4 ms·

Why We Are Thoroughly Embarrassed to Be Shooting Video with DSLRs

56 points by merrick33 16y ago

jrockway 16y ago
Someone on the internet made fun of the author, and the author rebuts this by saying that he gets paid to do it. Who cares?
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  No...someone with a very good product which they have been promising will become the New Industry Standard did not make fun of, but rather trashed the professionalism of everyone who is getting stuff done with alternative products that are technically somewhat inferior but also much cheaper and more accessible. It's a seismic shift in the video industry, comparable to the shift away from mainframes to COTS.
omouse 16y ago
Appeal to popularity, appeal to $$$. Not much of a rebuttal :/
- zweben 16y ago
  There wasn't much to rebut in the first place.
wmf 16y ago
It looks like the disruptor doesn't like being disrupted. While Jannard is taking years to get Scarlet right, his "worse is better" competitors Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are eating his market out from under him. Here's Jannard's original rant: http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount=266 http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount... Commentary from a prominent DSLR cinematographer: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-war-been-declared/ http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-... A technical discussion about "line skipping" vs. "binning" (averaging): http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38713 http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3871...
zokier 16y ago
Whats lineskipping?
- merrick33 16y ago
  Take a look at the 54-59 second mark on this video: http://vimeo.com/8186279 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.
  - CamperBob 16y ago
    In addition to the temporal artifacts, there's some strange stuff happening with color in this video as well. Why does the track surface look like it was shot on an NTSC camcorder, for instance? Or is the dirt in Singapore cyan-tinted? The low-light performance is fine, I guess, but there still seem to be a ton of compromises in the hardware.
clistctrl 16y ago
Not a cannon, but i'm really excited to get my Panasonic GH1 on Monday. Its incredible to be able to afford a device with this much potential. First test will be in Costa Rica when I fly out there with my girl friend on Wednesday! (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-Interchangeable/dp/B001WAKSCW http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-Interc...)
freescale 16y ago
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 http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  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.
  - barrkel 16y ago
    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.
    - zokier 16y ago
      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.
      - jasonlotito 16y ago
        >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.
        16y ago
Keyframe 16y ago
Sorry to weigh in like this, but both sides are equally right/wrong and stupid. Cameras are just like programming languages, just tools. Some cameras are great for one thing, while they suck for another thing. You make decision based of your shot list you have to make, plan for lights accordingly and thats it. Whining and "one tool to rule them all" doesn't help when job is about to be done. 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.
ethan 16y ago
Nice rant, but doesn't really address the validity of using DSLRs for video...

56 points by merrick33 16y ago

Someone on the internet made fun of the author, and the author rebuts this by saying that he gets paid to do it. Who cares?

anigbrowl 16y ago
No...someone with a very good product which they have been promising will become the New Industry Standard did not make fun of, but rather trashed the professionalism of everyone who is getting stuff done with alternative products that are technically somewhat inferior but also much cheaper and more accessible. It's a seismic shift in the video industry, comparable to the shift away from mainframes to COTS.

omouse 16y ago

Appeal to popularity, appeal to $$$. Not much of a rebuttal :/

zweben 16y ago
There wasn't much to rebut in the first place.

wmf 16y ago

It looks like the disruptor doesn't like being disrupted. While Jannard is taking years to get Scarlet right, his "worse is better" competitors Canon, Nikon, and Panasonic are eating his market out from under him. Here's Jannard's original rant: http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount=266 http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount... Commentary from a prominent DSLR cinematographer: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-war-been-declared/ http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-... A technical discussion about "line skipping" vs. "binning" (averaging): http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38713 http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3871...

zokier 16y ago

Whats lineskipping?

merrick33 16y ago
Take a look at the 54-59 second mark on this video: http://vimeo.com/8186279 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.
- CamperBob 16y ago
  In addition to the temporal artifacts, there's some strange stuff happening with color in this video as well. Why does the track surface look like it was shot on an NTSC camcorder, for instance? Or is the dirt in Singapore cyan-tinted? The low-light performance is fine, I guess, but there still seem to be a ton of compromises in the hardware.

clistctrl 16y ago

Not a cannon, but i'm really excited to get my Panasonic GH1 on Monday. Its incredible to be able to afford a device with this much potential. First test will be in Costa Rica when I fly out there with my girl friend on Wednesday! (http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-Interchangeable/dp/B001WAKSCW http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-Interc...)

freescale 16y ago

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 http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm

anigbrowl 16y ago
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.
- barrkel 16y ago
  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.
  - zokier 16y ago
    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.
    - jasonlotito 16y ago
      >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.
      - 16y ago

Keyframe 16y ago

Sorry to weigh in like this, but both sides are equally right/wrong and stupid. Cameras are just like programming languages, just tools. Some cameras are great for one thing, while they suck for another thing. You make decision based of your shot list you have to make, plan for lights accordingly and thats it. Whining and "one tool to rule them all" doesn't help when job is about to be done. 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.

ethan 16y ago

Nice rant, but doesn't really address the validity of using DSLRs for video...