Why persist with a 'video camera'?

[Bill Pryor]

Tim, if I couldn't afford a regular video camera, then, yeah, for what I do I could live with a 7D. I would not go any lower than a 3-chip 1/3" camera like the XH A1, so if I only could spend $2K, the 7D would probably be a good choice Also, I shoot a lot of stills. So if I were starting from scratch, I could save money and have good quality for a lot less cost than buying a quality still camera and video camera. It would not be an ideal thing but it would be do-able. However, if the money's available, I want both. If the 7D, when I get it, is awesome and I end up shooting most everything with it and the XH A1 ends up on the shelf...well, I'll let ya know if that happens.

[Neil Grubb]

I have a couple of comments. I agree with most of what is said re HDSLRs not having the controlability or flexibility of dedicated HD cameras, particularly with respect to sound and accessing of manual controls. However, I do think the HDSLRs will be a great asset for those of us who do wildlife / bird video work, where much of what is shot may be unplanned. It will be so helpful to have a small camera capable of using long DSLR lenses to enable travelling light, to capture shots when not set up for a shoot, and to use as a light second camera to capture two perspectives on the same action. I have plans to simultaneously capture wide and close shots of a kingfisher diving, but cannot afford a second XL-H1A but a HDSLR should work out fine for such shots.

I'm waiting a while to see what happens with the temperature warning problem on the 7D; also I am hoping prices will fall in the coming months, although the pound-yen exchange rate may put paid to that wish.

Neil

[Benjamin Eckstein]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

Assessing anything as "great quality" by looking at it on Vimeo is like trying to determine the worth of a painting by looking at it through a store window. You are looking at a rough approximation of the video at best.

Perrone,
I totally agree with that comment but it brings up an interesting point, because I think there are a large number of people on these boards that produce work primarily destined for the web. I have been working in production for 8 years and I find for the companies and organizations I work for, the majority ends up on their websites (often exclusively), and a lot of my personal projects get viewed only through my site or Vimeo.

So I couldn't agree more with that statement, and using Vimeo, Youtube, etc. as a judge of a camera's quality, but if the viewer says, well that is where my work is going to get seen, then maybe it is a more accurate way of assessment. If these hybrid cams (which certainly have shortcomings) do seem to have a perceived look on Vimeo than say an EX-1, HVX, HV20, etc. (which is up to each person to decide), then maybe a camera like the 7D is the right choice.

I just got my 7D last week and have had little time to play with it, but it seems quite nice. It will not replace my EX-1 for most work but I think (hope) that it will get used often in a professional capacity. I will be interested to see, though. I am shooting a web-based "soap opera" series of five 3-minute episodes next month for a non-profit I work with. I think we will probably use the 7D as the end result will just be web, and I think there are some nice "film-like" qualities to the image. But we are shooting a 20 minute film in the spring for the same organization which we are hoping for theatrical release, and I think we will likely shoot on a Red One for that.

Anyways, I think when looking at any of these cameras it's important to think of where your work will be seen.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Tim Davison

I keep reading about the overheating issue. Just how bad is this? Is it like a laptop overheating (i.e. it does get very hot but doesn't impair the use of the laptop or does it have more of an impact of the quality of image etc)?

The manual states that if the camera gets hot, it can impair the quality of the image. The question is whether your usage will be long enough to cause the heat to rise enough to impair the quality, or even to cause it to discontinue recording. Both are possible. Read the other thread for people's experiences.

[Don Miller]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

................

The idea that the 5d or 7d is competing with "high end" video cameras is a fallacy. At this point, they are standing in for prosumer cameras with DOF adapters, and doing a credible job. ................

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.

For the price of the DOF adapters one gets a whole camera that can shoot in the light from a few candles. I guess if the video look is one's "normal", the response is ewwww. But for people from film its ohhhh.

But this is just a short transitional phase to large sensor cameras with full video camera features. Almost an accidental phase from Canon. Longer term VDSLR will be just an oddity.

