What do you all shoot with using your DSLRs. For the sake of space on CF and SDHC cards, I'd like to think I can get away with 720p.

Also, at what framerate do you usually choose with your resolution?

I'm just getting into this, and I couldn't google or find the answer within this forum.

Peter, I'm a dedicated video man and regard HDSLRs as a passing fad which will be overcome when proper video cameras use bigger chips. However, let that simply represent my opinion, so you know where I'm coming from and pose this question in answer to your query: Why would you pay thousands of dollars/pounds/pesos etc for a camera and then get chintzy about the recording medium? We record to high speed CF cards at £80-£100 a throw but the idea of doing anything less than our best seems odd. Why wouldn't you record the best quality pictures you possibly can?

Hi Peter,

The only time I ever shoot in 720P is when I want 60P ability, which is almost never. Your getting more lines of resolution with 1080 and thats what pro HDSLR shooters want. The correct frame rate depends on the type of feel you want to give your video. I shoot 24P because I like the cinema style look. Then there's 30P, 60P, ect. You have to play around and decide which is best for your application.

Thanks for the input. Very good point on why skimp on the resolution. 1080 it is, then.

Aliasing and Moire are a fair bit worse at 720p too.

What do you all shoot with using your DSLRs. For the sake of space on CF and SDHC cards, I'd like to think I can get away with 720p.

Also, at what framerate do you usually choose with your resolution?

I'm just getting into this, and I couldn't google or find the answer within this forum.

720p would only be interesting if you want to slow down your footage as it has the 60p option but other then that I would use 1080 in any case, you would want to get as much as resolution as possible from those dslr's since resolution wise they don't even match up to a small handycam HD camera.

About dslr's being a passing fad, sure the next generation filmcamera's will incorperate the advantages of dslr filming but not with the disadvantages but one thing you can be sure about, it will be at a hugh price difference. As long as there will be 550d alike camera's which offer filmfunctions at that pricepoint, they will remain very popular amongst filmmakers with more limited budgets..

1080P all the way. If I want a smaller image, I'll chose that in post. These cameras struggle with resolution anyway, so starting at 720 seems like a bad proposition unless you are posting to web for a small insert screen and you are shooting fast action (so resolution is totally not important but you want DOF and good slow mo).

Shooting with 1080 allows you a lot of flexibility to pan and zoom digitally in post whereas this can be somewhat complicated in real life with these cameras.

Keep your options open. 1080.

As far as frame rate, and I'm sure I'll catch some flak, I shoot almost exclusively 30P. 24P doesn't make too much sense for the monitor-based work I typcially do.

Remember, when you record in 30p you can always render it at 24p...but if you shoot in 24p rendering to 30p looks like garbage.

Recording in 30p will give you a broader range of options when editing in your nle.

... But 50p/60p is sooo beautiful when slowed down. -:) My opinion is, if you want to build a trailer or something similar that will incorporate slow motion, shoot some parts in 720p60, because slowing down DSLR footage won't give you the best result, unless you go with the time-consuming Twixtor (and then again the results are not equal to the real thing). Other than that, 1080p is totally amazing.

I'm a dedicated video man and regard HDSLRs as a passing fad which will be overcome when proper video cameras use bigger chips.

.....and 3D isn't a passing fad???
Technology in this industry is always changing, and to dismiss any of it so flippantly shows a lack of respect for all concerned.

Here here Aaron

I want my films to look the best they possibly can. Right now, DLSRs provide that, the 1080p looks so sexy compared to my sony z5 at double the cost. One only has to read the top film makers blogs, phillip bloom and vincent laforet to realize that DLSRs are not a passing fad. Im already looking forward to the 5d mark 3 cause i know that no camera will beat it in the next few years. Im pretty sure anyway , unless your spending over 7k.

Aaron, firstly of course it was only my opinion and did say it would set the cat amongst the pigeons.

