Shooting HD video using DSLR instead of video camera.

[Eddie Current]

The Canon 5D and 7D have been in the limelight lately for being THE camera in shooting HD videos. Yes, they are cheaper and smaller than the professional HD video cameras and companies are cutting cost. I feel that it is a slap in the face for video production. Can DSLR maintain the high audio and video quality demands in production? Really? Or cheap and fast production is the way to run things now. So I should consider the even cheaper Canon 3100D...

 

[HelmetBox]

Can DSLR maintain the high audio and video quality demands in production? Really?

As of now, the price range vs quality output for HDSLR is unmatched and can't be touched. In addition, the small footprint allow for new angles in creativity. It should be a welcome addition to a production set so why would it be a slap in the face?

 

[Bamboopictures]

DLSRs killed the 35mm adapter. But FF and micro4/3 camcorder will replace DSLR soon. For b-roll that don't require audio, I will stick with DSLR. In the end, cameras are just tools, the art is never cheapened.

 

[Eddie Current]

precisely, the price of DSLR is much lower than that of the video cousins.

 

[Bamboopictures]

That's wonderful right? Shallow DOF, interchangeable lens, cheap CF /SD card. Many models to choose from...Price so low, you will buy two just to avoid changing lens. BTW, Nikon 3100D does Motion Jpeg 24P in AVI wrapper. But Canons use H.264 Mpeg4 in MOV wrapper.

 

[Eddie Current]

Oops, my typo. It should be Nikon D3100. So its value for money huh.

 

[Eddie Current]

Anyway, I should see one shot in HDSLR. Just to compare.

 

[DXNMedia]

If you're just shooting, editing and viewing on computer / LCD screens, HDSLRs are just fine.
That's what HDSLRs are meant to be.

But once you go into the domain of video compositing, color grading and outputting for big screens and reputable broadcasters, the HDSLR recording formats just doesn't hold up.

Images are looking great, but there's not enough resolution & detail to manipulate.
Dynamic range, latitude & color may seem to be very good, but actually the video compression kills everything.

Exact analogy in photography is the capability to shoot in RAW or compressed JPEG.
To some, compressed JPG looks all great and good enough, but to others, it's not a good format to work with.

If it's good enough for your use, either for pleasure, fun, hobby or work that bring in the money, it'll be good enough.

 

[Eddie Current]

Hey thanks all for the input. Guess I am just lamenting that I have yet to see good local video production. And those on TV still can't make it. Jumping into getting cheaper equipment for production is one more reason for me to get depressed. Ha ha.

 

[Bamboopictures]

Cheer up bro. Place your order for a Sony F3 and be the envy of everyone here You can record 4:4:4 on a Cinedeck or Nanoflash. Don't forget to write a review!

 

[DXNMedia]

Cheer up bro. Place your order for a Sony F3 and be the envy of everyone here You can record 4:4:4 on a Cinedeck or Nanoflash. Don't forget to write a review!

i always like to use analogy of cars....

When you own a Toyota, you dream of a BMW/Merc...
When you own a BMW/Merc, you'll dream of a bentley/rolls.

When you already own a saloon car, you'll want an MPV or coupe.

Then you like speed and fast acceleration, and spend all that money on a WRX with full mods, and you realised that you could have bought a Skyline GTR with higher stock BHP.

Finally, you upgrade to a ferrari, and realised that it's not an everyday car to drive....

Then you like to go offroading and go buy a landrover, you realised that you're limited at 70kph in Singapore roads & have problems going across the causeway.

You need more cargo space for work, then you go buy a van, but realised that you cannot ferry your kids & family when you need to.

And in Singapore, it's not worthwhile to buy & own many types of cars....


Just buy one that you think best fits your budget, purpose & have the most potential for you to make back your investment.....I don't see why you should be depressed with the availability of cheaper equipment..... You buy a Lexus knowing that there's a Chery available out there...why did you still choose a Lexus?

Expensive equipment exists for a specific purpose & market too.

eg. Phantom camera....price tag?
got people want to use it? Not many....
Do you think those who have the need for it are paying peanuts to use it? Not likely.... ;p

 

[sibeiblur]

Can DSLR maintain the high audio and video quality demands in production? Really? Or cheap and fast production is the way to run things now. So I should consider the even cheaper Canon 3100D...

You should ask your client whether they can pay for your high audio and video quality? If they have budget only for handycam then handycam is good enough for them.

DSLR is god send for Singapore kind of production budget.:bsmilie: You can own all the top of the line HD camera but sometime client will only pay for your HD footage with SD budget. So my take is if you own high end gear then look for high end client that will pay and appreciate your gear.

But, if you are a super duper shooter, the type that client will 'kowtow' to you, then you can safely walk into any sets with your Canon 7D or whatever Ds, they will still pay you good $ and worship you. So maybe it's time to upgrade one's shooting and PR skill rather than camera :think:

 

[jhansolo]

if you are a super duper shooter, the type that client will 'kowtow' to you, then you can safely walk into any sets with your Canon 7D or whatever Ds, they will still pay you good $ and worship you. So maybe it's time to upgrade one's shooting and PR skill rather than camera :think:

it'll be good enough.

