DSLR Video

[jerry_curtis]

<p>I haven't done much video with my D90 or D7000, but I guess both of these cameras can do decent video.</p>

<p><a href="http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/freshdv/story/beautiful_music_video_shot_with_the_nikon_d90/">http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/freshdv/story/beautiful_music_video_shot_with_the_nikon_d90/</a></p>

[david_james12]

<p>They can, and as prosumer models I'm sure there are lots of suitable applications. However, from a professional perspective (Weddings UK), I only see videography at 5% of Cheshire weddings. The maufacturers hopes of a new mid ground have not bean realised.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What strikes me about that production (the behind the scenes stuff is interesting to watch) is that the camera itself is seriously minor part of what's going on, cost-wise. Even though that's minimally lit and whatnot, you're still looking at expensive lights, grip gear, a lot of man hours with that whole team and the musicians present, the access to the venue, and then a <em>lot</em> of hours doing post production work on spendy hardware and expensively licensed software, with the video hosted on a not-free (the way they're using it) server environment.<br /><br />Especially considering that isn't their first or last job, the cost of the D90 vs. more classical mid-range dedicated video gear is completely lost in the noise. It's nice work, though. But that's mostly because they had a plan and new what they wanted to do in post. But the tripod and head cost (a lot) more than the camera.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>I know that a couple local wedding photographers are mixing video and stills in 100% of their shoots now. One has an assistant go around with a little Oly Pen, and it shoots STUNNING video.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Here's my 720p video story; A couple of years ago my twin brother decided to buy the best flat screen TV he could find. He chose the Pioneer Elite 50" Plasma 1080p for $3000 US. It looked great. I was jealous with my 12 year old Sony 27" CRT that was limping along.</p>

<p>Shortly after we saw a 42" Panasonic Plasma 720p on sale for $640. I made a rash decision and bought it, which I could barely afford it, but it fit perfectly in my TV cabinet. We set it up and I could not believe how great the picture quality was. It took a couple of months for him a to admit that he made a mistake spending so much, that my Panasonic 720p looked just as good as his Pioneer 1080p.</p>

<p>A few months ago I bought two D300s bodies and did a very down and dirty test of the video by shooting my friend's band. I did some editing and played it for them on my TV, it looked absolutely great. Don't let anyone tell you that you HAVE TO have 1080p.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>What sits on the tripod looks to me like over $5k worth of support gear for the D90. It's a bit like astrophotography; the camera gets the shot but as Matt says, the camera's cost is an irrelevant fraction of the total effort. </p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>The maufacturers hopes of a new mid ground have not bean realised.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course it isn't, but only because the manufacturers have "hopes" of nothing of the sort? Seriously, have you got any quotes or references where manufacturers say that they're hoping for "a new mid ground"?</p>

<p>I'd assume that the manufacturers are hoping for only one thing, to sell more cameras by adding new features. Video is just one of those features, along with liveview, digital itself, autofocus, electronic viewfinders, or ever increasing resolutions, low light abilities, and shooting speeds. The fact that video features on DSLRs, compact P&S camera, and even phones has pretty much decimated the video camera market proves that the more aggressive development efforts of what used to be the "still" camera industry caught the video camera industry with their pants down. The video camera industry has experienced flat or decreasing sales in each of the last 7 years.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Especially considering that isn't their first or last job, the cost of the D90 vs. more classical mid-range dedicated video gear is completely lost in the noise. It's nice work, though. But that's mostly because they had a plan and new what they wanted to do in post.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think you've mistaken the significance of the DSLR gear in the music videos. It's precisely that the cost of the video gear (DSLR vs. camera) is such an insignificant part of the cost of a major production (especially one involving name actors or a popular band) that makes it interesting that production people are choosing the DSLRs. It means that, pretty much by accident, the DSLRs now outperform conventional video cameras. </p>

<p>I think that's mainly due to the total apathy of the video camera industry. Seriously, they don't invest as much in development, they're slow to adopt new technology, and they don't adapt to changing customer needs. That's why Flip was the only video camera company to experience substantial growth, albeit at the expense of other video camera makers, not at the expense of any other industry.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>DSLRs are capable of producing high-quality video, and may be sufficient for occasional use for personal photos and reportage. They have been used for feature movies and television productions, more because of the novelty than any particular advantage. The additional paraphenalia need for extended productions, including harnesses, external viewfinders, sound adapters and lenses, adds greatly to the cost. Conventional video cameras have many features not found in DSLRs which make the job much easier.</p>

<p>The key limitation for use of DSLRs for event videos is the maximum clip size of about 2GB, which limits the clip to between 5 and 8 minutes in length. That's 10 to 20 times the time you need for a television sound bite, more than enough for vacation clips, but not an uninterrupted video of a wedding service or concert. Clips in feature films and television (other than <em>The Office</em>), range from 10 to 15 seconds in length, using multiple cameras.</p>

