What camera? 5DIII or a 3chip?

[Fandongo]

Well there is no way I would allow the use of a 5DII on any production, low budget or otherwise. In effect it is not an HD camera, even though technically it is supposed to be. The effective fill area of the sensor (when in video mode) is dreadful.

The new Canons are far superior. The Nikon D800 apparently has RAW HD output via HDMI. But I don't shoot video so I can't speak from experience.

It resolves about 800 lines of resolution... which is still HD.
What new Canons?
The $16k C300?
The $7k 1Dx?
The 5d3?
It has a low pass filter over the sensor, removing moire and aliasing...by softening the image.
The 5d2 is almost an antique, but matches the 5d3 in every area except artifacts, high iso noise (5d2 still blows away t2i, t3i etc.), and apparently weather resistance.

So, is it worth it?
Yeah.
But if resolved detail is your thing, the only current answer is the GH2.

Maybe I just need better glass?
I am using a canon 50mm 1.8 & a sigma 30mm 1.4

but now that I think about it, if none of my past clients have really complained about the quality, then getting a few things like a Gopro2, glidecam, nice tripod and a nice lens or two could go a long way to increasing the production value....

DAMN! what to do!?

Glidecam.
Get it. Before all things.

...You might also want a cheaper zoom lens that doesn't shift too much weight (requiring adjustment).
The 17-40L might be the cream of that crop.

i would go with the af-100

af-100 is all that is soulless and wrong.

Buy a GH2.
Blow $3,500 on metal--build box around the GH2...
So it feels like a "REAL" video camera

Ooh but it has XLR inputs. XLR inputs on a video camera allow you the rare opportunity to make a $2,500 microphone sound like a snake.
Hisssss.

Bottom line - we can play the waiting game all day.
Canon refuses to innovate for the mass market.
They'll just gloat in their mistakes, as people waste thousands of hours reverse engineering their shortcomings.

The Cinema DSLR should be amazing...
But It'll be expensive, and they're going to gimp it somewhere.
That or they'll have to drop the C300 price by $12k.
Which sounds more likely?

Edit** If you haven't already, stretch the scope of your t2i by installing ML.
http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Unified

If you want more detail and reduced artifacts, i'd highly recommend the GH2.
If you're always pushing Dynamic Range to the limit, the 5dIII will give you an extra stop or two.
If you can find a used 5d2 under $1.5k that hasn't been beaten to hell, you could get a taste of full frame, without splurging a fortune for a video format that's about to be dwarfed by 4k.

 

[LethalWolfe]

It has a low pass filter over the sensor, removing moire and aliasing...by softening the image.

AFAIK all cameras user optical low pass filters to reduce aliasing at the expense of some sharpness. Lesser of two evils, IMO, and one reason why some cameras use oversampling to get a cleaner image (RED's cameras and Canon's C300, for example).

If you can find a used 5d2 under $1.5k that hasn't been beaten to hell, you could get a taste of full frame, without splurging a fortune for a video format that's about to be dwarfed by 4k.

Which will itself be dwarfed by 8k, then 16k, then 32k... gear is moving at computer evolutionary speeds now and it's as good, and as inexpensive, as ever. Looking at a 1080p camera today and worrying that 4k is around the corner is like looking at a computer today and worrying about what CPUs and GPUs are coming out in the next 18 months.


Lethal

 

[Pikemann Urge]

It resolves about 800 lines of resolution... which is still HD.

Heck, 480p is considered HD on the web. And if the Supreme Court said that 290p is HD, then you can say that it's 'HD'. But it isn't acceptable (okay, sorry - not acceptable to many DPs, even those who shoot proper HD).

The 5d3?
It has a low pass filter over the sensor, removing moire and aliasing...by softening the image.
The 5d2 is almost an antique, but matches the 5d3 in every area except artifacts, high iso noise (5d2 still blows away t2i, t3i etc.), and apparently weather resistance.

You forgot resolution. And you still have 4:2:0 colour - and that's your master file.

Both the 7D and the D7000 have better resolving power than the 5DII. The 5DII cannot match these two cameras even when downsampled. I'm not saying you have to care, or that the difference is massive, but it is true.

It would be interesting to see how the 5DIII sells. If it sells poorly, it means that people don't mind the soft image that line-skipping entails. My point is that people should have known better than to use the 5DII for serious work. But hey, it's the internet, and people think about how their choices will make headlines on blogs as much as these choices affect production quality.

AFAIK all cameras user optical low pass filters to reduce aliasing at the expense of some sharpness. Lesser of two evils, IMO, and one reason why some cameras use oversampling to get a cleaner image (RED's cameras and Canon's C300, for example).