Secondly, a couple of facts. One, 3D has been a passing fad for about 150 years, but I have serious, and oft expressed, doubts whether 3D television (as opposed to film) will become a feasible reality in my lifetime. Two, if you think that the trade off of limited recording times and crappy sound against control of depth of field is reasonable then you're entitled to your opinion. Three, the only reason we're having this discussion and thousands of dollars are being spent producing VideoDSLRs is because the video industry saw tiny chips as an economic solution.

Thirdly, if Sony (or Panasonic, or JVC, etc) introduced a VG10 with three chips and balanced sound inputs how many video DSLRs do you think you'd find in every packet of cornflakes?

Fourthly, this week I spotted the first posting complaining about the difficulty of focussing a DSLR when the subject was moving.

Aaron, it's still only an opinion and if it encourages you at all let me admit that I was once the owner of an Apricot computer when I could have bought an IBM.

Mr. Phan,

If you can shoot at 1080, I recommend shooting at it. for framerate, if you do not make your final delivery format as DVD, just shoot 24fps. if you want to make DVD, shoot at 30fps. if you not sure, just shoot 30fps.

Depend on what you shoot. 24gig will get you about 1.5hrs, more or less. CF are fairly cheap compare to other solid-state card use by panny or sony.

Secondly, a couple of facts. One, 3D has been a passing fad for about 150 years, but I have serious, and oft expressed, doubts whether 3D television (as opposed to film) will become a feasible reality in my lifetime.

Philip, as you know 3D comes and goes approximately every 30 years. There is considerably more financial clout this time so it has the possibility of staying around for longer, but we shall see.

Two, if you think that the trade off of limited recording times and crappy sound against control of depth of field is reasonable then you're entitled to your opinion.

You are absolutely correct Philip, the onboard mic on DSLRs are terrible. However, hands up to anyone who uses the onboard mic on their "proper" camera? No one? Thought not.
The 12 minute record limit is really no big issue. There are multiple opportunities to stop and restart during natural breaks during the service or speeches.

Three, the only reason we're having this discussion and thousands of dollars are being spent producing VideoDSLRs is because the video industry saw tiny chips as an economic solution.

To be honest, the DSLR rage is more of a happy accident. Canon admitted themselves that they were not prepared for the interest in our field for video usage.

Thirdly, if Sony (or Panasonic, or JVC, etc) introduced a VG10 with three chips and balanced sound inputs how many video DSLRs do you think you'd find in every packet of cornflakes?

Building Santa's wishlist are you Philip?

Fourthly, this week I spotted the first posting complaining about the difficulty of focussing a DSLR when the subject was moving.

This is true, it can be difficult to focus on a subject when they are in motion. However with practice this is not so bad. We are used to full manual controls on our previous cameras, so it wasn't a real issue to us.

Personally I find the whole discussion of DSLRs as a fad quite tiresome. Since new and different cameras are now coming out at a rate of 1 every 2-3 years, it is quite easy to label each new technology as a fad in its own right. Each to their own, but it doesn't matter if you shoot on VHS, MiniDV, DSLR, RED or the Barbie camera. All that matters is the persons ability behind the camera.

Aaron, I've obviously touched a raw nerve on you somewhere so I'm not going to respond point by point to your sometimes fatuous comments. I know our 3D offering has got up your noise - I've read your dismissive comments elsewhere - but I bet you'd like the enquiries it has generated and anyway, you can't dismiss 3D as a passing fad in one message, then in the next agree with me that it's been around 150 years.

If you're happy working with a DSLR that's fine - though I'm bound to wonder how you record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks.

I started by writing that it was just my opinion and it remains just that.

Aaron, I've obviously touched a raw nerve on you somewhere so I'm not going to respond point by point to your sometimes fatuous comments. I know our 3D offering has got up your noise - I've read your dismissive comments elsewhere - but I bet you'd like the enquiries it has generated and anyway, you can't dismiss 3D as a passing fad in one message, then in the next agree with me that it's been around 150 years.

If you're happy working with a DSLR that's fine - though I'm bound to wonder how you record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks.

I started by writing that it was just my opinion and it remains just that.

