wait for it... no way. Get out and shoot with what is available to you today. My point is just that it is inevitable. Technology has always trickled down, and it will continue to do so over the years.

<<<-- Originally posted by Matt Irwin : The Viper is awesome, though it looks like Arri may take the cake with the D20. (click: Cameras > Cameras > Arriflex D20) -->>>

What is the cost of the D20 anyway? I have googled this to death and still don't know the answer.

Christian

I would guess around $200K.

Sorry Simon, but speak for yourself, don't speak for us "indies". I am sure many of us can handle the DOF issue, it's not much different from handling it with a 35mm photo camera and there are MANY amateur photographers who handle it just fine. Granted, the moving image is more of a challange. So is manual exposure. So is audio. We can deal with that. I am sorry but I can't help but thinking that you are just being jealous as a "big guy". I am a "little guy", and I will do just fine with a larger sensor, Thank You.

There ARE people asking for the larger sensors, and massification of HD resolutions DOES need larger sensors in order to keep up with SD prosumer sensitivity. So I am sure we will have affordable larger sensors with the second wave of prosumer HD. Because as soon as we all get to try the first wave, it will be pretty clear that we won't settle for the less sensitivity from the smaller size of pixels.

I am probably not buying into the first wave because of the sensitivity issue. I will prefer to rent, and so will a lot of people in my segment of the market. Thus, the manufacturers will want to make something that most of us WILL buy, because they don't make money money from rentals.

So, to take us back to the topic, I'll say that --since 35mm video already exists-- the question is not how soon is it going to take to produce but how soon is it going to take for that technology to make mass-market. My opinion is that the second wave of prosumer HD, coming 2006, will probably have larger sensors. Perhaps not full 35mm, but larger than today's offerings. That will educate the public as to the advantages of larger sensors, which in turn will drive the manufacturers to produce models with even larger sensors. So I would speculate that we can expect 35mm prosumer (below $10k) in about 4 years.

Quite some time isn't it? Especially when you think that --if they wanted to-- they could do it now. But they will make much more money buy selling us smaller sensors first, so that is what they are doing, and it's just good business practice <sigh>

I agree with you, Luis.

this http://www.vector-international.be/C-Cam/doc/CCI4.pdf

made thiswww.drachenfeder.com/int/take1.avi

Two years from now, you will buy this camera for $300.

I just sold a Barco CRT projector that the Pentagon originally bought for $54,000. I was happy to get $900.

Many of the things we are working on Charles cannot use;
he has to make the customer happy. The Drake will make better pictures than a mini dv anything, but I would not want to try to sell it to a client. Clients want to see Arri or Sony from a rental house. You could possibly light a professional set with lights from Home Depot, but I wouldn't dare show up in front of the client with them.

Lot of companies make CMOS and it will soon better than CCD and is cheaper. Kinetta an guys on this board will have 2/3" cameras this year. In couple years may see similar cameras with 35 mm sized sensors. Choices may be, 100K USD 2/3 Sony cameras or 5K USD 35 mm Obin cameras.

Radek

I agree with the comment that shallow depth of field isn't always better, and greatly complicates things. I think it would be cool to have the option of switching back and forth though. You could use the camcorder with 35mm sensors most of the time, and switch to the camcorder with 1/4 inch ccds for steadicam and other moving shots. Best of both worlds!