Last edited:
Shooting HD video using DSLR instead of video camera.
- Thread starter Eddie Current
- Start date
Just curious are you saying that XDCAM and Canon H264 gives you the same results? I have not tried Canon H264 but with H.264 files, it is a pain even to create a clean matte.
XDCAM is a little better from my experience. I'm wondering if I'm missing something.
Clean matte? You mean keying footage? Or do you mean the nature of the compressed H264 file?
I generally prefer Canon DSLR over XDCAM (EX1 and 3, no chance to work with the bigger XDCAM HD yet), noise level holds much better and of course the the depth of field.
Then again, a CMOS DSLR can't match up with CCD cameras for most field work actually, aside from missing zoom functions. That remains a challenge for my colleagues who are enthusiastically picking up the DSLR; to think about the shot to achieve, not pan around unnecessarily etc.
Nope you're not missing anything.
Even XDCAM EX or 422 HD is quite painful to key cleanly just because it's a long GOP compression.
Best affordable solution for decent key is P2 shooting DVCProHD. Not even AVC-intra based on my experience. Of course it's the best solution apart from using HDCAM or HDCAM SR which is exorbitant in price.
Other solution is to use seperate recorders to record to intraframe based ProRES422 via the camera's HDSDI output. It's the best next to working uncompressed.
Hi, Can you guys post some video-work to illustrate what you're discussing?
And I don't mean sample shots only...
Thanks a Lot
And I don't mean sample shots only...
Thanks a Lot
Here's a good demo (not likely a codec issue) on the limitations of using HDSLR with sensors that are not optimised for video.
http://www.fxguide.com/qt/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/5DvsF3_H264s31.mov
Skewing is quite obvious and the moire/aliasing is unacceptable to me.
To me HDSLRs are just an interim solution just like DoF adaptors. With compressed leadtimes for product development, they are just not worth the trouble. The cameras themselves are fine but when you count the cost of all the support equipment to get it working properly, I think you're better off saving that money for proper equipment that will last longer for better ROI.
http://www.fxguide.com/qt/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/5DvsF3_H264s31.mov
Skewing is quite obvious and the moire/aliasing is unacceptable to me.
To me HDSLRs are just an interim solution just like DoF adaptors. With compressed leadtimes for product development, they are just not worth the trouble. The cameras themselves are fine but when you count the cost of all the support equipment to get it working properly, I think you're better off saving that money for proper equipment that will last longer for better ROI.
How about comparing it on a price point.
How much would a Video camera cost that can achieve the high ISO and depth of field which the 7D/5D can get?
Maybe if the distance isn't too far, DSLR shoots who loves the ISO and depth of field can save up to move on to true RAW HD cameras.
How much would a Video camera cost that can achieve the high ISO and depth of field which the 7D/5D can get?
Maybe if the distance isn't too far, DSLR shoots who loves the ISO and depth of field can save up to move on to true RAW HD cameras.
Red MX - USD25k body only
it rates at ISO 800
if you're looking for quick turn around edits, red is not an option at this point in time. mainly because the new red color science is not recognised by quicktime yet. so u will require some time to transcode or rebuild the proxies to your liking.
i think we shouldn't discount the power of video DSLRs too soon. having messed around with both types of cams heres my observations. and i will not go into technical aspects because we argue till the cows come home about comparison test and compression formats.
1: internet killed the tv star - lets face it how many of actually watch much tv anymore? if we do its either bit toorrented dramas or that dinner time space filler. almost 80% of our clients are producing vids for the web or some kind of file based platform. and like we've mentioned dslrs are great for this. so this really depends on what kind of business you're in.
2: price point: but not price point of the camera but the price we set for our work. most clients can't really tell the difference of a 4k r3d or a 1920 h264. so what gives us the leverage of charging more to shoot on higher end cams when the client doesn't see the difference?
3. buzz worthy: client are actually excited to see 7ds on set, canons marketing has made dslrs a kind of gimic of the filmmaking world and no one loves a gimic more then clients.
4. fatigue. unless we're talking about the Epic, the redone is around 10-15kg+ with a full rig. and in a small crew situation it can get very tiring to move the camera around. what this does is actually be a barrier to our creativity on set. with the 7d the small size actually breeds creativity, we're willing to try more.
that said RED stills rocks when the situation is right. and being able to change meta data is amazing. raw is war, just watch The Social Network.
it rates at ISO 800
if you're looking for quick turn around edits, red is not an option at this point in time. mainly because the new red color science is not recognised by quicktime yet. so u will require some time to transcode or rebuild the proxies to your liking.
i think we shouldn't discount the power of video DSLRs too soon. having messed around with both types of cams heres my observations. and i will not go into technical aspects because we argue till the cows come home about comparison test and compression formats.
