Article: DSLRs: A Time Exposure

	Cinematography DSLRs: A Time Exposure Robert Primes, ASC is watching the progress of DSLR video, and sees some remarkable visions of the future of cinematography. Read on for his detailed review... Review, Feature, People / Interview   06/23/2010 Author: Robert Primes, ASC

As much as I would love to embrace the DSLR technology. I just can't seem to get over the whole CMOS distortion issue with "jello-cam". I just want to know I'm not crazy here, but does anyone else view this as a problem? I shoot a lot of handheld and a lot of action for that matter, and i find it difficult to accept an imaging system that distorts the image in that way.

http://www.rundfunkmedia.com

creative media manufacturing

I didn't understand the argument to be that the future should always have video and still combined in the camera, but rather that the technology used in DSLRs is paving a way to develop lower cost and better digital video cameras. (The very idea of $40,000 video camera's is insane!)

There will always be a demarcation between casual camera users and those who professionally produce video-for-sale if only because of the application (for instance, audio needs are different between the two classes.)

Note video "quality" is subjective. I, for one, dislike film because of its constant flicker and bland colors, while many up-and-coming videographers strive for that "film" look. But with the new breed of sensors (and perhaps existing lens) doesn't it become possible to produce whatever look you desire, or easier to overcome in difficult situations, all at a significantly lower cost?

Thanks for this article, it is really interesting.
I've been researching into the video capabilities of the new DSLR's a lot and I think they are great! It seems that a lot of people are concerned about how it is going to affect the industry and that it will mean the end of their jobs, but I really don't think that is the case. A camera is simply a tool, it's what you do with it.
These DSLR's are finally making it possible for low budget filmmakers, people who are still trying to get into the industry, to shoot projects that look more cinematic and professional. This will increase the chances of their work being noticed.
I have every intention of shooting my next project on a DSLR. It will save me a lot of money and when working with modest budgets, every penny counts.

-
Liam J. Holland

[Chris Blair] "...what about audio? ...what about monitoring both video and audio? ...what about ergonomics?"

I'm with you. Yeah, these cameras might make nice pictures, but right now you have to decide how to use them EXTREMELY carefully.

Canon, for one, already knows how to make a video camera with proper controls, inputs & outputs and operator ergonomics. When they make such a camera utilizing their inevitably-to-be-upgraded sensor technology, watch out!

For me, DSLR's are like a train that hasn't quite stopped at the station yet... but they'll get there soon enough. If you want to use them now, you'll just have to put up with their limitations and deal with the aggravation of using them effectively.

Dave LaRonde
Sr. Promotion Producer
KCRG-TV (ABC) Cedar Rapids, IA

First time poster here guys, so bare with me.

I recently returned from Italy on a month long shoot. My kit: Canon 7D, 4 Nikon AI-S Prime Lenses, IndiSystem Support package (Shoulder Mount, Matte Box, Follow Focus), Zoom H4n as a mic/recorder/mixer, 2 Sennheiser Wireless Lav Systems. I literally had two bags going over there: a brazillion dollar bag from Crumpler and a larger check luggage which, in the US, could be a carryon. It's amazing I can fit everything but lights in two bags!

I have to say, any doubters that think these cameras cannot be used for production are wrong.

David, I really liked your answers to George's & Joe's questions, very concise and to the point.

Chris - regarding audio. The audio on these cameras is terrible. From my experience, I would recommend going the external audio route. Just as with the HDSLRs, we finally have the technology to have a device with the quality/price ratio that doesn't gouge us.

There are many solutions. I personally went with a Zoom H4n handheld recorder. It comes with a mic, has two XLR inputs and can record and mix 4 tracks at once (Stereo Mic + Two Line-In). With two lavs in addition to the mic on the Zoom, I had a stereo background track and two direct lines to my talent.

As far as ergonomics, I'd highly recommend getting at least a should rig for the camera. The rolling shutter is a problem for me even when I'm holding the thing... especially at longer focal lengths. The shoulder mount effectively removes rolling shutter due to hand shake and I'm very please with the results I had.

