Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Interesting that even when we used 'proper' video cameras we never relied on those cameras for our audio, yet that does seem to be a major hangup for many concerning DSLRs. Also, we never incorporated zoom movements into our shots when we shot with 'proper' video cameras, so again this hasn't been an issue for us with DSLRs. Each to their own, though.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I miss the zoom of a videocamera. There is nothing to equal a creeping, steady zoom from a balcony, especially a zoom out, as it exposes the entire sanctuary of a cathedral.

Zoom shots are a hallmark of shooting large and important events. Zooms were used in the royal wedding, for god's sake, and they were stunning, I might add. They were actually almost beyond belief, what powerful cameras they had.

If zoom cameras are good enough for a zillion dollar shoot produced by the most talented of crews, they are good enough for me, especially when done right.

The ability to frame shots from a distance with a 20x zoom was fantastic. I don't how anyone could not miss a zoom like that.

I had pretty much mastered slow zooms and they made for the closest thing I could acheive to a breathtaking shot similar to the big boys.

I understand that cheesy zooms as exhibited by amateurs and even some pros are tacky, but zooms are not bad just because they are misused by some. Just my two cents.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

That is one of the reasons why I don't use a dslr for an important event like the church, I"m very happy with my "proper" videocamera 2 xlr inputs and I always use them both for my audio and always monitor it during recording. Eventough I work with unmonitored devices like a zoom h1, h4 and 2 irivers as well I hate the fact that I don't know what is happening, that's why the audio from the most important persons are connected to my xlr inputs.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

A real amateur question here: do you put on a protective UV filter when you use a DSLR? Whenever I've looked at photogs, they never seem to use one.

Also, I seem to recall a few people mentioning an add-on for traditional video cameras that lend a shallower DOF? True?

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Let me add that I've been filming with DSLRs since the 5DII came out, it's a great tool but I recently bought another Sony EX1 over additional DSLRs & lenses. Although I still almost exclusively use DSLRs for the make-up and pre-ceremony preparations I now opt to film the ceremony and reception with traditional cameras like the EX1 for their ease of use and reliability. I'm tired of out of focus moments and noisy images, the general idea that DSLRs ars better in low light to say an EX1 is relative, I get much cleaner images out of my EX1 than I do with DSLRs. The up side to DSLRs is that they do the colour grading in camera so your footages looks great out of the box while the EX1 needs to be setup and graded in post to get the same results. Shooting 720P on the DSLRs produces rather embarrassing results sometimes that looks like a webcam, the current line of Canons really suck when you compare HD resolutions. So why do I still use DSLRs? Cost - its one of the cheapest HD solutions, Depth of Field, skin tones are brilliant and of course it's a tiny little camera, you can get away with filming in restricted areas if you have to. It's been said content is king and different situations call for different tools, at the end of the day you have to ask yourself if the amount of work going into a production is worth the price you're getting paid.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I've abandoned UV filters, as they're really not as important as vendors would have you believe. The big push is that they help protect the front element of the lens, but in reality they don't make that much difference. Their "real" function is to reduce UV haze, but I've never noticed any difference. And in theory, anything you put in front of your lens is modifying the original image.

DOF adapters aren't worth it either, IMO. They're a hassle to use, and usually affect image quality dramatically.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Back to George's question

Sorry if this is going a bit off topic on the 720/1080 but I posted on the Sony Vegas forum and it seems it's more what the NLE can handle rather than the image size that you are rendering down to SD!!

The older NLE's seem to struggle with resizing but most are coming up to speed so the general consensus seems to be it doesn't matter whether you shoot in 1080 i or p or at 720 p only. Any good NLE should handle the downsizing adequately. Admittedly I shoot in 1080i cos I'm shooting documentary style and it seems that most DSLR's only shoot 720P which is understandable as the last thing you need is for your DSLR footage to look like video!! If you wanted that you would use a video camera.

I'm not sure if any DSLR's do shoot at 1080 but to get the "look" I would be biased towards 720 anyway. Even with my "old fashioned" cameras I still set my scene profiles to be more "cinelike" and the result is good.

