Are DSLRs a valid way to shoot professional video?

[Corey Benoit]

do you feel that for the price the 7d is comparable to the red? also i own a 7d, and i am finishing the rig up, and i am purchasing a ex1r, do you think this will be a good set of cams to work with? i also looking at the ex3 but i dont think i can muster up another 2 grand extra...

what do you think?

[Roger Shealy]

If going the DSLR route, I recommend the T2i over the 7D for video (I have a 7D and T2i). For movies I find them essentially equal, none of the conveniences of the 7D are worth the extra $1,000 in my book. In fact, I'd say get two T2i's rather than a single 7D. The 7D is tougher, but you'll be more apt to "risk" the T2i for a great shot since you have less to lose. You also won't feel so bad when you upgrade to the inevitable better equipment coming down the pike in the next 18 months. Unless you are going to be shooting staged footage only, and can only get one camera, get the EX or another dedicated cam. The DSLR's have limitations that will be problematic if you are depending on them exclusively unless you are looking only at artistic work or static interviews, for instance. The DSLR route can give you phenomenal results if camera movement, focus, and aliasing can be controlled. Even as a hobbyist, I often choose an XHA1 over the 7D/T2i for many applications and the EX1/3 is considered by most a step up from the A1. If you can control around the limitations of the DSLR, say for a seated interview, a landscape, leaves changing, or a tripod shot of a train going by...., the 7D/T2i looks like a much more expensive camera and the look can be quite stunning. Add to this the DSLR's portability and their ability to take great still pictures, which are an important element in many of my video pieces as well.

So now I find myself with using 3 genres of cameras, a dedicated prosumer video camera for dynamic work, a DSLR for creative work, and a minicam in my pocket for fun. I'd be hesitant to rate any of the three "better" unless carefully defining the use. It's a great time to be a alive with so many powerful options!

[Charles Papert]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

There's a world of difference between having a good sharp lens that produces a nice clean image and being able to slap on an 800mm f/5.6 telephoto to shoot the moon, then swap it out for an 8mm fish-eye to shoot your buddy's contorted face.

Audiences don't care about data rate, but they do care about artistry and that's my point.

You could achieve both of those with adaptors (2x and fisheye) on the EX1. In both of those instances, the advantage of a large sensor would be irrelevant. Obviously there is an optical advantage to using stills lenses vs the video lens plus adaptor, especially in the telephoto situation, but depending on what type of shooting you do, these may be considered exotic circumstances.

I am a little uncomfortable with the assertion that shallow depth of field=artistry, because many are taking it to an extreme these days and it has become the go-to visual cue to the point of distraction. Don't get me wrong, I'm investing heavily in DSLR technology as I like having the flexibility to use depth of field just as I always have shooting 35mm film, but I think a true artist is one who can make beautiful results with any gauge of media, which has everything to do with lighting, framing, camera movement (or lack thereof) etc. rather than control of focus.

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

Also, your point that the same lens in front of an Arri, a RED1 or a 7D will produce different results is a misnomer. Film and RED will have more detail and more color depth, but optically they will look very similar.

Can't resist the grammatical cheap shot, but using the term "misnomer" in that sentence is itself something of a misnomer! You were debating an argument, not a label...

Liam, I think you clarified your original argument ("The lens is the single most important component of any camera system") to some degree in the subsequent post, but because it may cause some confusion, let's clarify it further: if one is championing the depth of field characteristic of one camera over another, the single defining factor of this will be the sensor size, not the lens itself. Mounting a 50mm still lens (via simple mating adaptor) onto a 1/3" camera will not produce a result significantly different than setting the stock zoom to 50mm, particularly in regards to field of view and depth of field. That same lens mounted on a large sensor camera like a 5D/7D will have the same depth of field but a much wider field of view.

While I enjoy the benefits of a large sensor camera, I do feel limited by some of the current issues with the DSLR's, such as the ability to ride the iris, the unpredictable rendition of skin tones, the limited overcrank rate and associated issues with shooting 720p which relate to the biggest one of all: the aliasing/moire issue, which can force one to have to modify a perfectly good shot. Talk about limiting one's artistry! Even though it has its limitations, the EX1 wins out in most if not all of these areas.