The Sony F65 and the C300 output half-resolution frames from their 8K and 4K sensors, respectively. The RED does not do this AFAIK. And yes, pretty much all DSLRs which I know of have AA filters. The D800E effectively doesn't (it has an AA 'cancelling' filter, for lack of the right term). And digital backs either don't have the filters or give you the option of removing it.

Which will itself be dwarfed by 8k, then 16k, then 32k... gear is moving at computer evolutionary speeds now and it's as good, and as inexpensive, as ever. Looking at a 1080p camera today and worrying that 4k is around the corner is like looking at a computer today and worrying about what CPUs and GPUs are coming out in the next 18 months.

I'm all for analogies. But they have to be appropriate. IMO, yours is not. There's a difference between performance and image quality. You might have two computers, for example, which can give you the same image quality (e.g. Final Cut rendering) but each with different performance.

There will be a pixel density limit to consider, too, so adding more output pixels won't help (but more photosites per pixel will help, as per the F65).

 

[Fandongo]

You forgot resolution. And you still have 4:2:0 colour - and that's your master file.

Didn't forget, I just close my eyes and pretend it's 444.
I can't believe they didn't add full HDMI out to the 5d3.
Truly would have been a game changer.

Instead, they chose to keep big studio quality out of the hands of kids.
At least for a little while longer.

 

[LethalWolfe]

My point is that people should have known better than to use the 5DII for serious work. But hey, it's the internet, and people think about how their choices will make headlines on blogs as much as these choices affect production quality.

And yet people used it as A or B cams with success on high-end productions where budget wasn't a primary consideration. Heaven forbid people explore new tech to see what they can, and can't, get out of it in real world conditions. People getting out there, using this gear, saying I love X, Y and Z about it but I hate A, B and C is the only reason the next gen stuff is getting better.

The Sony F65 and the C300 output half-resolution frames from their 8K and 4K sensors, respectively. The RED does not do this AFAIK. And yes, pretty much all DSLRs which I know of have AA filters. The D800E effectively doesn't (it has an AA 'cancelling' filter, for lack of the right term). And digital backs either don't have the filters or give you the option of removing it.

IIRC RED factors in the loss from the OLPF and from using the Bayer Filter and tries to compensate for that by making the sensor that much larger than the output resolution of the camera.

I'm all for analogies. But they have to be appropriate. IMO, yours is not. There's a difference between performance and image quality. You might have two computers, for example, which can give you the same image quality (e.g. Final Cut rendering) but each with different performance.

My analogy was to illustrate that camera tech will be changing as fast as computer tech, which is something new, so don't get hung up in what's coming out in 12 months because there will always be something just around the corner (just like w/tech).

BetaSP, for example, lasted for decades and something like that will never happen again. In 2022 I don't think anyone is going to be using the same codecs or cameras they are using today yet it wasn't uncommon for a piece of pro SD gear to have a functional life of over 10yrs.

I see so many people obsessing over quantifiable aspects of gear that they end up sitting on the sidelines waiting for some sort of gear-unicorn that's the perfect blend of quality, flexibility and affordability with no trade-offs instead of going out there with what's available and making something. Who cares if 4k is coming down the pipe? We passed the good-enough-to-get-theatrical-distribution barrier w/prosumer DV cameras and ingenuity a decade ago. Screw the specs on the press release and just go shoot something in focus, well exposed, well framed and compelling.

/rant


Lethal

 

[hchung]

You guys seem to know more about high end video cameras than I do. I'm curious what your thought is on the panasonic TM750 when compared to a 5dmkII.

Like, if I wasn't going pro, how big of a difference is a DSLR to a high end consumer video camera?

 

[pigbat]

I'm a technology guy so I love digging into the details of new cameras. Unfortunately I think people sometimes forget there is so much more to making a good film than the camera. Sounds, lighting, soundtrack..... STORY!

I'm not sure how many of you follow Film Riot, but look at what they did with an iPhone 4s. I'm sure it wouldn't be their first camera choice but it definitely underscores the statement above.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I-KrhgwtXLg&feature=g-all-u&context=G2b845c9FAAAAAAAACAA

 

[prograham]

I see so many people obsessing over quantifiable aspects of gear that they end up sitting on the sidelines waiting for some sort of gear-unicorn that's the perfect blend of quality, flexibility and affordability with no trade-offs instead of going out there with what's available and making something. Who cares if 4k is coming down the pipe? We passed the good-enough-to-get-theatrical-distribution barrier w/prosumer DV cameras and ingenuity a decade ago. Screw the specs on the press release and just go shoot something in focus, well exposed, well framed and compelling.