Philip, It's easy to record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks. I do it every weekend. There are many stop and start moments during an hour long ceremony. Do you really think the bride needs to see the Readers get up from their pew, walk 50 feet up to the lecturn, adjust the microphone, say their 2 minute Corinthians chapter, step down from the lecturn, walk 50 feet back to their pew? Then do it all again for the next Reader? Just start and stop the camera when each Reader approaches the lecturn.

Aaron, I've obviously touched a raw nerve on you somewhere so I'm not going to respond point by point to your sometimes fatuous comments. I know our 3D offering has got up your noise - I've read your dismissive comments elsewhere - but I bet you'd like the enquiries it has generated and anyway, you can't dismiss 3D as a passing fad in one message, then in the next agree with me that it's been around 150 years.

If you're happy working with a DSLR that's fine - though I'm bound to wonder how you record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks.

I started by writing that it was just my opinion and it remains just that.

For the vows, I click the stop/start button while the bride and groom are being positioned by the priest. There is nothing at that point that should make the final edit anyway.

Aaron, I've obviously touched a raw nerve on you somewhere so I'm not going to respond point by point to your sometimes fatuous comments. I know our 3D offering has got up your noise - I've read your dismissive comments elsewhere - but I bet you'd like the enquiries it has generated and anyway, you can't dismiss 3D as a passing fad in one message, then in the next agree with me that it's been around 150 years.

If you're happy working with a DSLR that's fine - though I'm bound to wonder how you record a nuptial mass in 12 minute chunks.


Philip, the point about 3D was a question, not my opinion. However, it is funny how you call one technology a fad, when that is exactly the same comment many (not me personally) say with 3D. Call me devils advocate on that situation.
My personal opinion about 3D is that it is a progressive technology and as I stated before, it has more finance behind it to possibly stick around for longer. I wouldn't exactly call this a dismissive comment, would you?
I am well aware that you offer 3D in your package, and I wish you all the good fortune with that. I really do. It is not something we are considering offering for the time being until the technology takes a step up to allow more creativity.

My reasoning for answering your questions on a point by point basis, was that you did make point by point questions and assertions. The only real dismissive and sarcastic comment was in response to your "conflakes" point. Since I found your point rather farcical, my return comment reflected that. I am curious to where I make similar dismissive comments elsewhere. Can you help point them out to me so I can make sure no one was offended.

Michael has already answered my point about mass rather more eloquently than I would have, and it is a simple fact that there are always natural breaks in proceedings when filming a wedding. How many times have we had to change tapes because the speeches went over an hour? The same principle applies to DSLRs.

Thank you Aaron and Michael for explaining how you do that.

Obviously we're at cross purposes because we shoot with three cameras and edit in sync'd multicam on a timeline with typically ten sound tracks - before editing out the reader walking to the lectern etc. I would find it unacceptable to have to re-sync the edit every 12 minutes but if you don't that's fine.

We clearly have very different ways of doing the job.

This is "classic" Philip I tell you. His comments always seem to be a little too high up in the air. Philip, you may have "years of experience" and sometimes your advice is good, but the way you word your comments has always had me skip over your post. A lot of your previous post always seem to offend people even thou you think you are helping them. I could go on, but this isn't the place or time for it.

Shout your opinion, but don't make feel like crap for their choice in equipment.

Sorry but I had to say it.

And I'm glad you did Kelly; no offence was ever intended and if it was taken then I apologise.

In this particular instance I only mentioned my view so the OP would understand that I had no direct experience of his situation before making the general point (phrased as a question) which was why would you not have your gear work at its best quality just to save a few cents on media. It seemed like false economy. Others more qualified went into more details and gave reasons why the OP might use different settings. If that was offensive, then I'm sorry.

Of course, if my views disinterest you then it's your prerogative not to read them.

What is this about 24p only if you're NOT going to DVD? I'm planning to shoot a short film sometime in the near future, and would go with 24p because it's a narrative fiction application and I like the look. Are you saying there's going to be some issue with making DVDs at this framerate?

Starting the basic would be the best way to explain to a newbie.

You can do this-and-that from a 24p onto a 30p dvd but let's start the basic. NTSC DVD are 29.97fps.

.....and 3D isn't a passing fad???

I'm holding out for 4D.