Chris

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

We no longer use UV filters as we don't see the benefit in putting a cheap piece of glass in front of an expensive piece of glass .. as in, we don't want to lose the benefit of our good glass by putting mediocre glass in front of it. d;-) Plus, in 6 or 7 years of using UV filters we've never had one 'save' a lens. It's possible one could, but just not worth it for us.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I notice that there's more ghost flare when I use UV filter. I tend to leave it off my cheaper lenses.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I use UV filters, it's my experience that cutting between a lens with a UV filter and without gives different results in direct sunlight when is comes to colour saturation. I've also scratched a $1300 lens that didn't have a filter which could have been easily avoided. As for "pro's" not using them? Many pro's do, every man has his preference. If you have great insurance I guess you don't have to worry. Personally I find it easier to clean the UV filter over my expensive glass.

"Video cameras are sensitive to both visible light and ultra violet (UV) light. UV is invisible to humans but it can create a blue tinge and/or washed-out effect on video, especially outside. A UV filter removes UV light while leaving visible light intact. UV filters are also commonly used as a protective filter for the lens." Media College

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Final answer about resizing for George!!!

The technically "correct" method is :

A reasonable algorithm to rescale 1080i60 to 480i60 is to first use a frame-rate doubling deinterlacer to obtain 1080p60, rescale this to 480p60 with a high quality anti-aliased scaling algorithm and then weave the resulting frames back to interlaced 480i60.

I see this as an incentive to shoot in 1080 50P for you!! Sadly the HMC's only shoot 1080 25P in a 50i wrapper so the closest I can get to double frame rate is shoot in 720 50P (which I can do) However even shooting interlaced I find that Sony Vegas 10 does a way better job of the resize than earlier versions so it seems like it's OK to shoot interlaced BUT get the latest NLE version that has the best algorithms.

I suspect because DSLR's usually shoot 720 and progressive, they will more than likely do the best resizing job when an SD DVD is needed

Chris

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Chris I don't know if I'm miss-reading your response, or I didn't make my knowledge gaps in the subject clear.

I'm not shooting with DSLRs; I do have one but as of yet I've not used it for paid work. I shoot with a traditional (let's not call it a proper) video camera, JVC HM700 so it's no slouch. The native CCD is 720p but it will record also at 1080x1440 50i and 1080x1920 50i or 25p as a 35mb MP4 or Quicktime .mov using the Sony EX codec, the same as the EX1 & 3, and I edit with CS4. I do all the encoding in CS4, either Media Encoder or Encore. I have read elsewhere and can understand (to a degree) the convoluted way to get the 'best' down-scaling but due to the time involved my work pattern does not warrant that amount of time spent. I deliver 90 minute wedding videos plus highlights and encoding is the frustratingly long part as it is.

I think my frustration is that the final DVD doesn't carry through the big quality increase I expected to be able to offer above that which I use to produce from my previous system using a Pana-DV200 full size DV tape camera. That's why after a year of shooting HD and delivering SD I'm thinking that I need to deliver on HD media, even though not one of my customers has asked for it, or plumps for it when offered.

I note elsewhere that you changed to HD to be able to deliver true 16:9 widescreen, that was exactly my motivation.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Photographers have told me they don't want to inhibit the results of a $1,500 lens with a $70 filter. They use the sun-shade to protect their lens against scratches.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hi George

Yes I know you are shooting with the JVC (as you say no longer a real video camera..but for me it still is)

I was under the impression that you wanted to know (as I do too) if shooting 720 as opposed to 1080 does give a better result. I'm talking about edit and render not all these weird and wonderful multi-render processes and I wanted to know why????

The result above was the one I got BUT no-one has yet said "Shoot at 720, it will give you a better SD DVD.

I too haven't the time to go thru all these processes!!!!

We might actually get a direct answer from someone one day!!! Got a wedding in the morning so I will shoot it in 1080 50i as normal unless advised otherwise but I do like the idea of 720 50P (double frame rate)

Chris

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

UV filters hurt nothing, I'm sure. The glass is so close to the lens it really can make little difference if it's a quality filter.

It is much easier to remove a filter and clean it then to clean a lens, and when I'm done cleaning a filter I can hold it up to the light and see if it is really clean, can't do that with a lens on the camera.