1: internet killed the tv star - lets face it how many of actually watch much tv anymore? if we do its either bit toorrented dramas or that dinner time space filler. almost 80% of our clients are producing vids for the web or some kind of file based platform. and like we've mentioned dslrs are great for this. so this really depends on what kind of business you're in.
2: price point: but not price point of the camera but the price we set for our work. most clients can't really tell the difference of a 4k r3d or a 1920 h264. so what gives us the leverage of charging more to shoot on higher end cams when the client doesn't see the difference?
3. buzz worthy: client are actually excited to see 7ds on set, canons marketing has made dslrs a kind of gimic of the filmmaking world and no one loves a gimic more then clients.
4. fatigue. unless we're talking about the Epic, the redone is around 10-15kg+ with a full rig. and in a small crew situation it can get very tiring to move the camera around. what this does is actually be a barrier to our creativity on set. with the 7d the small size actually breeds creativity, we're willing to try more.
that said RED stills rocks when the situation is right. and being able to change meta data is amazing. raw is war, just watch The Social Network.
How about 1 step lower than the RED ...
Looking at Pana AF100 / Sony NEX FS100 ... How do they compare to the DSLRs? Seems like its closing the gap ...
The price is around $7000-$9000? Excluding lenses ... Is it worth double/triple the price of a 5D?
Looking at Pana AF100 / Sony NEX FS100 ... How do they compare to the DSLRs? Seems like its closing the gap ...
The price is around $7000-$9000? Excluding lenses ... Is it worth double/triple the price of a 5D?
Nowadays front end sensors and interchangable lenses are no longer that much of a consideration for choice of camera, but i think it is the recording format that one should carefully think about.
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102AVCHD.pct
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102PRORESHQ.pct
(Right click to download image)
The above links is a test I've done to let fellow videographers to witness the difference in compressional quality between AVCHD vs ProRESHQ video codecs.
AVCHD still frame grab was acquired native from Panasonic AF102.
ProRESHQ Still frame grab was acquired with Ki Pro Mini using the AF102's direct HDSDI output.
If you think you're able to accept the differences in quality and that your clients doesn't mind, then it's definitely worth using the equipment.
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102AVCHD.pct
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102PRORESHQ.pct
(Right click to download image)
The above links is a test I've done to let fellow videographers to witness the difference in compressional quality between AVCHD vs ProRESHQ video codecs.
AVCHD still frame grab was acquired native from Panasonic AF102.
ProRESHQ Still frame grab was acquired with Ki Pro Mini using the AF102's direct HDSDI output.
If you think you're able to accept the differences in quality and that your clients doesn't mind, then it's definitely worth using the equipment.
Last edited:
Shot with the Pana-AF last week, pretty nice camera, especially with a nice lens on it, and the DOF is not so unnatural as the 5d, doesn't handle highlights that well but we can live with that. The NEX should be great camera too. I think both are great options going beyond the DSLR budget.
Nowadays front end sensors and interchangable lenses are no longer that much of a consideration for choice of camera, but i think it is the recording format that one should carefully think about.
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102AVCHD.pct
http://www.dxnmedia.net/AF102PRORESHQ.pct
(Right click to download image)
The above links is a test I've done to let fellow videographers to witness the difference in compressional quality between AVCHD vs ProRESHQ video codecs.
AVCHD still frame grab was acquired native from Panasonic AF102.
ProRESHQ Still frame grab was acquired with Ki Pro Mini using the AF102's direct HDSDI output.
If you think you're able to accept the differences in quality and that your clients doesn't mind, then it's definitely worth using the equipment.
honestly i don't really see much difference in the two, yes the grain in the AVC HD is more apparent especially in the mids and the sky maybe has .005 more detail in the ProRes and one tree moved. but its pretty negligible. am i alone in this opinion. no offense to you and thanks for taking time out to do the test.
i dun think my civil service client will notice the difference.
Observe the color banding problems in the avchd frame.
To me, that kind of quality isnt acceptable.
To me, that kind of quality isnt acceptable.
