cinematography DSLR vs. HDV

Henry Spencer

Henry Spencer

I own a Sony A1E and I've enjoyed using it over the last couple of years.

Although I have been impressed with the images, it has never given me the depth of focus I desire. And it needs an awful lot of light to create good images

Of course, I could splash out on a more expensive video camera and get the depth of focus I would like, but that really isn't an option for me at the moment

Now, I'm seeing these short films, made with hardly any additional lighting, and shot exclusively on DSLRs, and I've been very impressed with the image quality, and their performance in low light. And they don't seem that expensive either. I could sell my video camera, which I bought second hand, and replace it with a brand new DSLR (give or take some pounds here and there ;) )

Indeed, both pieces of hardware have their pros and cons, but what would people recommend?

I know a camera is more than the depth of focus, but the quality of the image just can't be ignored!!! I'm having to find more and more imaginative methods to create my DOF; more often than not, I spend most of my time trying to make sure that the entire frame ISNT in focus!!! :hmm: But then again, the process of trying to find new and interesting ways to get the image is rewarding in itself

As you can see form my rambling, I really don't know what I want!!!
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
I'm assuming you've already checked out a few of the previous threads showcasing the 7D/5D's.

There's a lot of here and there, but be sure to route through past posts, especially if you're looking to shoot anything beyond short films with the DSLR's, there's a guy putting together a feature who I've asked to let us know how it goes down. Really stoked to see how it performed.

We've recently purchased a 5D, minus the sound issue, they're really tight. Record your sound seperately.

You can give it a test run once we work something out, see if you're comfortable with it. I'm seeing the guys tomorrow so I'll email you to riff something together and see how we can help each other out.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Papertwinproductions said:
I'm assuming you've already checked out a few of the previous threads showcasing the 7D/5D's.

There's a lot of here and there, but be sure to route through past posts, especially if you're looking to shoot anything beyond short films with the DSLR's, there's a guy putting together a feature who I've asked to let us know how it goes down. Really stoked to see how it performed.

We've recently purchased a 5D, minus the sound issue, they're really tight. Record your sound seperately.

You can give it a test run once we work something out, see if you're comfortable with it. I'm seeing the guys tomorrow so I'll email you to riff something together and see how we can help each other out.
Click to expand...

Nice one, I look forward to your email
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think for the price, you're going to get a better looking image, with deeper color information and a better sensor with current DSLR cameras. I've seen better looking footage from the T2i then I've seen from $3000+ HD cams.

Hell, if you know how to work it...you can get your 5D, 7D and T2i footage to match the RED (especially if your only going to show it on an HD television and the internet.)

There are some down sides...but with a little extra cash (still less than a pro-sumer camera), you can overcome those cons.

I think right now...for the price...DSLRs are the better bang for the buck.

Remember one thing though...the cost of lenses add up. So be sure about the starter lens and the one or two additional lenses you might pick up. Also be aware that you'll need much more skill in focusing. With some HD cams, you can use a lens which is more infinite (deep) DOF, which although doesn't look as cinematic, will be much less of a headache, cost you less, and save you time. FYI.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
The Canon stuff has some nice qualities to the image, but I can't get over the line-skipped compression. Still, it's also the hot item at the moment, so lots of requests to do stuff with them. The thing about this is that people are going to lean to an image they find appealing, and equipment that is physically comfortable to work with.

I'm interested in the possibilities for this system:

http://www.eoshd.com/content/250-50Mbit-1080p-MJPEG-on-the-Panasonic-GH1

As it stood, not a great camera for video, but with the firmware hack running either mjpeg or avchd, which is downsampled (read less stair-steppy diagonals and what not) it looks pretty good.

Slightly smaller on the sensor than the 7d, although there are interesting, albeit very technical, discussions about the sensor size and mpixel rate in the 5d/7d taxing the processor at compression time, and thus the choice to use line skipped compression in the first place. But I digress.

You're not going to get those crazy shallow 5d fields with a 4/3 size sensor, so if you are in love with that look, then you know, there you go. 4/3 will look more like super-35 (cinema) rather than 35 stills ("full frame" sensors like the 5d). DoF is of course a relative term that doesn't have meaning with things like f-stop, focal length, and object distance. Since the sensor/frame size creates the basis for that, it's worth mentioning.

This is also somewhat compelling:

http://www.hotrodcameras.com/products/lens-mount-kits/pl-mount-and-mods/hot-rod-pl-deluxe/

Spendy, but if you have access to fast lenses of that quality, why not. I'm not a fan of their hand-held thing-a-mob, but there's too much hand-held in the world these days anyway. More interesting is that there is negligible crop factor calculation when using certain cinema lenses. The hot rod site goes into more detail if that is of interest.

Anyway, search around for GH13 - which is what folks have lovingly dubbed hacked GH1's after the id of the guy who came up with it - there's some compelling images out there.

Not that I'm particularly a fan of the dslr, but here I'm starting to see some potential, and there's a shift adapter for this camera that uses FD mount lenses for not that much money. Trying to leverage existing stuff and I like shooting my AE-1 still.

Cost wise really depends on how much you are going to get aks gear. A shoulder mount style hand held rig can double the cost of a 5d, for example. Just a quality follow focus kit can double the cost of a 7D. Some of this stuff can be built cheaper, but that depends on resourcefulness and such. Lots of variables. Pick the image you like and work on your image.