For me, I work with this camera like it's an ARRI film camera because the camera works like a film camera. ISO, highly selective focus, limited shooting time, etc. These cameras should not be used on shoots where a HVX would be perfect. There are situations where a smaller sensor is better, but I do fiction filmmaking and there is no place for an HVX there. This also means that there are more people required. If I'm going to do a project correctly with the 7D, I'm going to have a DP, Camera Op, 1st Assistant Camera (Follow Focus) and 2nd Assistant Camera (Slate, Loader) as the minimum for my camera crew. If you have the people, you can do the poor man's follow focus with tape markers around the lens. If you have fewer people I'd recommend getting a Follow Focus for your support rig.

I hope this helps!

Drew Walkup
Cinema Veritas

First up: wonderful article.

Thanks to the Canon DSLRs, I now earn a living with them!

Only last October 2009 I took a course in traditional broadcast ENG Camerawork and then started a search for my own camera set. Due to the earlier work done by Philip Bloom with various 35mm adapters, my eyes were initially set on an EX-3 with a Letus and some nice 35mm glass in front.

However, inspired by Bloom's rapid adoption of the EOS 5D mark ii and later 7D, I decided to go DSLR all the way. An excellent decision, I must say. After six months I have been able to recoup most of my investments and sometimes have to figure out where to find the time to do all the projects I am involved with. I do not work in cinematography, but rather on web videos with high production value. My clients are extremely happy with the results.

<object width="600" height="363"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/eIDoyuMHyzA&hl=nl_NL&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/eIDoyuMHyzA&hl=nl_NL&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="600" height="363"></embed></object>

What I find inspiring is to be part of a movement that shakes up the industry like nothing before. Also, I love the whole eco system that has been evolving with all sorts of manufacturers (Zacuto, Red Rock Micro, etc.) coming up with ways to overcome the intricate disadvantages of these game-changing devices.

Although I am totally in love with the versatility of these cameras (you get to shoot great video and do RAW 5K image timelapses with a single device!), I do not like the burden that it places on the editing process.

Recently, I had to do an edit of ten 4-minute interviews and I found out that the only way to get a workflow going was to first sync up the full audio track, do an uncompressed render (not wanting to lose further quality from transcoding in the process) and then start editing. Syncing up all the individual clips would have taken way too long. However, this workflow resulted in a whopping project size of 250GB (!):

<object width="600" height="363"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/marcKHQ0Pp4&hl=nl_NL&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/marcKHQ0Pp4&hl=nl_NL&fs=1?rel=0&hd=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="600" height="363"></embed></object>

Altogether, I am hoping that Canon will come up with a successor body which has both RAW video recording capabilities (as a selectable option), FullHD res monitoring output and proper XLR inputs. Could be some other manufacturer as well, but I still want to be able to re-use my Canon glass.

I too hope that these suggestions will make it to the R&D departments of Canon cum suis.

Richard van den Boogaard
cameraman / editor / video marketing consultant

Branded Channels
W: http://www.brandedchannels.com

As a veteran in this industry but as someone who also LOVES new equipment, new methods and especially new cameras that provide a unique visual look...I also think it's important to remember that to get great images from these things, you STILL need to be a skilled cinematographer and/or DP.

And...even though I'm a fan of Phillip Bloom, a lot of his Vimeo videos are really just eye-candy set to music. Of course he's typically championing a new product...and he DOES know how to use a camera to tell stories as well...

But if you have a great story, a great eye, and you already own a high-end HD camera with good lenses, you can likely tell your story just as effectively and with less location and post-production hassle using that.

You can achieve similar looks if you know how to position the camera and use focal lengths and ND and exposure to get shallow depth of field. Certainly there are setups where nothing beats a film lens, especially in tight spaces, but you can also use DOF adaptors that fit right to the front of your lens to achieve that same look.

We'll probably get one of these cameras, because we need a new still-digital camera anyway...but for 95% of our projects, the last thing we need is a more complicated work flow both on-set and in post...not to mention the complications of running separate sound...doing without TC etc.

Yes these things have great potential, but it sounds like from the posts that while they greatly reduce your equipment weight and space, they greatly increase what you need on-set and in post. I'm not sure that's it worth the trade-off for people working in the middle of the market budget-wise.

