I know, I already asked this...

[Digital Root Films]

I already asked this but my mind didn't get all the food it was craving.

I would like to get a dslr for my video projects, this includes church videos (30sec-3min), Short films (2min-8min), and wedding videos (about 30-45 minutes on camera over a 2 hour period).

I have used a DSLR for a wedding video before and it didn't overheat like everyone said it would. It was amazing.

My only other choice than a dlsr (wanting the T2i) is something like the HG20. My budget is only open to up to $1500. If you have a suggestion, please comment.

I was thinking of getting the T2i, 2-3 lenses, and 2 extra batteries, oh, plus some SDHC cards. I was going to build a little railing rig (LOVE DIY STUFF ) and have this in my film package.

Please take this under consideration again, I am 13, have a little business called Digital Root Films that I do wedding vids, and other freelance stuff in. If a dslr is not for me, please steer me into the right direction. I hope i'm not bugging anyone, but I am the type of person that asks many questions.

Presently I have a Canon HF100, which is good, but I would like to expand. If you need any more specifications, please just ask. I am open to anything.

Again thank you so much for helping. I hope that I haven't been a bother

 

[spinner]

I have to say, I don't get it. I've made this comment before on another post, but couldn't find the post to read what might have been said, I'm still looking for it.

I don't get why a filmmaker would want to shoot video with a still photography camera? Why not just get another camcorder where your mini dv will pretty much guarantee you one hour of uninterrupted video? Unless you are a still photographer, I don't know why you would buy a dslr unless you wanted to go into photography.

-- spinner

 

[David.rhsc]

If your budget is 1500, then imo T2i + lenses. u probably already have a tripod etc right?

EDIT: I dont know how much the GH1 is but ive been hearing about a hack or something that you can download for it and the image quality has gotten better...

Someone else know more about this?

Yes.

Fascinating potential. Not ready for prime time. Still semi-compelled to pick one up as I want a DSLR for stills, and could play with the hack along with my FD glass via a relatively cheap and solid adapter setup.

Then there's that part of me that wants a stills camera that is just a stills camera, and to go Foveon X3 for that, which means Sigma SD-14 ... nevermind. I could babble about this stuff for hours.

Here:

http://www.indietalk.com/showpost.php?p=124670&postcount=5

 

[Ernest Worthing]

I have to say, I don't get it. I've made this comment before on another post, but couldn't find the post to read what might have been said, I'm still looking for it.

I don't get why a filmmaker would want to shoot video with a still photography camera? Why not just get another camcorder where your mini dv will pretty much guarantee you one hour of uninterrupted video? Unless you are a still photographer, I don't know why you would buy a dslr unless you wanted to go into photography.

-- spinner

imo everything is a tool to get what you want in the end. if a still camera is providing the most economical way to get close to wat u want to film right now, go for it. if it is giving u the look u want, go for it.

yes, DSLR's r primarily still cameras but the quality of video theyre providing is better than a lot of other cameras. if i have something that is called a video camera that provides a bad quality image or provides a look i dont want, as a filmaker im supposed to prefer it over a still camera that also happens to do video and provides a better image or the look i want?

(not wanting to sound rude, just discussing it...)

 

[Wombat]

I have to say, I don't get it. I've made this comment before on another post, but couldn't find the post to read what might have been said, I'm still looking for it.

I don't get why a filmmaker would want to shoot video with a still photography camera? Why not just get another camcorder where your mini dv will pretty much guarantee you one hour of uninterrupted video? Unless you are a still photographer, I don't know why you would buy a dslr unless you wanted to go into photography.

-- spinner

What do you mean you don't 'get it'?

http://vimeo.com/groups/rebelt2i/videos

To me, the proof is in the pudding. It's simple: filmmakers want to use a still photography camera because it can capture some amazing footage.

 

[David.rhsc]

What do you mean you don't 'get it'?

http://vimeo.com/groups/rebelt2i/videos

To me, the proof is in the pudding. It's simple: filmmakers want to use a still photography camera because it can capture some amazing footage.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that. People want to use these because:

1: The initial buy seems cheaper than a dedicated HD video camera.

2: The small form factor and high *resolution* image give interesting options for B cameras, crash cameras, and other uses where larger rigs are too obtrusive to use.

3: It's the hot new thing. Just like using primarily teal/blue/gray set deco, background color, etc is/was the hot new thing for a minute. That whole "The only shades of color in our film are various flesh tones and their complementary colors (ie, teal, blue-green, etc). That way our big stars will stand out more." thing.

4: There is a perception that a billion pixels automatically equates to an amazing image.

As far as image is concerned, there are still a great many flaws to be had.

http://vimeo.com/groups/rebelt2i/videos/12841132

Watch the motion artifacts in the middle of this clip. Especially when the camera is panning with the skaters. The chain link fence also looks a bit wonky.

Sure, there's a gig-ajillion pixels or whatever, but after a certain point pixel count is just excess demand on the processor that doesn't help your image at all. The above clip shows quite a bit of the line skipping and jello-shutter problems that I, personally, don't think are befitting of a professional moving image. Getting rid of h.264 in the canon cameras would go a long way to getting me off the fence.

Having said that, I actually like the way the 5D handles color. Less impressed with the 550D and 7D, as they don't seem quite as rich. Of course there is so much color done in post (too much, stop it with the duo-tone images people) these days that one would think it doesn't matter, but it does.

