Why We Are Thoroughly Embarrassed to Be Shooting Video with DSLRs | Hacker News Reader

Why We Are Thoroughly Embarrassed to Be Shooting Video with DSLRs

canonfilmmakers.com

56 pointsmerrick3320 comments

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...

Commentary from a prominent DSLR cinematographer: 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=3871...

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.

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.

>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 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.

It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions. Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people, he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew of multiple people.

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.

Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of their kids.

People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.

ken rockwell is a photographer and has no credits in video production

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.

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.

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

There wasn't much to rebut in the first place.

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.

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.

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

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-Interc...)

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com