I handle my lenses in the field, and sometime change them, more than once. I have got finger prints on them plenty of times. I have been working with ethnic clients who use grease in their hair, and I've gotten that grease on my hands, and being in park I'm screwed, everything I touch has the potential to get a greasy fingerpring on it.

Fumbling around at dusk with tired clients and we're all trying to go home and I have to change lenses one more time is when things happen. Gunk does get on the lens, it's almost unavoidable at times. UV filters are easier to clean and cheaper to replace than a lens.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Chris, the person I know who convinced me to go along the JVC route only ever shoots 720p,and keeps things Progressive all the way and will never shoot any other way, but my personal experience has been that 720p edited in a CS4 Progressive project and encoded as a Progressive MPEG2 gives me a less than satisfactory DVD; I've had customers complain about flicker whereas the 1080i edited and MPEG'd as lower field interlaced gives a more widely compatible DVD. I can't explain why and I know it appears to go against all the perceived wisdom, though a google search has shown me I'm not alone with this.

As for the double frame rate, I'd don't see the advantage other than for slomo, as the final output is going to be 25fps, again my lack of technical understanding may be missing something.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

720p converterted to SD for DVD should have no flicker. The problem is with the operator or NLE or the camera, not the intended workflow.

Unless I"m mistaken, there can be no flicker if you are keeping it progressive from beginning to end

At some step in your workflow something is wrong. What you are talking about sounds much like deinterlace flicker, or whatever, and should not be happening.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I know Jeff and I've had this conversation over and over, but I have been unable to identify the fall down in the workflow, and I cannot dispute (at least with myself) the evidence of my eyes. It's difficult to replicate the problem other than watching it on a DVD as when the progressive workflow terminates in a computer destined file there is no flicker. I shoot 720P for output to Flashmovie no problem, but if I encode the same work as a Progressive MPEG and burn that to a DVD it flickers.

Anyway I don't want to divert this conversation into an area that I've had many discussions about in other threads.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Is your DVD authoring program re-encoding the file from your NLE?

1. Verify that the footage is progressive to begin with. If you know that is true, fine.

2. Verify the footage coming out of your NLE is progressive. You must be sure of this.

3. If the above is true, then your DVD program is the culprit plain and simple. You need to change the properties in your DVD authoring program, or if necessary change programs, I don't know what you use. In DVDA you must specify the footage is progressive or it will re-encode it.

I guess it could in theory be your DVD player? Or TV? But you said it happens on your customers also?

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hi George
I was just about to say, ask Jeff!! AFAIK most DVD players don't like Progressive DVD's and some even refuse to play them and I was pretty sure that Jeff had an issue with that but I might be wrong!!

I shoot interlaced but Sony Vegas will de-interlace the footage for you before rendering so there is no nasty combs from the interlacing..so you are in fact editing progressive footage. (I actually de-interlace before importing) ..once the edit is complete it's then rendered out to a PAL DVD with interlacing applied and lower field first.

Most NLE's will strip the interlacing first and then interlace again during the render ..if you shoot progressive then the NLE leaves it alone but still interlaces the SD MPEG2 file. I have always done it that way anyway.

As said before not many DVD players can handle a progressive DVD and my default (PAL DVD PRESET) shows 720x576 16:9 aspect lower field first, so it's definately interlaced again.

Chris

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hey Jeff, have you noticed reflections/ghosting when using a UV on your 20mm? This was a big problem for me, and the main reason I am not using the filters anymore.

And the only other lenses I'm using are the 14-42mm for outdoors shooting, and a Nikon 50mm f/1.8 -- very cheap lenses. Not worth the hassle of a UV to protect cheap glass, right?

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Right Chris, I've had issues as you know!

George, I believe progressive DVDs play great. The problem I was having was with mixed footage from three cameras, and it was a nightmare. I had dinterlaced footage (1080i) and it looked really bad. I might have had other issues, it was complicated, I was doing all sorts of things wrong.

But anyway, DVD players, I have found, handle progressive DVDs just fine, very smooth, but I've only put out a few projects so far, so I'm not an expert, but this is what I've been told, and is working out.