Chris Blair
Magnetic Image, Inc.
Evansville, IN
http://www.videomi.com
Read our blog http://www.videomi.com/blog

Thanks so much for this great article, Robert.

And it's great to hear people dialoguing about the issue in the comments. I think it's hilarious to hear people say this is a passing phase. The film industry is experiencing the EXACT same transformation that the music industry went through 15 years ago. The big money studios can't compete with almost comical (in comparison) budgets of indie films rivaling (story, writing, casting, acting, etc.) these studio films.

Cheaper tools make it easier for people to make movies. It doesn't mean people without talent can suddenly make good films though. It simply opens a previously closed door (filmmaking) to creative individuals who can make beautiful things with whatever tools they have at their disposal.

The era of GIANT multi-million dollar films is dying. It's not a viable business venture. Great filmmaking will still go on, but with cheaper tools.

Fortunately, we aren't simply losing the possibility of quality visuals. Quality will continue to improve with technology, and at some point in the future, some kid with a $1,200 camera is going to shoot something that looks every bit as visually stunning (from an optics point of view) as 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Meanwhile (right now), some of the best films of the decade are going to be shot on equipment that many will view as optically "sub-par." However, it will be a triumph for the everyman, and filmmaking will be revolutionized.

We shot our first feature on a RED, and (depending upon which script we shoot next) I'm excited to shoot a project on a 5DmkII/7D. I'm a little concerned about the focusing and exposure issues, but these are simply challenges to overcome in order to deliver the best possible product with the tools available. As with all art, the tool will factor into the decision making process as part of the medium.

The size and weight of the camera (not to mention the incredible light sensitivity) frees up all kinds of limitations I had with film, so obviously there are significant trade-off's between film cameras and DSLR's.

=======================
http://www.LeadingLadiesMovie.com
Let Love Lead™

Loved the Article. YES - Canon is the sleeping giant. After doing about 5-6 short films, videos, and being a still serious photographer in my pre-film era (Contax / Zeiss), I have learned to use the Canon / Zeiss in much the same way. Starting off with a Sony Z5 and really enjoying that, the Canon was a new additional tool to complement the Sony.

Bottom line: It is a bear to operate, but used as a cinematographer, not a videographer, it is simply astounding in some situations that leaves me breathless. I recently shot an entire steam locomotive train at night film, with passengers, station, outside steam, RR tracks, inside the engine cab etc. Something impossible with the Sony Z5. The blacks were velvet smooth, the grain acceptable even at 1250, the shallow dof was the magic touch, latitude pretty darned good, still shots - well it is a Canon 5D!

The end result was stunning and the commentaries from all said the same. They could not believe the emotions, the beauty, the richness, the color, the ability to even take the pictures - like Hollywood quality. I was amazed.

As mentioned, you have to know what the hell you are doing - it is not easy by any stretch. You are constantly dealing with manual follow focus, composing, some aperture control, looking through a hoodman for precise focus, composing shots as you go and follow the steam locomotive in motion, getting the lowest ISO possible / right combination of aperture, being creative and telling story and keeping that camera perfectly where you want it to be. In other words, IT IS A CHALLENGE. But get it right, and you have pure gold. Bad shots and retakes are at least 50-75% it is so critical. Very unforgiving. A Marshall monitor is definitely worth a consideration. . . uhh ... needed! Of course sound is separate recorded - that is a given here.

Now if a Video camera with a large 5D sensor can do these night shots in the same way, and still be under $5,000, I would like to know where it is!

What I am saying is that Mr. Grimes is right. Canon has something powerful and a tool that is like no other. When the Mk3 comes out, and if the bugs are addressed, you are going to see something that will revolutionize the industry. My guess? greater latitude, 50Mbs film, maybe even 3k or 4k video, Raw capability, less noise, more latitude (1-2 stops), autofocus in video, maybe even choice of fps. But would that hurt the video division? Dunno.

But is sure is fun to think about it. Notice Canon has said absolutely nothing. Makes sense because once it comes out, the MK2 will disappear quickly - or remain available but the Mk3 will be priced higher and for good reason.

Damn - this waiting is tough. Keep making films and work the system - it may be tough, but it has gold blood if you know how to tap into it and marry it with a video camera like the Sony for instance. What a pair!!