I say use the right tools for the right job. Don't shoot on RED when you are only distributing it on the web, and likewise, don't think that some hot shot Dop in the United States of America is shooting a series on 5D2 and you should all flood our precious one and only TV station with your Canon 5D2 ALIASING and MOIRE production and the ever increasing number of out of focus shot due to the 'superior' depth of field of your camera Btw, Dop like Shane Hulbert and the Dop of the series 'House' uses support rig and post production facilities that cost a lot of money. Their follow focus system probably cost 10 times the price of your 5D2.
Guys, have you seen a local programme broadcast on OKTO (hope I spelled it right) It's call Old Places or something and I think it's directed by a few local directors. I enjoyed the series btw
Ok here's the beef, I'm pretty sure it was shot on the 5D2 because it has the camera signature look, bokeh here bokeh there, bokeh everywhere. Seriously, the DSLR looks good when the framing is up close and tight but it's a different story when it's on a wide shot which obviously it has a lot more details in the frame. All you see is ugly aliasing, moire, color banding and codec breaking up in the images and it really look bad on TV.
Btw, Dop like Shane Hulbert and the Dop of the series 'House' uses support rig and post production facilities that cost a lot of money. Their follow focus system probably cost 10 times the price of your 5D2. Guys, have you seen a local programme broadcast on OKTO (hope I spelled it right) It's call Old Places or something and I think it's directed by a few local directors. I enjoyed the series btw
Ok here's the beef, I'm pretty sure it was shot on the 5D2 because it has the camera signature look, bokeh here bokeh there, bokeh everywhere. Seriously, the DSLR looks good when the framing is up close and tight but it's a different story when it's on a wide shot which obviously it has a lot more details in the frame. All you see is ugly aliasing, moire, color banding and codec breaking up in the images and it really look bad on TV.
why not shoot red for the web? why not shoot film for the web? if the budget is right anything is possible.
yup alot funny 5d looking stuff on tv these days but i think the audience is not as critical as us. i think tranfering to digi beta doesn't help but i don't know the science behind it.
shane halburt sometimes comes off as very gimicky, i dunno if he's shooting 5d just because he's trying to be a rebel or he really thinks that the camera is on par with other 35mm sensor cams.
yup alot funny 5d looking stuff on tv these days but i think the audience is not as critical as us. i think tranfering to digi beta doesn't help but i don't know the science behind it.
shane halburt sometimes comes off as very gimicky, i dunno if he's shooting 5d just because he's trying to be a rebel or he really thinks that the camera is on par with other 35mm sensor cams.
Having fiddled with a Vcam today, I must say that there are various pro's and con's of each system. My main opinion is that, handling wise, HDSLRs cannot come close, which is where most of the compromise lies. Exacerbated in fast paced environments, where you simply cannot rely on manual focus, manual zoom (non-motorised zoom), manual exposure, manual ND filter adjusting, non-'clickless' aperture control. Respect goes to you, if you can manage all that as fast as you can on a vcam.
That said, in a controlled environment where scenes can be replayed take after take, feel free to VDSLR your way, your style, according to requirements. Low light performance is it's main redemption, followed by shallow DOF, which may not even be necessary most of the time. It's biggest flaw: compression
PS: A properly rigged VDSLR (mount/cage/rig, follow focus, mike, field monitor, lights) can easily be heavier than most average broadcast vcams
That said, in a controlled environment where scenes can be replayed take after take, feel free to VDSLR your way, your style, according to requirements. Low light performance is it's main redemption, followed by shallow DOF, which may not even be necessary most of the time. It's biggest flaw: compression
PS: A properly rigged VDSLR (mount/cage/rig, follow focus, mike, field monitor, lights) can easily be heavier than most average broadcast vcams
Definitely agree with all you guys....right tool for the right job, but above all, right tools for the tight budget.
Speed in operation is definitely an important consideration...I do quite a fair bit of News/ENG & sports type of filming and there's no way a DSLR can help me deliver what my client need. Even for live multicamera applications, a proper videocamera is definitely more suitable than a DSLR. and to be frank, an ENG camera with a fast ENG lens can sometimes do wonders too. It's all about aperture & light control and knowing your tools and their limitations.
Speed in operation is definitely an important consideration...I do quite a fair bit of News/ENG & sports type of filming and there's no way a DSLR can help me deliver what my client need. Even for live multicamera applications, a proper videocamera is definitely more suitable than a DSLR. and to be frank, an ENG camera with a fast ENG lens can sometimes do wonders too. It's all about aperture & light control and knowing your tools and their limitations.
Similar threads