Edit:

And are you asking for a shallow DoF, or the ability to do photography in deep focus? (ala Kubrick, Wells, etc). When you say depth of focus, that's sort of subjective. Could be shallow or deep.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
You know, at first I didn't really like the DSRL cameras. But after seeing a few shorts made with them, I actually like them. If you know how to use one well enough, and you record the audio separately, DSLR can be a very powerful filmmaking tool. I haven't really researched too much into the HDV cameras. I usually use film or hard drive cameras. But I definitely can reccomend a DSLR.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
David.rhsc said:
You're not going to get those crazy shallow 5d fields with a 4/3 size sensor, so if you are in love with that look, then you know, there you go. 4/3 will look more like super-35 (cinema) rather than 35 stills ("full frame" sensors like the 5d). DoF is of course a relative term that doesn't have meaning with things like f-stop, focal length, and object distance. Since the sensor/frame size creates the basis for that, it's worth mentioning.

This is also somewhat compelling:
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean. The size of the sensor doesn't determine your DOF. It's the lens, the fstop, and the shutter speed, am I correct? You don't sound like your describing the DOF I'm familiar with in terms of photography (film or still).

Sensor size doesn't give you DOF--it gives you information.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
Not sure what you mean. The size of the sensor doesn't determine your DOF. It's the lens, the fstop, and the shutter speed, am I correct? You don't sound like your describing the DOF I'm familiar with in terms of photography (film or still).

Sensor size doesn't give you DOF--it gives you information.
Click to expand...

No, the depth of field is affected by the size of the sensor, lens F-stop, lens focal length and distance between the subject and camera.

A bigger sensor will be faster than a smaller one, but is not necessarily higher resolution. ISO and shutter speed may have to change to compensate for a change in F-stop, but they do not affect the depth of field.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
No, the depth of field is affected by the size of the sensor, lens F-stop, lens focal length and distance between the subject and camera.

A bigger sensor will be faster than a smaller one, but is not necessarily higher resolution. ISO and shutter speed may have to change to compensate for a change in F-stop, but they Sinnott affect the depth of field.
Click to expand...


I thought it was lens, fstop and ISO...and of course distance between the focal point and the camera.

I wasn't aware the sensor had anything to do with the DOF. My bad.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
Still though, you can pull off very shallow DOF if you use the right lens and settings...regardless the sensor...isn't that correct?
Click to expand...

Not exactly, no. For example - let's take a Canon 7D, which has an APS-C sensor (a crop factor of 1.6x). Put on a 50mm lens, at F2.8, and it'll have a pretty shallow depth of field. For a camera with a much smaller sensor, say 1/3" (by way of comparison, the Canon HV40 has a sensor 1/2.7" in size), you would need an 11mm lens at F0.6 to achieve the same depth of field with the same angle of view.

So, while it is theoretically possible, the technical, practical and financial implications of compensating for sensor size with lenses makes it a very unrealistic proposition.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
Not sure what you mean. The size of the sensor doesn't determine your DOF. It's the lens, the fstop, and the shutter speed, am I correct? You don't sound like your describing the DOF I'm familiar with in terms of photography (film or still).

Sensor size doesn't give you DOF--it gives you information.
Click to expand...

Chilli fortunately fielded this one for me. While enlargement and CoC are factors, the primary difference when talking about DoF across formats (sensor size) is understanding that you have to compare images of identical field of view, which means talking different focal length lenses.

Without getting into too much of the math, I'll say that 16mm is a "more forgiving" format than 35mm in film - given identical object distance, field of view (remembering that this requires a different focal length for each format), and f-stop.

As it is in the film world, so it is with the digital world. Smaller sensor, wider DoF at the same field of view given identical object distance (focus distance on the lens) and identical f-stop.

hth.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Gotcha. Cool. You learn something new every day. I think though--as was eluded to above--no matter what your sensor size, you can achieve shallow DOF with the proper lens, fstop, lighting, and placement. It's just easier with a particular sensor.

Groovy.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
Gotcha. Cool. You learn something new every day. I think though--as was eluded to above--no matter what your sensor size, you can achieve shallow DOF with the proper lens, fstop, lighting, and placement. It's just easier with a particular sensor.

Groovy.
Click to expand...

Well, hypothetically I suppose. In practice you would have to work with either extreme near subject distances or extreme long focal lengths, and in both cases have the lens fairly wide open. Because focal lengths are inherently shorter on smaller formats, you're working with a naturally, mathematically, deeper focus for a given field of view.

<begin rambling, tangential, and undirected opinion here>

I find the push to see how shallow DoF can get to be sort of interesting. As an AC it's challenging, and I'm fine with that, although I see directors pushing for shallow fields where they don't really make much sense.

Best example: Exterior, rising jib shot of a vehicle pulling up to a store and some folks getting out. On a wide shot like that, stacking in the ND to shoot wide open is just, IMHO, silly. And that's speaking as an artist. As an AC, throw those at me all day. I like a challenge.

I guess the point is that I watch a lot of amazing older work, some in s16, most in 35, with astounding composition, blocking, and focus in depth. I miss seeing it in modern stuff. There are more ways to make something in a scene stand out than just rendering it as the only object in focus.

And don't get me started on "power windows" ;)

<end rambling, tangential, and undirected opinion here>
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
I think DOF is overused myself--this includes shallow DOF rack focusing. It's a gimmick at this point. I also think it's messy in most indie fare. If you're going to rack focus, it has to be precise...not hesitant and searching for a sharp point on the fly. You have to be able to hit your mark naturally quick, or have a mark on your follow focus. We shouldn't notice a rack focus (at least as an audience member).

Anywho.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
M1chae1 said:
I think DOF is overused myself--this includes shallow DOF rack focusing.
Click to expand...
I agree that rack focusing is a little yawn-y at this point, but it does serve a visual purpose.

However, DoF is in no way, shape, or form overused. To me, this is akin to saying "color is overused" or something equally preposterous. Sure, sure, I'd agree that often, people play too much with their DoF, but the primary function of DoF (giving your movie three dimensional depth) is incredibly important.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top