:thumbsup:

I heard a lot from the cable promo world that this is like the end of all ... I rather agree with the above comments. How can a single chip be compared to "proper" gears, for HD / SD or whatever... it is just good enough for poor budgets.

this gear fits your budget and it will make you $$$ to move on to the next level. That is more important than waiting forever for the next big thing. I give jobs to DOP or cameraman who are familiar with their (own) gears rather than one than have to spend an hour searching where the buttons are ...

"clients" who kowtow to vendor who work on less impressive gears and yet pay good $ ... I believe there are less of these clients now, most client I faced are more knowledgeable about gears than the understanding of what the creative demands.

 

[kartiq]

The production world is shifting to DSLR Kits for sure, but dedicated video cams are not going away. I have managed to shave 40-50% on production budgets when using a crew with DSLR's vs. using a P2 etc

 

[Reportage]

depends on the bitrate and video size needed, there will always be a market segment where video dslr will not cut it.

even a basic video with 25Mbps bitrate will be more detail then 6~12Mbps regardless the screen size. Especially if the video is intended for distribution.

 

[kabloooie]

But once you go into the domain of video compositing, color grading and outputting for big screens and reputable broadcasters, the HDSLR recording formats just doesn't hold up.

Images are looking great, but there's not enough resolution & detail to manipulate.
Dynamic range, latitude & color may seem to be very good, but actually the video compression kills everything.

That is so not true at all. So not true. There are hordes of film makers out there adopting HDSLR precisely for the amount of detail that it can churn out, Shane Hurlburt is just one of them, Lucasfilm adopts it, Philip Bloom produces content for BBC.

Dynamic range and latitude is simply achieved by manipulating camera functions, and it can be achieved on HDSLRs.

H264 wrapped MOVs are just a recording format; Canon DSLR churns out a whopping 40+mbits video data rate. If that isn't good enough, I wouldn't know which other camcorder would come close to this. And we haven't mentioned about ISO levels/gain comparison. At 40mbits I would hardly call it compressed at all.

In the same price class, I wouldn't know of a broadcast camcorder that would come so close to the phenomenal features of the Canon HDSLR, for the purpose of ENG work less that of EFP.

 

[DXNMedia]

That is so not true at all. So not true. There are hordes of film makers out there adopting HDSLR precisely for the amount of detail that it can churn out, Shane Hurlburt is just one of them, Lucasfilm adopts it, Philip Bloom produces content for BBC.

Dynamic range and latitude is simply achieved by manipulating camera functions, and it can be achieved on HDSLRs.

H264 wrapped MOVs are just a recording format; Canon DSLR churns out a whopping 40+mbits video data rate. If that isn't good enough, I wouldn't know which other camcorder would come close to this. And we haven't mentioned about ISO levels/gain comparison. At 40mbits I would hardly call it compressed at all.

In the same price class, I wouldn't know of a broadcast camcorder that would come so close to the phenomenal features of the Canon HDSLR, for the purpose of ENG work less that of EFP.

Of course if you're comparing price to quality output, there's no need to even compare.
Just take a RED vs. a 5DmkII for price comparison.
I would assume you haven't worked with real uncompressed HD footage before?
Try a side by side comparison of the quality on a high resolution broadcast monitor and you'll be convinced.
Ask any colorist and try doing color grading work from H264 footage and you'll understand what happens when there's no real data to work with.

In a pixel for pixel, bit per bit count, X amount of resolution will take up X amount of uncompressed storage space per frame. Taking away a Y amount of data up by means of compression and you'll get X-Y storage space per frame. The ratio of X/Y is so high, and that only means 1 thing....you have valuable data being discarded away no matter the amount of your bit rate, no matter the amount of latitude your sensor have.

All along, I agree that H264 is a very efficient codec.
If using HD-SLR is good enough for your applications, it's definitely good enough.
The guys or companies you mentioned all knows the pros & cons with HD-SLR. They use the cameras for a specific output requirement with a specific recording workflow to optimise the use of the front end sensor with great choices of lenses variety.

Understand the tools of your trade. :thumbsup:

 

[kabloooie]

Of course if you're comparing price to quality output, there's no need to even compare.
I would assume you haven't worked with real uncompressed HD footage before?
Try a side by side comparison of the quality on a high resolution broadcast monitor and you'll be convinced.
Ask any colorist and try doing color grading work from H264 footage and you'll understand what happens when there's no real data to work with.
:

If price to quality output is not a rational thing to think about, then I honestly do not comprehend how and what you're comparing with. It's like your analogy of cars; it's obvious that you're doing a bean count of something way more higher end (digital cinema camera) to the more affordable end (HD DSLR).

I've worked with RED footage before, I have a broadcast monitor too. I am a newly learnt practicing colorist myself, nowhere near the realm of ****-hot colorists, and I've worked with just a few formats like XDCAM AVC-Intra RED and Canon H264 for the sole purpose of comparison and pushing the footage as much as I can.

