Whenever I see a short film by a DSLR like a canon t2i, I can pretty much tell that it wasn't shot on a professional camera. Something about it makes it look digital. This is why I asked this question. I need to know what that something is. If you compare the 1080p 24p video quality on a canon t2i to the 1080p 24p video on a Red One (or other professional camcorder) camera, what makes the red one look so much better?? It's the same video quality and frame rate. And if the shutter speed/aperture/iso were all exactly the same, what makes them different? And how is it so easy to tell the difference? When I see raw video from the red one compared to raw data from the t2i the red one footage automatically looks more film-like. Why???
Difference between DSLR video and professional camcorder video?
- Thread starter xxbluejay21
- Start date
These cameras do not exist in a vacuum. The video you see from a T2i is most likely made by a filmmaker with very limited resources, and probably a tiny, inexperienced crew. Whereas the video you see from the Red is most likely made by a filmmaker with at least a little to spend, better lighting gear, and more importantly, professionals who know how to use it.
That's not to say that there isn't a BIG difference between the Red and the T2i. I'm just saying that, based on your question, I think you're probably noticing things that are more relevant to the people using the equipment, than the equipment itself.
Also, the Red is not a camcorder.
That's not to say that there isn't a BIG difference between the Red and the T2i. I'm just saying that, based on your question, I think you're probably noticing things that are more relevant to the people using the equipment, than the equipment itself.
Also, the Red is not a camcorder.
I'll bet if anyone saw two films where significant money was spent on the production, not including camera and lenses, they would not be able to tell the difference.
I say this because ive seen films made on the RED and on DSLR's between which i could not tell the difference and more importantly, i wasnt even thinking about the camera bc i was involved in the story.
EDIT: In Murdock's words, Hello and welcome!
I say this because ive seen films made on the RED and on DSLR's between which i could not tell the difference and more importantly, i wasnt even thinking about the camera bc i was involved in the story.
EDIT: In Murdock's words, Hello and welcome!
How about "Black Swan" and "Iron Man 2"? Both used Canon DSLR, in select scenes. Once you know which shots they're used for, it makes perfect sense. However, without prior knowledge, I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference.
There's a couple things I can think of that can explain this. The first one being is the lens that they may be using. Typically, films that use a RED are of a higher budget and you can certainly expect to see some high-end lenses to accompany that beast. As for the DSLR, filmmakers that use that may not have as much of a high-end camera rig as the filmmakers using a RED, therefore their lenses aren't going to be of as optimum quality.
Another possibility that I can think of but am less confident about is the type of CCD chip that is inside the camera that could possibly affect the outcome of the RAW digital file.
Another possibility that I can think of but am less confident about is the type of CCD chip that is inside the camera that could possibly affect the outcome of the RAW digital file.
Thank you for your support. These are trying times for all of us, and we have to stick together.
If you're interested in such stuff, most of House Season 6 finale was filmed on 5D's.
How about "Black Swan" and "Iron Man 2"? Both used Canon DSLR, in select scenes. Once you know which shots they're used for, it makes perfect sense. However, without prior knowledge, I'd challenge anybody to tell the difference.
Exactly, I saw both and I don't know which scenes you are talking about. It's probably forbidden for me to say this but perhaps the Canon T2i is the new RED. Someone mentioned on another thread about the RED having better color than DSLRs, but if the T2i should be fine, depending on what type of look you want for your film.
You are correct. It is forbidden for you to say that. Because it's not even slightly close to being true.
If there's ever a North American IndieTalk meetup, I demand there is a wrestling match between harmonica and Nate North, with them wearing Canon T2i and RED Epic costumes respectively. Smackdown!
I'm going to add a third factor to the mix, as well as budget and compression - taste. Cinematographers are employed for (amongst other things) their good taste and their ability to make the images they capture look like the images in their/the director's head.
The majority of cinematographers shooting on RED (but certainly not all of them) have been paid to do so because their work is of a high standard, whereas the majority of cinematographers shooting with Canon DSLRs (but certainly not all of them) are working on personal projects in their own time.
If there's anything the DSLR revolution has taught us it's that while money can buy you several 5D bodies, a slider and a complete set of Canon L lenses, money can't buy you taste (and the skill to put that taste to use).
I've got my money on h44. He would question NN to death.