Is it worth using an SD camera if the lenses are good?

[harmonica44]

I was thinking about it. There are a lot of SD cinema cameras out there on sale cheap, now that SD is old news. But the lenses you can get for them are better than the ones on HD DSLRs, and HD video camcorders.

However, the next camera I buy I would want to be the one to shoot my first feature on in the future. So is it worth the money if I get it cheap now, for later. There are these new 4k DSLRs are coming out, back again, the lenses won't be as good as a cinema camera's.

Now a lot of people on here say it's not so much what type of camera you use, it's all about the lenses. I have watched a lot of footage shot on different cameras, and I can see why. So would it be worth shooting my first feature, which I hope to get noticed, on SD, if the lenses are good? Those SD cinema cameras, also seem to have less noise than an HD DSLR as well.

 

[Zensteve]

SD is old news. But the lenses you can get for them are better than the ones on HD DSLRs, and HD video camcorders.

Source, please.

 

[chilipie]

I don't even know where to begin. Harmonica, your question is nothing but vague generalisations founded on technical ignorance.

I may well be wrong, but I can't think of a single "cinema" camera that only shoots in SD. I don't know where you got the idea that "SD lenses" are better than "HD lenses" or even why you chose to make such a distinction. And the assertion that SD cameras produce less noisy footage than DSLRs is just so far from the truth I don't really know what to say.

No, it's not all about the camera - lenses are an incredibly important part of creating and manipulating an image. But that doesn't mean you should go and stick a Cooke 5/i on the front of an HVX100 with a 35mm adapter. If someone says "lighting is the only thing that matters" then that doesn't mean you should dump your DSLR and shoot everything on a camera phone from 2005.

 

[rayw]

Name+model of cameras and lenses, please.

 

[WalterB]

I think you confuse well lit SD footage vs. poorly lit HD footage with objective noise-performance.
In this HDSLR-age there are more people filming than ever and a lot of them shoot in the dark thinking high ISO is all they need. This results in noise.
Shooting with SD cameras in these very same situation in most cases will result in a almost black image.
With SDcameras the motto used to be: never use 'gain' (this is similair to using higher ISOvalues, but gain is measured in dB).

(My EX1R is a very good HD camera, but even at +18dB gain it can't see a quarter of the light a 5D Mk2 'sees' at night at ISO 800, and it's noisy as hell. I know this for fact because I shot those cameras side by side at night: EX1R served as sound recorder while the 5D shot the nightimages.)

If you want low-noise: check out the Canon C300 or Sony F-3, but these cameras aren't 4K AND they are expensive.

But yes: it's not about the camera you use. It's about the story you tell with it.
Saying this, you should be aware of what your camera can handle and what it can't do. This way you can shoot what looks good.

 

[rayw]

H -

Accidently found this article and thought it might be somewhat useful for you.
http://www.microfilmmaker.com/wordp...erfect-video-from-your-new-camera-the-basics/

 

[don patterson]

I have to mildly disagree with some of the above comments.

First some background history.

In the late 1990's i bought in Las Vegas at a major trade show, a Sony DSR 500, DSR 300, DSR 150 and a PD100a. At that time, Dvcam was top of the line, a bit better than DV in picture quality and a leap in audio recording. What we refer to today as tape-based SD. I got about 50% off with a lot of extras. It was a trade show! I like to use multiple cameras.

I sold the DSR 500 at a little more than I paid for the DSR 500 the next year and bought a DSR 300 deck. I was doing commercial work, event and music videos as well as starting to do movies. My equipment paid itself off slowly (with interest) and a lot of commercial gigs.

I loved the cameras (but did not sleep with them, for my wife would complain) and I kept them in peak operating quality. Even today they are in mint condition (always take care of your equipment).

I use them. Unfortunately, the market for end-products created by these 12-year old (technology) cameras are quickly disappearing, soon to be (almost) nonexistent. Can't sell them for very much and there is a limit to what they can now be used for. Direct to DVD weddings, are about it (great for weddings -- do not have to worry about perfect make-up, homely brides or grooms and focus/DOF is forgiving in SD). Unfortunately, I do not do weddings. The market on everything else demands HD. Anyone telling you different is pulling your leg (or may try to sell you their old cameras).