I had some flicker recently on another project (is that what your referring to Chris) but already forget what fixed it. I've been SO busy.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Corey, I've suspected that I had issues, and removed the UV filters and found, in my cases, that the UV lens was not the issue, but that was just in my isolated cases. There well may be times they do cause issue. If you have especially cheap filters, it is much more likely that they will cause issues, this is widely known. Bu then we get into the argument of cheap vs expensive, a whole other discussion, as some people will swear the cheap and expensive are exactly the same. I don't believe that myself.


The way I see UV filters is they can always be removed, and I do remove them, sometimes. Most shooting conditions they just don't make any difference. If you think they are hurting, take them off. I do have a couple of lenses without UV filters, as I'm not rigid about it, but I think of them as a second lens cap.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I thought dvd is allways interlaced? I use Edius pro and always edit with Edius own hqavi codec and I often mix hdv (interlaced and progressive), avchd (interlaced) and dslr (progressive) mov files on the same timeline and my output always looks great.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Noa, we have like four discussions going on in one thread, it's crazy. Anyway, I'm not the one to ask, really, I don't know what I'm talking about, but my understanding is that progressive dvds play just fine.

I got into a couple of arguments over this, but I've sent out several projects to customers in progressive format on DVD and they were very happy!

With 24p, an NLE will add flags necessary for proper playback, but apparently 30p plays just fine. I used to yell at people who talked about 30p, only to find it works on DVD just fine.

Noa, you must remember, you use Edius. I seem to recall hearing it has among the best encoding engine of any NLE, so you are at a definite advantage from the start.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

My experience seems to be closer to Chris's and Noa's.
I build my DVDs in CS4 Encore and the default project setting is interlaced lower field. However there is the ability to use a progressive project with no fields, it's when I use a Progressive MPEG in these projects, or even let Encore encode a progressive MEPG from the Progressive file that I get the problem. When I do as Chris describes, use the default interlaced project, even with a Progressive file the result plays without problem. I know that the theory is that DVD players will recognise a Progressive VOB and work it's magic to play it but my experience does not match that. This is not just on one DVD player or one LCD screen but on all the ones I have and I've had them returned from customers. When re-made as an interlaced DVD the problem goes away.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hey George

Final post on this as (as Jeff says, it's become multi-topic) When I get a chance I will play with different footage and different DVD's but as you know you cannot "give something a try" at a wedding...my shoot tomorrow will be a "safe mode" one 1080 50i ..at least I will have interlaced masters and I can always experiment later!!

As for the OP I guess I'm paranoid about new cameras, new workflows and new challenges ..I'm happy to use them outside a non-volatile environment but I don't think I would suddenly buy 2 GH2's and then shoot next weekends wedding with them...can't take the chance!!! and for me DSLR's fall into that category...I would be happy to buy a couple and play with them for 6 months..THEN decide!!!

Chris

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

In that context I think Jeff is a dslr guru :) I"m still amazed that he manages to pull off a 4 dslr camerashoot by his own, I recently did a 3 camera shoot of a ceremony with one unmanned camera and a steadicam shooter that I hired but he had not that good camera experience. It was a partly cloudy day meaning the sun came through and went back behind the clouds all the time and we where shooting against a window meaning exposure was on manual on all camera's. I was constantly running around changing exposure on a sony xr520 and checking up on the steadicam guy to see if he was using the right exposure with a sony fx1000. The end result came out good enough but could have been better. Leaving 3 other dslr camera's unattended would make me very nervous. :)

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Noa, while unintentional on your part, you have embarassed me. I know less about this whole DSLR thing than most people, I just like to spout off a lot. I also have lots of issues, so you will see my name pop up a lot.

People like Nigel, Jim S and Jim F , Corey, and Patrick and a host of others, have helped me to where I can even turn on the darned things.

Only recently I did not know what an FD mount was, can you imagine?

Anyway, Noa, I have had my share of disasters, so don't let me fool you into thinking I've got it figured, I don't. I wish I did.

Noa, I'm able to run so many cameras because there are two auto modes on the GH2 that work well for unattended cameras. Program mode does not allow shutter speed to be set, but by golly I don't care, it produces pretty darn good results. I only have to focus. I can use Exposure Compensation to brighten up or darken image if needed, and I'm good!

Or, in Shutter Priority, the best mode, you can get amazing results with the GH2, you don't have to adjust anything, but the iris changes in icrements, so outdoors it is not so good, unless you lock exposure, which can be done!