/rant


Lethal

I've enjoyed the back and forth on this thread, but in my heart I've always valued content over tools. It's so easy in professions to do the opposite, especially with two old hands talking about a craft. But when I read this... I found my new sig! very tough to condense though... sheesh..

 

[Boe11]

Check out Bloom's review of the mkIII if you haven't already. If you're already got a stable of lens', I wouldn't hesitate to go that route. He highlights some very tangible advantages, but you can't really go wrong with any of the choices you've mentioned.

http://philipbloom.net/2012/03/22/5dmk3/

 

[LethalWolfe]

You guys seem to know more about high end video cameras than I do. I'm curious what your thought is on the panasonic TM750 when compared to a 5dmkII.

Like, if I wasn't going pro, how big of a difference is a DSLR to a high end consumer video camera?

Unfortunately I don't know anything about that Panasonic camera. I will say a nice thing about a DSLR is that it gives you a serviceable video camera and still camera in one unit. A lot of it depends on what you plan on shooting. For example, if you like filming acrobatic planes at Air Shows I'd advise against a DSLR, at least the first gen ones, because the rolling shutter artifacting will kill your footage.

I've enjoyed the back and forth on this thread, but in my heart I've always valued content over tools. It's so easy in professions to do the opposite, especially with two old hands talking about a craft. But when I read this... I found my new sig! very tough to condense though... sheesh..

What's odd is that I'm perfectly happy to grill various cameras, codecs and workflows to see what produces the best technical results (partly because I think it's fun and party because lab data can translate into real world situations) but at the end of the day I take in the whole picture (budget, turn around time, workflow, what's being shot, etc.,) and tailor a solution that best fits these specific needs. What's technically the best camera might not be the best camera for the situation at hand.


Lethal

 

[fox10078]

What I like about the DSLR workflow is that as soon as I come home, I can drag and drop files and I am good to go.

This is not true at all, You should never edit in H.264 that DSLRS shoot, Sure you can drag and drop it in your editor and it works, but trust me if you go DSLR you want to transcode everything to better performing codecs, I myself always transcode to ProRes 422.


On topic. I use a D7000, absolutely love it, but some advice for DSLRS in general, is it takes a lot of different gear to make it a excellent set up (Follow Focus, Recorder with XLR)

But after being a CAM OP on a RED Epic, just save up for that Just kidding

but at the end of the day I take in the whole picture (budget, turn around time, workflow, what's being shot, etc.,)

Some Excellent Advice, You sound like my editing teacher "Who cares you shot on RED when you're going to just put it on YouTube"

Its something I always see that people pick the piece of gear before they pick the project, never thinking the rest through.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Some Excellent Advice, You sound like my editing teacher "Who cares you shot on RED when you're going to just put it on YouTube"

Well you can put 4k up on YouTube these days...

 

[wonderspark]

Late to the conversation, but I just got an Atomos Ninja 2.0 to use with my old XH-A1. I'm finally 100% tapeless, and using 4:2:2 color instead of the 4:2:0 that it sends to tape, thanks to the component breakout cable and an HDMI converter.

I also have a D7000, but I mainly use it for time-lapse or 2nd camera video.

I'm editing a feature film shot on 5DMkII, and it looks surprisingly good, except when they overexposed the shot.

Have any of you seen the movie Rubber? It was hilarious, and was shot on 5DMkII.

 

[yoak]

For short pieces like the one you linked to, I think a 5D would suit you fine. Why not a 7D?
Personally I think the DOF you get from the 7D is more pleasing than the 5D, as the focus tend to be very shallow when you use fast glass on the 5D.

I do have a Panasonic AF 101, and I prefer to use a "proper" video camera to a hdslr when I'm shooting. That said, I very rearly use that camera any more (I rent it out) after using it for 2 months on a TV docu series. I never liked the look of 25P and it has serious banding issues in certain circumstances. Head shots and interviews looks great with old manual canon glass though.
It can look good in controlled situations, but falls apart IMHO when the lighting is not ideal.

I also have a GH2, it looks ok, but again I never use it for production as I don't like the hdslr and all the quirks it brings.

I'm on a production of 8 episodes for national television right now and we use a mix of the new Canon c300, 5D, 7D and RED EPIC. They are all cameras that can produce great footage (all though the EPIC is in a league on its own)

If you can live with the quirks of hdslr shooting, I think at this point it seems to be the best way for you.
The last tape camera I had was a canon XL-H1, I sold it when the Sony EX-1 came out and never looked back. You just have to get a good back up strategy in place. I now have all my important footage on 3 different hard drives in 2 or 3 different locations.
Before I had tapes and 1 hard drive. A lot of the tapes I shot 10 years ago I can't playback anymore as they give dropped frames etc.