[Liam Hall]

Charles, I wholeheartedly agree that a true artist will make any gauge of media work for them and I also agree skin tones suck on the 7D and there are many other failings.

Also, I'm not arguing the case for Shallow depth of field per se; indeed going through the rushes today of a shoot I did on Friday I really like the look produced by the Tokina 11-16mm - wide, sharp and crisp.

Don't get me wrong, there're plenty of reasons not to shoot on a DSLR, but it is worth noting the good points too. Like the wide availability of quality glass and the larger sensor allowing for a more pleasing perspective - and not having to use an adapter.

I agree shallow depth field is overdone these days and often used poorly or lazily, but I also know that when I have two minutes to light and frame an interview I can quickly achieve stunning results with a Canon 85mm f/1.2 and a window.

I'm getting my EX1 out of its bag less and less these days as I learn how to consistently get great results with the 7D. In fact, I doubt I'll be taking the EX1 on a shoot in Pakistan and Indonesia next month and will go with two 7Ds and a 5D instead - though I'm still debating if I'm mad or not. I guess you can decide that:)

[Jon Fairhurst]

What are you seeing in the skin tones? Is it a color balance issue? Too warm/cool/green/magenta? Or is it a noise reduction issue with a plastic feel? Is it better/worse in daylight/tungsten/fluorescent?

I have my own feeling about it, but I haven't seen much discussed and would like to hear about what others are seeing - especially if they have strong opinions about it.

[Senad Svraka]

Originally Posted by Liam Hall

I agree with you that the EX1 is a great camera, more than good enough to accomplish what most people need.

Well, that's pretty much what I wanted to say. If the OP needs to achieve a certain look that cannot be achieved with an EX camera, he can go for a T2 and some special lenses to achieve that look. How many times will that be? He is the only one to know what his needs are.

Re DOF, normally I would NOT shoot with any lens opened to it's max aperture, especially if it's a 1,4 or 1,8, unless I have no choice (not enough light, so must open wide), or I really want to get softer image and shallow DOF. The focusing becomes then a real issue. One should better take his time to focus properly and check twice.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge, the Red 1 has a chip that is smaller than the 35mm film frame, so optically they cannot produce the same results with the same lens.

Artistry matters, of course, there's no point arguing that.

I'm currently fighting a dilemma myself about going for a DSLR or a consumer grade videocam for my next project. I need lightweight and small but if that weren't the case, I would go with an EX with no hesitation.

Cheers.
Senad

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

What are you seeing in the skin tones? Is it a color balance issue? Too warm/cool/green/magenta? Or is it a noise reduction issue with a plastic feel? Is it better/worse in daylight/tungsten/fluorescent?

I have my own feeling about it, but I haven't seen much discussed and would like to hear about what others are seeing - especially if they have strong opinions about it.

Yellow. Lots of yellow.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Yellow? Add iron to your actors' diets...

I would think that it's worse under fluorescent lights than daylight. Have you tried WB Shift? You could add a touch of blue to the standard WB.

Also, do you find that the yellow tint is a problem after grading?

Personally, I find that skin can get plastic looking if its exposed on the high side. I hear that the new firmware has less noise reduction, so maybe that will help. Magic Lantern has a 0xb000 zebra setting for skin tones (69%), but that's a bit hot for my tastes. I have a new Marshal monitor, and I have heard that the skin setting for false colors is at 55%. That's a bit cold.

Where is baby bear's porridge when you need it? ;)

[Mike Calla]

Originally Posted by Roger Shealy

If going the DSLR route, I recommend the T2i over the 7D for video (I have a 7D and T2i). For movies I find them essentially equal, none of the conveniences of the 7D are worth the extra $1,000 in my book

A while back i wrote a post about canceling a shoot because of rain - after doing some research, but most of all talking to pros at my local pro photography mall - my fears have subsided completely!

Two weeks ago i was shooting under a threatening sky, which in turn became a torrential, side ways down pour, with nothing but a shower cap over the lens' glass to keep the rain off. i completed the scripted scenes in about an hour and a half. LIFESAVER!