So in my case, I feel I have the right camera, and the key is to find a way to allow the camera to do as much of the work as possible.

Program mode will give crazy shutter speeds, etc, but shutter priority is great for indoors. I do not yet run manually (except focus of course) but as I get good I will I"m sure.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Sorry but that was never my intention, when I read why you changed to the DSLR route and sold your videocamera's to jump on the dslr wagon I must imagine it feels like crossing the highway blindfolded in the beginning but it shows you have a lot of guts and I have much respect for that kind of attitude.

I currently feel pretty safe that I'm still able to use my videocamera (a canon xh-a1) when I don't want to rely on my dslr, even if that will not give me a "nicer" image. My videocamera reminds me each time how poor manual control is on my dslr but I also often don't mind trading that control for those much nicer images. I only hate dragging all that extra stuff with me each time. :)

Usually from the beginning of the reception my videocamera stays in the bag (unless there is a speech) and even tough some say a ex1 etc will produce a cleaner footage in dark places, a dslr with a fast lens produces a look that a ex1 will never ever be able to reproduce. A trade-off is often the very narrow dof sometimes but if you use it right it looks sooo good and colorful. My favorite lens is my cheap samyang 85mm f1.8 and I get stunning footage from people because I can keep my distance and it lights up the dark.

I won't sell my videocamera ever on the other hand, it should be able to support me another 2 years and then I"ll see what's happening in cameraland, maybe I"m able then to sell everything, inlcuding my dslr's and get one big sensor (real video) camera instead, I don't know, I don't want to break my head to much over it yet as the competition in Belgium from other dslr users is not that tough compared to your area, the level of quality that is produced on the other side of the pond is higher then here. The only reason I"m loosing clients is because they find someone who's cheaper, not because they are all dslr. :) Currently I"m able to set myself apart with the addition of my blackbird and dslr's but maybe that changes in 2 years but currently I just look one day ahead.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hey Noa...no worries!

Anyway, the phrase "crossing the highway blindfolded" really fit and was dead on.

Anyway, I completely agree with you on every count of your post, the EX1 is fantastic, would love to have one. But as great a camera as it is, 3 X 1/2" chips do not equal a 1" chip with a fast lens, I don't see how anyone could imagine it could.

All in all, the EX1 when taken for the sum total of what it is, would be plenty of camera for me and I would likely have been able to have avoided the DSLR thing altogether, or just have bought 1 DSLR for specific uses.

In my case, I'm just caught in a price range and market where I had to make the plunge against my will.

You are using your cameras as many other smart guys are, as a supplement where it can do the most good, and you're using your videocam for what it's best at. That's a good strategy, for sure.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

No one can deny that dslr's have transformed wedding video to another level, here in Belgium not so long ago, when everyone was using a normal videocamera you didn't see all the additions that has become normal like sliders/steadicam/cranes etc. Today I start to see companies using dslr only with all the goodies, also clients are starting to get spoiled by the level of quality that they can freely look at on vimeo/youtube. This year was the first time a bride asked me for "images with a blurry background" and referred to Joe Simon's videos which she found so beautiful and guess what he is using to film :D

dslr's have a certain look to them that appeals more to people then what a normal videocamera in the 4000-6000 euro range can produce and the dslr does it at a lower cost. As I see it it has a lot to do with the limited dof, the colorfull images and the ability to produce stunning images with bright color in dark areas which is a situation that is very common in weddings.

I see that I have to adapt as well to stay competitive as dslr weddings are slowly but steadily being done more but like I said before, there are just a few in my country that produce good looking dslr videos but you have many that are not even close to what you might consider normal.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Hi Bill,

Shooting DSLR's will TOTALLY change the way you shoot. Especially if your into your zooms as it sounds like you are.

Think about this. When in a hollywood movie do you see them zoom? Generally never. The reason is the zoom is un-natural to the human eye. We cant do it, we need to move our feet to get closer and thats then a dolly shot. So when we see it we feel un-easy. Thats why hollywood doesnt zoom, they jump cut or dolly. Thats one reason to re-consider using zooms. If you went DSLR you cant zoom, as you say, no servo.