[Nicholas de Kock]

I would love to see some one shoot a sports game with a 7D. I pretty sure all the kids in a school concert would love out of focus video as well. DOF is great but not for everything, big bulky video cameras are big and bulky for a reason.

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Tim Davison

If you were shooting at 720 60P, is it still only 12 mins duration?

Yes. That's because 1080 30p, 1080 24p and 720 60p all have the same bitrate, approx 45-47mbps. I tested all three.

[Alex Leith]

It's interesting that people feel so passionate about their choice of camera. There is a real desire to have a single "perfect" solution for every possible subject and style. And I guess that because many of us are using video as an "expressive" form, that in a way it's a very personal choice.

But I think the (rather uninteresting) answer is that you need to pick the tool that best suits the way you work within the budget you have available and be happy with your choice.

I've been thinking long and hard about what I want, especially as this is no longer a business for me, but a hobby (that I sometimes make money out of).

For all the number-crunching arguments over bit-rate and color sampling rates, I really love the very "aesthetic rich" image that DSLRs create. I dislike the CMOS "skew" far more than I ever hated the CCD "bloom" -- but within the budget I have available, and given that I'm filming events or long interviews, my money goes on the 7D (especially as I love still images as much as I love moving images).

PS. I'm also getting a Canon HF S10 video camera... just in case!

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.

I'd disagree strongly with this, amd it seems most credible folks in the industry would also. The 5/7d lack even the most basic of filmmaking needs. Yes, it produces lovely images. I am AD on a project starting this month that will shoot with a 5D and I had a chance to really play with it last night. It's nice, but the lack of monitoring caught the DP and Director by surprise. We'll be shooting sync sound of course, but the lack of timecode for any serious production make it a non-starter.

The ASC and Producers Guild of America just finished a test of the "Top HD video cameras of tioday". Essentially tools designed at replicating or replacing 35mm film on cinema projects. The 5D is nowhere to be found. Genesis, RED, Viper, D21, HPX3700, F23, F35, and a 435 for good measure. DSLR just isn't there yet. Maybe in a few years.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

For the price of the DOF adapters one gets a whole camera that can shoot in the light from a few candles. I guess if the video look is one's "normal", the response is ewwww. But for people from film its ohhhh.

I got the sense from the people from film, it's.... "hey, where's the 24p?" The fact that the single most used frame rate in the industry is not included and not planned on being included tells me where this camera stands. Again, if you are interested in shallow DOF, and nice pics, the 5d can get you there on a budget. Albeit with skew, and a somewhat questionable codec that cannot be worked around at this point.

Originally Posted by Don Miller

But this is just a short transitional phase to large sensor cameras with full video camera features. Almost an accidental phase from Canon. Longer term VDSLR will be just an oddity.

The problem with your logic, is that this "transitional phase" has already been done in the TRUE film market. Oscars have been handed out for films shot with large sensors and full video features. This isn't new ground. What *IS* new is the price point. And it will take some time for the economics to work itself out.

[Perrone Ford]

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

Perrone,
I totally agree with that comment but it brings up an interesting point, because I think there are a large number of people on these boards that produce work primarily destined for the web. I have been working in production for 8 years and I find for the companies and organizations I work for, the majority ends up on their websites (often exclusively), and a lot of my personal projects get viewed only through my site or Vimeo.

I agree. Much of what I shoot ends up on our webpages also. But I still try to produce masters that I would be pleased to have shown on PBS or elsewhere. I think we do ourselves a disservice if we only produce to the lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

So I couldn't agree more with that statement, and using Vimeo, Youtube, etc. as a judge of a camera's quality, but if the viewer says, well that is where my work is going to get seen, then maybe it is a more accurate way of assessment.

I think you buy the best tool for the job. the 7d certainly has it's place. And honestly, if your work doesn't require timecode, or some of the other things that current handycams bring to the mix, then the 7d is a fine choice. I'd love to have one for some of the work I do. But the bulk of my work lends itself better to a true videocamera. If all I did was narrative work shot double system, I'd SERIOUSLY be lookat at one of these cams or the Scarlet. And I'll probably be looking hard at a Scarlet anyway.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

I just got my 7D last week and have had little time to play with it, but it seems quite nice. It will not replace my EX-1...