That shoot paid for the camera(ok, it was already paid for but you get the idea). Rain jackets are fine, used them with my Sony in the past...but a torrential downpour is something that i would have avoided like the plague with a regular camera, where one drop of water, or even the humidity can cause grave problems. I love the fact that the 7D is weather resistant (not "proof" mind you).

So like me if you are shooting in an erratic climate, the 7D might save the day. If not, then yes, the T2i is proving to be an equal for vids.

[Charles Papert]

What I'm seeing in the skin tones is certainly aggravated by (even slight) overexposure for sure, and it tends to happen with those who have pinker skin tones. It is indeed a plastic look to the point of a loss of detail. Even at equivalent exposures, those with olive or darker complexions seem to reproduce better. In fact, I've found that these cameras seem to reproduce African-American skin tones better than many other cameras I've used.

One of the "feelings" that I have is that when I have used the WB shift feature particularly by adding magenta (to offset a green cast in the lighting, i.e. from fluorescent), the skin tones really go out of whack. Mathematically this should work out and it would with most cameras, but the Canons seem to have problems in this area. I plan to shoot some tests with steadily increasing levels of green and magenta coupled with countering adjustments within camera and see what happens.

[Mike Calla]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

(...)the unpredictable rendition of skin tones(...)

Well this is very interesting, i shoot in Asia (China), the skin tones vary widely, from white as rice to red farmers neck skin tones...

Haven't seen anything jump out at me...yet...as I bang on wood. Got a shoot tomorrow morn, and my talent definitely has a yellow-olive skin tone already... I got stills and a few minutes of test footage of her on location, but i can't upload to dvinfo (China again).

Charles, i wish i could understand or have the experience with cameras the way you do and you're the proiest pro here so let us know your results when you have time:)

[Liam Hall]

I agree Charles, if you overexpose even just a little the shot becomes unusable. But if you get it right the shot can look natural. The trick I find is to keep control of the highlights - particularly in the red channel. If you blow the red channel you'll always have terrible looking skin.

These frame grabs are from some run and gun interviews I did the other day, all had a basic preset WB. All look fairly poor up close (too much yellow), but should scrub up fine with a little color correction.

[Charles Papert]

Good points about the red channel, Liam.

I just posted a link to a series of corporate videos that I worked on with Vincent Laforet:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/show-you...ml#post1504742

I was quite pleased with the skin tone rendition on this one: YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Anthony E. Hargrove
But disappointed on these:
YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Expanded Eligibility
YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Employees

Both the lady in the first one and the security guard in the second had quite pink complexions and they often reproduced poorly. The lady in particular was quite pale and it appeared that due to miscalibrated monitors we overexposed her slightly, but the results were different than I would expect from most cameras--as Liam indicated, any amount of exposure in red highlights is a disaster.

I'm now using an HP Dreamcolor monitor on set to ensure the WYSIWYG factor for these types of shoots.

[Corey Benoit]

do you guys know where i can find the tripod camera back plate for this tripod? i lost the one that came with it...screws on to the camera, and clips and locks in...

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/240474-REG/Canon_6195A003_Deluxe_Tripod_200_Quick.html

[Liam Hall]

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Good points about the red channel, Liam.

I just posted a link to a series of corporate videos that I worked on with Vincent Laforet:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/show-you...ml#post1504742

I was quite pleased with the skin tone rendition on this one: YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Anthony E. Hargrove
But disappointed on these:
YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Expanded Eligibility
YouTube - USAA 2009 Report to Members: Employees

Both the lady in the first one and the security guard in the second had quite pink complexions and they often reproduced poorly. The lady in particular was quite pale and it appeared that due to miscalibrated monitors we overexposed her slightly, but the results were different than I would expect from most cameras--as Liam indicated, any amount of exposure in red highlights is a disaster.

I'm now using an HP Dreamcolor monitor on set to ensure the WYSIWYG factor for these types of shoots.

Great work Charles, I see your point about the skin tones, but I think the filmmaking skills more than make up it.