For the pure, indy, world it's great. But I encourage everyone to go seek out footage where the cameras FAIL to produce a satisfactory image. It's just as important to know the limitations of gear as to know its possibilities.

There's a rumor floating around about a Canon skunkworks project to build a camera that addresses most of my (and other folks) issues with the current line of hdslr offerings. How true that turns out to be remains to be seen.

Rumor link here: http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/06/ef-video-camera-specs-cr1/

Again, it's awesome that there are options out there for generating HD footage at the no-budget level. Now go pick one that you (not you specifically, just in general) find appealing and use it to learn how to light, block, compose, and edit a scene. Too much emphasis is placed on the tools at the moment, and not the technique, IMHO.

 

[Wombat]

Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm well aware of the drawbacks and downsides to DSLR video capture (in fact, I'm deciding to go with the HFS100 over the T2i). Every budget camera has limitations, though. That said, I think the problems in that video had more to do with the fact that it was handheld. I actually kind of liked the 'style' of the jelly effect, but obviously it would be very annoying if you didn't want it. The T2i is still a great, great camera that I would

I also sort of agree with you that too much emphasis is placed on tools rather than technique, but I think it makes sense, particularly for new filmmakers (such as myself); most of us have either never made video before or only have limited experience so the only thing we can do really is research gear.

EDIT: That's exciting news if the rumor is true. Here's hoping they put something like it on a camcorder body, so I won't feel like a fucking putz.

 

[spinner]

I don't think anyone is being rude, we're having a discussion here.

I'm saying if you are a filmmaker, get a film/video camera. Use the tools of your trade.

You are going to find yourself spending alot of money if your reasoning is 'its the hot new thing.' If there are flaws, then stop trying to use a piece of equipment that is meant to be used somewhere else for something else. I don't need every new 'gadget'. Buy the right thing the first time.

The size of the camera isn't reason enough to get a dslr when there are many small cameras out there that will provide very good pictures and allow you to improve your pictures by way of iris or neutral density or what have you. I have yet to hear any reason that would support a still photography camera instead of a film/video camera for a filmmaker. Even cost isn't compelling considering the prices are coming down.

If you have a camera that doesn't give you a satisfactory picture, then you should save up for a better camera. Or possibly you should - as we said at the tv station - don't blame your equipment. If you don't know what you are doing, the RED camera will not make you a filmmaker. If your picture isn't very good, sure maybe its the camera. But you also want to be sure you know what you are doing.

And I also agree: if you are a new filmmaker, it doesn't cost you anything to research your gear. I researched my DVX for about a month before I got it, there are alot of cameras out there.

How much are you supposed to be spending on this dslr? And what can it do, that a video camera cannot?

-- spinner

EDIT: I apologize for re-asking some of these questions, my wireless signal has been sucking over the last couple of weeks. I see you have about $1,500 for the camera.

 

[Digital Root Films]

The thing is,

they have noe designed the cameras ESPECIALLY THE T2i to shoot this stunning video for that purpose. I read what someone posted on this thread (or maybe another) that a wedding business will lose many customers if they compare the option of not getting the stunning image because a guy on a forum told him that it wasn't the right "tool of the trade".

I hope I don't come across disrespectful, and if I do, I apologize.

 

[spinner]

I read what someone posted on this thread (or maybe another) that a wedding business will lose many customers if they compare the option of not getting the stunning image because a guy on a forum told him that it wasn't the right "tool of the trade".

Hmm....

Well, he may be right. The client wants what they want, even if it doesn't make sense to the people putting the project together. I used to see that ALL THE TIME at my stations creative department. Made everyone batty.

But if you're saying that you can't find a video camera for around $1500 that will give you pictures as good as a dslr, I would have to say that your research might be lacking.

But then again, to each is own....

-- spinner

 

[Digital Root Films]

I can't find one that has all the things I need. Most cameras around 1200 don't have manual focus.

 

[Uranium City]

I don't get why a filmmaker would want to shoot video with a still photography camera?

I used to be with you. I'm a director, not a cinematographer, so I only feel and hear the fringes of the the debate. I usually work with one of four DPs in the area that I trust, each with a Panasonic DVX100. Over the course of the last couple of years I've wondered their opinions on making the leap to HD. We'd have long conversations about the RED, of course, and other new HD cameras. I'd always bring up what I'd heard regarding folks shooting films with DSLRs and the reaction was always the same: "I don't know why anyone would do that!" followed by a mocking pantomime of holding up a DSLR with two hands for a tracking shot.

But each one, independently, over the course of the last six months has purchased either a Canon 7D or 5D.

I think for them it came down to a versatile camera with the ability to change lenses at an attractive price point.

I can't tell you how many times I'd be hunkered down with any of the four of them in the corner of a kitchen or a trench or something and they'd remark how they wish they had the ability to swap out the standard lens for something wider. Now they'll be able to.

Why not put the guts of a 7D in the body of a video camera? I think that has to do with business, and Canon et al wanting to keep their still and video divisions separate.

I believe Sony has come out with a micro 4/3 still camera with interchangeable lenses and are planning to release a video camera in the fall that will be able to use those same lenses, which will begin the separation of still and video cameras.

Sony Develops Interchangeable Lens HD Camcorder