I am shooting a web-based "soap opera" series of five 3-minute episodes next month for a non-profit I work with. I think we will probably use the 7D as the end result will just be web...

we are shooting a 20 minute film in the spring for the same organization which we are hoping for theatrical release, and I think we will likely shoot on a Red One for that...

Exactly. Choose the proper tools for the job at hand.

Originally Posted by Benjamin Eckstein

Anyways, I think when looking at any of these cameras it's important to think of where your work will be seen.

I think it's not only important to think of where you work will be seen, but where you might LIKE it to be seen.

[Alex Leith]

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

the lack of monitoring caught the DP and Director by surprise.

I believe the 7d improves on this...

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

We'll be shooting sync sound of course, but the lack of timecode for any serious production make it a non-starter.

There are solutions to this (use a visual marker / plugins for FCP that will synch for you). Not ideal, but not a deal-breaker by any means.

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford

"hey, where's the 24p?"

The 7d has it.

[Perrone Ford]

Thanks for the comments Alex,

However, telling me that the 7d "improves on" something that is essentially non-existent doesn't really help matters much. We can work around the no-monitoring issue by installing a Marshall or Ikan on the unit with a splitter to go back to video village. Yes, it's a solvable problem.

Yes, a clapper can be employed (just like I do with my DVX and EX1). But that gives away a lot of ground to what I consider "digital cinema" ready video cameras.

And yes the 7d has 24p. Of course, you give up the full-frame sensor to get there. So what have we gained?


I am fully willing to admit the HDSLRs have their place, and have done so repeatedly. But trying to describe them as credible replacements for 35mm film cameras is laughable. These things don't have a patch on the RED one, and even that camera is often dismissed as a true stand-in for one of the nicer 35mm cams.

[Ian G. Thompson]

...but since when has a "full-frame" been so important to professional studios? You say "give up" .... give up for what? For a more standard image format? That's not a minus in my book at all.

And also, yes, one can use a site like Vimeo to judge quality. Unlke YouTube and most other sites you can download original files and play them back on a quality monitor. That's the benefit of sites like Vimeo. Of course though watching them online will never be as good as the real thing.

EDIT:
I’d like to leave you with one more thought. I’m from the old school days of analog recording and mixing. I’ll just say that none of the plug-ins, analog emulators, etc. are as good as the analog equipment and sound from just over 10 years ago and beyond. But the reality is…they are “good enough.” Good enough to the point where “probably” most of today’s current hit music are a direct product of these newer technology. I use them all the time. It’s like MP3’s…a total degradation of music as compared to CD’s etc. But…they are more widely in use today than CDs….and it is accepted everywhere. I look at videos from these lower end cam/camcorders as being the same thing. Not a total replacement for film but is very acceptable to where some will replace film with their use.

[Perrone Ford]

Full-frame in and of itself isn't crucial. However full frame when you're talking about scanning at 4k to make DPX files is VASTLY different than full-frame when you are sampling at less than 2k.

Vimeo only allows the original file to be downloaded for a week. And frankly, the "original file" download is generally a highly compressedversion of the original. In my case, my camera shoots 35Mbps originals, but I never used more than 6-8Mbps uploads to Vimeo. So even that is a very rough approximation.

As you say, good enough is good enough. And if the 5d or 7d is good enough, then it is.

[Brian Drysdale]

Originally Posted by Don Miller

I would say it's doing a credible job standing in for 35mm movie cameras, and allowing people to admit finally that 35mm DOF adapters produce pretty crappy images.

I suspect what you mean is that the cameras are an improvement over the 35mm adaptors not a replacement for 35mm move cameras. These current cameras aren't any where near that standard and I suspect Canon wouldn't claim them to be. For what people currently seem to be using them for they seem to be fine, but best not to consider them as direct replacements for many of the HD video/digital cinema cameras when going beyond the web or perhaps DVD. That's not saying they wouldn't used as specialist cameras, all sorts of cameras have been used in the past including WW2 gun cameras on major feature films.