So forget about tape, it's dead by now (unless you talk about LTO for backup)

 

[matteusclement]

For short pieces like the one you linked to, I think a 5D would suit you fine. Why not a 7D?
Personally I think the DOF you get from the 7D is more pleasing than the 5D, as the focus tend to be very shallow when you use fast glass on the 5D.

I do have a Panasonic AF 101, and I prefer to use a "proper" video camera to a hdslr when I'm shooting. That said, I very rearly use that camera any more (I rent it out) after using it for 2 months on a TV docu series. I never liked the look of 25P and it has serious banding issues in certain circumstances. Head shots and interviews looks great with old manual canon glass though.
It can look good in controlled situations, but falls apart IMHO when the lighting is not ideal.

I also have a GH2, it looks ok, but again I never use it for production as I don't like the hdslr and all the quirks it brings.

I'm on a production of 8 episodes for national television right now and we use a mix of the new Canon c300, 5D, 7D and RED EPIC. They are all cameras that can produce great footage (all though the EPIC is in a league on its own)

If you can live with the quirks of hdslr shooting, I think at this point it seems to be the best way for you.
The last tape camera I had was a canon XL-H1, I sold it when the Sony EX-1 came out and never looked back. You just have to get a good back up strategy in place. I now have all my important footage on 3 different hard drives in 2 or 3 different locations.
Before I had tapes and 1 hard drive. A lot of the tapes I shot 10 years ago I can't playback anymore as they give dropped frames etc.

So forget about tape, it's dead by now (unless you talk about LTO for backup)

I am definately going all digital now. The shallow DOF is key for the work I do. I will lease a Mark3 when it comes to Canada. For now, it's the t2i.

I have a RAID1 set up with a RAID0. The footage I work with in Premiere is on the raid0. The RAID1 is for back up.

 

[hchung]

Unfortunately I don't know anything about that Panasonic camera. I will say a nice thing about a DSLR is that it gives you a serviceable video camera and still camera in one unit. A lot of it depends on what you plan on shooting. For example, if you like filming acrobatic planes at Air Shows I'd advise against a DSLR, at least the first gen ones, because the rolling shutter artifacting will kill your footage.

Hmm, okay. I actually bought the cheaper version of the TM750 (less features, same sensors) to film stage performances. Mostly because 3 large CMOS sensors sounded like a good idea for low light conditions, and because it was much cheaper than a DSLR. But as many of my photographer friends have mentioned DSLRs as video cameras, I'm kind of curious.

If I were to sum up my experience with the Panasonic 3MOS series, it'd be just "freakin' awesome."

 

[Keebler]

Hmm, okay. I actually bought the cheaper version of the TM750 (less features, same sensors) to film stage performances. Mostly because 3 large CMOS sensors sounded like a good idea for low light conditions, and because it was much cheaper than a DSLR. But as many of my photographer friends have mentioned DSLRs as video cameras, I'm kind of curious.

If I were to sum up my experience with the Panasonic 3MOS series, it'd be just "freakin' awesome."

I'm researching the possibility of filming geneaology / life story videos or videos for those stricken with Alzheimer's. These would be sit down recordings, interviewed and then I would integrate photos and narration where needed.

I know I'll need a few lights, but I was wondering the same thing about maybe using a DSLR, but in the end, I'm thinking of using my Panasonic TM900. To me, it seems to produce high quality images. I would feel confident in what I would be handing the clients should they want a blu ray, DVD or digital file*.

It can't create DOF like the DSLRs, but I think any of these shoots would be fairly simple in nature. Any camera effects would be overkill and perhaps take away from the subject and the story being told.

Is there anyone out there filming biographies or similar to what I'm describing - am I giving the TM900 too much credit? or not enough? It's definitely a 'prosumer' camera I believe (maybe I'm wrong).

The * is because I've created H.264 1080 HD files for both the new iPad and AppleTV and I've been impressed with the quality. I'm using a rate between 5.5 and 9.5 (just what I tested) and despite the fact it's far below the bitrate of a blu ray, the files look great (to me).

I don't mean to re-direct this thread, but just a question b/c i saw the TM750 mentioned

Cheers,
Keebler

 

[cgbier]

Keebler, for your endeavor the Panasonic is more than good enough. Take care of the light and make sure you get good audio. That's more important than the type of camera you use.

I'm doing stuff like that with a cheesy Canon HV30.

 

[Keebler]

Keebler, for your endeavor the Panasonic is more than good enough. Take care of the light and make sure you get good audio. That's more important than the type of camera you use.

I'm doing stuff like that with a cheesy Canon HV30.

Thanks. I do have an external Sennheiser for sound as well and definitely on the lighting. I'm thinking I'll need 2 at least.