

Why We Are Thoroughly Embarrassed to Be Shooting Video with DSLRs - merrick33
http://www.canonfilmmakers.com/2010/06/why-we-are-thoroughly-embarrassed-to-be.html

======
wmf
It looks like the disruptor doesn't like being disrupted. While Jannard is
taking years to get Scarlet right, his "worse is better" competitors Canon,
Nikon, and Panasonic are eating his market out from under him.

Here's Jannard's original rant:
[http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount...](http://reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=615431&postcount=266)

Commentary from a prominent DSLR cinematographer:
[http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-
has-...](http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2010/06/17/hddslr-vs-red-has-war-been-
declared/)

A technical discussion about "line skipping" vs. "binning" (averaging):
[http://luminous-
landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=3871...](http://luminous-
landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=38713)

------
freescale
For an alternative take on why DSLR video is fine for large Hollywood
productions but not for amateur use:

<http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii/video.htm>

~~~
anigbrowl
Rockwell is weird. Nobody in Indie production uses autoficus because even on
pro camcorders like Vatican's it looks awful for most narrative work.

You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film
camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.

~~~
barrkel
Not to speak up too strongly for Rockwell (I think he has certain biases), but
you are actually arguing his point. He says that nobody in Hollywood uses
autofocus because it's rehearsed and it's the focus-puller's job, and that's
precisely why autofocus is handier for home video.

~~~
zokier
But the whole point is that video DSLR's are aimed at amateur/indie film
makers, not home video shooters. And Rockwell completely misses that, claiming
that manual focus cameras are useful only in Hollywood-scale productions.

~~~
jasonlotito
>For use by a single photographer, you can't get DSLRs to focus on things that
move. If you can't shoot things that move, then why are you trying to shoot
video? Video and movies need to track focus on things that move; that's the
whole point.

>When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark
II, I still carry a real camcorder!

That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.

~~~
zokier
He's also saying:

"If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a
call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a
focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your
Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs."

and

"If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special
Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR.

DSLR video is for serious professional production, which is why you'll see it
promoted as being used on big productions."

I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but
that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood
productions.

~~~
jasonlotito
It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions.
Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people,
he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew
of multiple people.

The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For
more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.

> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but
> that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood
> productions.

I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.

~~~
anigbrowl
Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of
their kids.

People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual
focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of
adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.

------
Keyframe
Sorry to weigh in like this, but both sides are equally right/wrong and
stupid. Cameras are just like programming languages, just tools. Some cameras
are great for one thing, while they suck for another thing. You make decision
based of your shot list you have to make, plan for lights accordingly and
thats it. Whining and "one tool to rule them all" doesn't help when job is
about to be done.

One thing I've noticed though with smaller "toy sized" cameras is that actors
don't like them. Yes. At least most of them (especially ones without stage
experience). They tend to use camera bulk as a viewing audience, and I found
an easy and cheap way to fix this. Just slap a huge matte box on camera and
that's it. Psychology is a funny thing.

------
omouse
Appeal to popularity, appeal to $$$. Not much of a rebuttal :/

~~~
zweben
There wasn't much to rebut in the first place.

------
zokier
Whats lineskipping?

~~~
merrick33
Take a look at the 54-59 second mark on this video:

<http://vimeo.com/8186279>.

Look at the chest area of the guy wearing a striped shirt to the right of girl
in shorts. You'll notice the stripes look weird and are morphing. It's
referred to as aliasing as well.

~~~
CamperBob
In addition to the temporal artifacts, there's some strange stuff happening
with color in this video as well. Why does the track surface look like it was
shot on an NTSC camcorder, for instance? Or is the dirt in Singapore cyan-
tinted?

The low-light performance is fine, I guess, but there still seem to be a ton
of compromises in the hardware.

------
ethan
Nice rant, but doesn't really address the validity of using DSLRs for video...

------
clistctrl
Not a cannon, but i'm really excited to get my Panasonic GH1 on Monday. Its
incredible to be able to afford a device with this much potential. First test
will be in Costa Rica when I fly out there with my girl friend on Wednesday!

([http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-
Interc...](http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-DMC-GH1-12-1MP-Thirds-
Interchangeable/dp/B001WAKSCW))

------
jrockway
Someone on the internet made fun of the author, and the author rebuts this by
saying that he gets paid to do it.

Who cares?

~~~
anigbrowl
No...someone with a very good product which they have been promising will
become the New Industry Standard did not make fun of, but rather trashed the
professionalism of everyone who is getting stuff done with alternative
products that are technically somewhat inferior but also much cheaper and more
accessible.

It's a seismic shift in the video industry, comparable to the shift away from
mainframes to COTS.