<p>Video cameras have much better selection of shooting options, better auto focusing and exposure control, choice of viewfinders, including eye-level, and most important, location and accessibility of controls. I shoot and edit an average of 6 hours of video a week, much of it with two or more cameras. It has never occurred to me to use a DSLR for this work. If I allow myself a vacation, that might be different.</p>

[MichaelChang]

<p>Shallow depth of field was always considered the Holy Grail among many videographers who sought to do it with cumbersome 35mm adapters. Modern DSLR makes that possible, on the cheap, but at the expense of convenience (and cost, if you consider the peripherals necessary to make it work practically). </p>

<p>Anyone who shoots video now has a choice but each come with compromises. </p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>It means that, pretty much by accident, the DSLRs now outperform conventional video cameras.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They may offer better value (I'd agree with that for sure) but they don't out-perform HD video cameras. HD cameras can have three chips and their ergonomics are better laid out for motion photography. The 5DII sounds wonderful but in reality it isn't: its images are soft, barely records an effective 720 lines of resolution (S16mm can match 1080 and maybe a bit more with slower film stocks), has noticable rolling shutter and outputs to H.264. Now, if that doesn't matter, then neither does its large sensor. I prefer a quality image overall to one with a minimal DOF and poor resolution, but that's just me.</p>

[joseph_wisniewski]

<blockquote>

<p>Modern DSLR makes that possible, on the cheap, but at the expense of convenience (and cost, if you consider the peripherals necessary to make it work practically).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Equipment like a two rail rig, an external monitor, mics, audio recorder, etc. is necessary if you're doing a professional job with any kind of video gear. The expense is always with you, whether you're shooting DSLR or an older video camera.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>HD cameras can have three chips</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is a flaw, not an advantage.</p>

<ul>

<li>It requires lenses with longer backfocus (more space between the rear element and the plane of focus), which means more drastic retrofocus designs (even a normal is designed as a telephoto with a wide angle converter in front of it).</li>

<li>The dichroic beamsplitters aren't colorimetric (they spectral responses don't correspond to those of the human eye) so no matter how much "color math" you throw at it, you get strange crossovers (and the red/green crossover is where human skin colors occur) and observer metamerism problems (eyeshadow that matched the dress as seen by the eye of the makeup artist doesn't match the dress when seen by the camera). </li>

</ul>

<p>HD was what triggered the downfall of the 3 chip camera, by making the resolution high enough to reveal that the lenses were crud. Moving away from NTSC and PAL color showed how bad 3 chip camera color was. They had a niche, reportage in low light conditions. But they outlived their usefulness. There's a reason you don't see them in the highest end equipment (Red One, Panavision Genesis, etc).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and their ergonomics are better laid out for motion photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A common misconception.<br>

The camcorder has ergonomics that are descended from the movie camera. A fully loaded 35mm camera with lens, film magazine, battery packs, and focus puller could exceed 80 pounds. So, it was built to physically balance the film magazines, while placing everything else where the demands of a complex and temperamental shutter demanded. The film magazine shrank, then was replaced by 1 inch or 3/4 inch Betacam tape, 1/2 inch tape, 8mm tape, DV, and HD, but the form factor didn't change, and sales went flat for years, while surveys said some 80% of camcorders went into the closet after 2 years, never to be used again. Until...<br /><br />Pure Digital Technologies introduced the "Flip", with a flat rectangular box, lens on the big, flat front like a point and shoot camera, and in 3 years became a billion dollar company with the number 1 selling camcorder in the world.<br>

Then again, most still camera ergonomics aren't all that well suited to still photography.</p>

[Karim Ghantous]

<p>I take your point - I am not well versed in digital sensor engineering. I do know that 'broadcast quality' used to mean '3 chip' but as you said, things are different now. That doesn't make the DSLRs better (they're still sub-par from a professional POV), but it does bring to me a better understanding (I just thought that having 3 chips was too expensive!). Well now I have some homework to do. :-)</p>

<p>As to ergonomics, I base my assumptions on the half-remembered comments of working professionals. Not a formal survey so maybe I'm wrong (although any movie camera should allow you to mount an LCD). The reasons the Flip succeeded was that a) it took flash cards, b) it was cheap and c) it was small. The form factor necessarily followed from the design objective: as small as possible. Today's mobile phones (to prove your point) have made the Flip irrelevant.</p>

<p>Almost all Super-8 cameras had pistol grips. Bulky but effective. Maybe that is what is missing from DV cameras.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Then again, most still camera ergonomics aren't all that well suited to still photography.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I might have to agree there (e.g. filter threads suck; bayonet lens mounts are annoying).</p>