H264 natively doesn't hold anything, it's only after transcoding that there "seems" to have information to work with. It's not really as bad as you make it sound to be. Then again of course, once you're in the realm of using ARRIs or REDs for your work, it's quite normal to dismiss anything that doesn't cost expensive enough to deliver "expensive" high-end shots. It's really normal and I can totally understand that.

No one likes to fumble with a tiny DSLR when we're so used to the grip that a video camera offers, not to mention the bells and whistles that a video camera offers over a hybrid SLR. But if the footage is good, I don't see anything else against it other than a mindset shift and adopting new methods for production.

I do understand the tools of the trade, and I'm continuously learning. And I still do not know the basis of your comparison. But if you're comparing HD (only) footage off a video camera like an EX1 or EX3 wired to a nanoflash for higher bit rates and chroma subsampling vs a naked 5DMk2, then it's perhaps something meaningful to discuss and debate about.

:thumbsup:

 

[DXNMedia]

Precisely my point.....what is there to even compare about?

A HDSLR with H.264 native on-board recording cannot be compared with a RED shooting RAW.
Even a HDSLR equipped with an Intra-based recorder like the Aja Ki Pro will bring the price point up to something close to an Intra-based ENG camera.

It's good to know fellow forumers here like yourself have experience using various broadcast video formats, but in your earlier posting to counter the fact that I am stating:

That is so not true at all. So not true. There are hordes of film makers out there adopting HDSLR precisely for the amount of detail that it can churn out, Shane Hurlburt is just one of them, Lucasfilm adopts it, Philip Bloom produces content for BBC.

Dynamic range and latitude is simply achieved by manipulating camera functions, and it can be achieved on HDSLRs.

H264 wrapped MOVs are just a recording format; Canon DSLR churns out a whopping 40+mbits video data rate. If that isn't good enough, I wouldn't know which other camcorder would come close to this. And we haven't mentioned about ISO levels/gain comparison. At 40mbits I would hardly call it compressed at all.

To say that H.264 is hardly compressed is pretty misleading.
The fact is that H.264 is very highly & very efficiently compressed.

Sensor sizes, lenses, and imaging processors aside, compressed footage is compressed...
Even ProRES, XDCAM, AVC-Intra, DVCProHD are compressed at different levels.
Long GOP, interframe based compression like the H.264 is even more compressed.
But who doesn't work with compressed video nowadays unless you're in Hollywood or doing lots of special effects & compositing work?

Broadcast TV, satellite transmission delivery is compressed. Even digital cinema for projection is compressed.
:thumbsup:

Best way for testing is to shoot a blue sky with some white cloud details with exposure levels at about 95% peak, do a very slow pan in the footage, a slightly faster one. (not whip pans please!) Compare the footage during movements & non-movements. Observe the compression blocks and color bandings. Another bad characteristic of H.264 footage is in the black areas. You can never ever get a clean & noise-free blacks in H264 footage not because of the sensor, but the nature of the H264 variable bitrate algorithm is to detect for image changes and thus you get lots of compressional noise.

In my opinion and observations, I also maintain that a fixed bitrate recording format is less obtrusive to the trained eye as compared to variable bit rate recording.
Please do share your observations when you get the chance to compare too. :thumbsup:

At the end of the day, whatever it is, if it works for you & your clients, it works.
Gets you from point A to point B no matter what car you drive.

 

[mnjohar]

Precisely my point.....what is there to even compare about?

A HDSLR with H.264 native on-board recording cannot be compared with a RED shooting RAW.
Even a HDSLR equipped with an Intra-based recorder like the Aja Ki Pro will bring the price point up to something close to an Intra-based ENG camera.

It's good to know fellow forumers here like yourself have experience using various broadcast video formats, but in your earlier posting to counter the fact that I am stating:




To say that H.264 is hardly compressed is pretty misleading.
The fact is that H.264 is very highly & very efficiently compressed.

Sensor sizes, lenses, and imaging processors aside, compressed footage is compressed...
Even ProRES, XDCAM, AVC-Intra, DVCProHD are compressed at different levels.
Long GOP, interframe based compression like the H.264 is even more compressed.
But who doesn't work with compressed video nowadays unless you're in Hollywood or doing lots of special effects & compositing work?

Broadcast TV, satellite transmission delivery is compressed. Even digital cinema for projection is compressed.
:thumbsup:

Best way for testing is to shoot a blue sky with some white cloud details with exposure levels at about 95% peak, do a very slow pan in the footage, a slightly faster one. (not whip pans please!) Compare the footage during movements & non-movements. Observe the compression blocks and color bandings. Another bad characteristic of H.264 footage is in the black areas. You can never ever get a clean & noise-free blacks in H264 footage not because of the sensor, but the nature of the H264 variable bitrate algorithm is to detect for image changes and thus you get lots of compressional noise.

In my opinion and observations, I also maintain that a fixed bitrate recording format is less obtrusive to the trained eye as compared to variable bit rate recording.
Please do share your observations when you get the chance to compare too. :thumbsup:

At the end of the day, whatever it is, if it works for you & your clients, it works.
Gets you from point A to point B no matter what car you drive.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::100% agreed.