11–20 of 21 posts
For an alternative take on why DSLR video is fine for large Hollywood productions but not for amateur use: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm
You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.
For an alternative take on why DSLR video is fine for large Hollywood productions but not for amateur use: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm
Rockwell is weird. Nobody in Indie production uses autoficus because even on pro camcorders like Vatican's it looks awful for most narrative work. You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.
For an alternative take on why DSLR video is fine for large Hollywood productions but not for amateur use: http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm
Amateurs can get a Panasonic GH1 with the 14-140mm lens. This lens is optimized for video work and will autofocus, with a performance on par with regular video cameras.
You have to take his writing with a grain of salt.
Whats lineskipping?
Take a look at the 54-59 second mark on this video: http://vimeo.com/8186279 . Look at the chest area of the guy wearing a striped shirt to the right of girl in shorts. You'll notice the stripes look weird and are morphing. It's referred to as aliasing as well.
The low-light performance is fine, I guess, but there still seem to be a ton of compromises in the hardware.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Rockwell is weird. Nobody in Indie production uses autoficus because even on pro camcorders like Vatican's it looks awful for most narrative work. You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.
Not to speak up too strongly for Rockwell (I think he has certain biases), but you are actually arguing his point. He says that nobody in Hollywood uses autofocus because it's rehearsed and it's the focus-puller's job, and that's precisely why autofocus is handier for home video.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to speak up too strongly for Rockwell (I think he has certain biases), but you are actually arguing his point. He says that nobody in Hollywood uses autofocus because it's rehearsed and it's the focus-puller's job, and that's precisely why autofocus is handier for home video.
But the whole point is that video DSLR's are aimed at amateur/indie film makers, not home video shooters. And Rockwell completely misses that, claiming that manual focus cameras are useful only in Hollywood-scale productions.
>When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder!
That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.
One thing I've noticed though with smaller "toy sized" cameras is that actors don't like them. Yes. At least most of them (especially ones without stage experience). They tend to use camera bulk as a viewing audience, and I found an easy and cheap way to fix this. Just slap a huge matte box on camera and that's it. Psychology is a funny thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the whole point is that video DSLR's are aimed at amateur/indie film makers, not home video shooters. And Rockwell completely misses that, claiming that manual focus cameras are useful only in Hollywood-scale productions.
>For use by a single photographer, you can't get DSLRs to focus on things that move. If you can't shoot things that move, then why are you trying to shoot video? Video and movies need to track focus on things that move; that's the whole point. >When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder! That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.
"If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs."
and
"If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR.
DSLR video is for serious professional production, which is why you'll see it promoted as being used on big productions."
I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>For use by a single photographer, you can't get DSLRs to focus on things that move. If you can't shoot things that move, then why are you trying to shoot video? Video and movies need to track focus on things that move; that's the whole point. >When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder! That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.
He's also saying: "If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs." and "If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR. DSLR v…
The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.
> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.
I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.