Audio is done hollywood style also, all external for the good stuff like the lav mic and readings but for general action like the bridal prep we use onboard with audio gain. Honestly dont have a problem with it.

The shallow DOF look can be achieved on regular cams using the likes of a Letus adaptor but they still then use photo lenses and your back to the same problems, manual focus, no servo zoom. All you then have is a bigger, bulkier camera.

DSLRs are not for everyone. Some tried and didnt like, others just call them them the work of the devil and flat out refuse to try. Were fully DSLR, not a single, regular camera in our ranks while others have gone for a 50/50 approach. Whatever works best for you.

Get yourself a 550D or a 60D with a 50mm f1.8 lens (about £100 for the lens over here) and have a play. See what you think. As some here have said, they tried it and were instantly won over. If it doesnt work out, eBay it.

But what are the benefits, I mean. The downsides are huge (12 minutes record limit, no audio control or monitoring etc etc.) The benefit is the footage 'feels' better to watch. Us techies will rip it to pieces and go on about compression, moire, aliasing and all that. But to the general public, they just like how the footage 'feels'.

A warning though, its not cheaper than a regular camera. Sure the bodies are cheap but you need lenses, good lenses if you want the shallow DOF. On our £1600 bodies is a £2000 lens and a load more of them in our bags to change to. Add on all the extras you need and its more than an EX1.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I'm 27 and got in the business 2 years ago, my work was ok but it lacked something. I studied film at film school and learned the basics. I was going to get a 35mm adapter then the slr thing happened. Now it's amazing. I'm more creative, not with twisty camera movements and crap zooming but framing and composition. Since switching to the 5d Mark 2 my work has gone through the roof. The worlds best filmers like ray roman are all using the 5d. I want to become as good as them. To become as good as them and to get the picture quality like them I have to use the 5d. It has no rival. Quite frankly if competition where I live are too old fashioned and prefer to use video cameras then fine my work will stand out a mile from there's and more bookings for me. They are not hard to use infact I find them easier then a bulky camera. The recording limit is no issue at all , hell my films are only 15 -20 mins. If your still making 2 -3 hour wedding films still your living in the past. They are discreet and light weight. Look on the example section for one 5d one mono pod it's the best set up I've ever used.

Luke

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Trust me, I'm not 'into' zooming. I teach a video class where the very first project doesn't allow zooming (or panning, for that matter). I only zoom out of necessity when I'm doing a one-camera wedding shoot.

Anyone using the Panasonic AG-AF100? It sounds like it has all the benefits of DSLR shooting without any of the audio hassles.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Do you do anything to combat that?

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Nope, because to the client. It doesn't matter one iota. Just don't shoot certain types of brick wall :)

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

I had an interesting conversation with a BBC chappie yesterday and it might be topical here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/wedding-...ml#post1671494

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Lay viewers care little or nothing about moire as they have been seeing it on TV newsreader's stripy shirts for years. It's us straining for technical perfection who worry about these things.

Re: DSLRs: am I just being paranoid?
 

Unfortunately this is inaccurate. Movies are not events and aren't recorded like events so the techniques used can't be compared. Although it's true zooms are used less in movies than event television that's due to the nature of the beast - at least in the way most of us make our programmes, not "dollying in" imposing on the event, but changing focal length from out of the way.

Zoom lenses have been used extensively in Hollywood movies since decent versions were invented. I happened to be watching a DVD of a classic, the French Connection, last night and Friedkin (no mean director) uses two long, fast zooms in the first 5 minutes - and FWIW a gross violation of the 180 "rule" some people (not Danny) are so fond of quoting. To give another more recent example, the opening few minutes of The Bourne Ultimatum contains many short, sharp zooms which, along with his unusual closeup framing have rightly earned Paul Greengrass his eminent reputation as a director.

Finally, film audio has to be recorded separately not because of any virtue in the system but because (with a few exceptions in the amateur world) you can't record sound to film in the camera. In fact film/audio sync control in film-making adds cost and cabling we wedding people would find unacceptable. Finally, much Hollywood style audio is re-dubbed in the sound studio afterwards so I doubt the complete accuracy of that statement also.

None of this detracts from the benefits DSLRs can give but let's not get them out of proportion.