Yeah, there are exceptions -- but those exceptions are becoming fewer and fewer as time goes by.

My suggestion. Save your money and buy the newest, best HD camera you can afford. Take the time to learn how to use it -- to the cameras fullest capability. Get a five year transferable warranty when purchased. Use it to death. Sell it in three years for the next latest camera to hit the streets. Advance in camera knowledge. Advance in camera quality. And don't get stuck with older (mint) cameras that have no where to go but down.

This is honest advice from experience. My meager two cents. I am not rich or famous.

 

[knightly]

If you're buying, DO future proof your purchases... if you're looking for an academic answer, If your output is going to be to DVD, there is absolutely no reason you need to shoot HD (although, it will give you higher resolution footage throughout your process to work with before dumbing it down to SD for the DVD output).

If your output is to a theatrical distribution firm, you'll want 2K for them (most digital cinema is 2K now... I'm sure it'll hit 4K at some point, but not sure when that will be). The HD DSLR cameras shoot 1K, so they will have to be uprezed at some point in the process to hit that mark.

If your output is HD to the web or bluray, you'll want to avoid having to uprez. SD > HD conversion looks horrible IMHO, so you'll want to at least have an HD camera, and in the HD camera range that most of us can afford to own, DLSR is the king right now.

The answer depends on what you intend to do with your work.

 

[jax_rox]

I'm not sure what SD cameras you are referring to that have cheap lenses.. Unless you're referring to older TV-style cameras - the lenses on which wouldn't fit on anything but other ENG style cameras anyway...

If you're referring to cinema cameras, then the last thing I can think of that recorded in anything close to SD would have to be 8mm, and I don't know that I'd really call that cinema (though does have a cool look).

A lens is a lens is a lens. Whether it's on an SD camera, HD camera, 4k camera, 2/3" camera, or iPhone. As long as the lens mount fits, it will go on it. There are differences in field of view and all the rest of it depending on sensor size, and a lens made for a smaller size sensor will introduce vignetting with larger sensors (as a lot of cinema PL-mount lenses on a 5D do), but there's no differentiation between 'SD' and 'HD' lenses.

On the topic of 4k DSLR, you won't get one (from Canon at least) for under $10k so unless you have that kind of money... Cinema-style lenses, you probably won't get for <$5k each. Plus you need a camera to mount them on and they're going to run you up into the tens of thousands.

In terms of HD vs SD, I think in less than a couple of years, shooting in SD will be the equivalent of releasing your film on VHS... no real market..
That said, if your story is brilliant enough, it won't really matter...

Dvcam was top of the line, a bit better than DV in picture quality and a leap in audio recording.

Can't speak for back then, but DVCAM vs DV is actually no real difference. DVCAM is just a better tape format - the audio and picture quality are no better, the tapes are just more robust. The cameras themselves may have been better, but the quality difference has very little to do with the type of DV tape.

The HD DSLR cameras shoot 1K

Not sure where you got that, but 1920x1080 is actually very close to 2k.
2.39:1 2k is 2048x858
1.85:1 2k is 1998x1080
Academy 2k is 1828x1332
Whilst 1.32:1 2k is 2048x1556, when's the last time you watched a movie in 1.32:1 (4:3)?

 

[LasVegasIRA]

I'm going to give you piece of advice from a different camp.

Most of the comments I'm reading are coming from a stand point of a filmmaker wanting to have the best of what's available within their respective budgets, and there's nothing wrong with that.

However, I believe that if you have a good story idea, an eye for good shot composition, and the ability to direct a good story, then you can produce an excellent piece of cinema with as little as a handy-cam if you wanted to. It's not the equipment, it's who's using it.

You could have shots with lots of noise and grain, and all kinds of imperfections. But if you make the shot interesting, get the right shots to tell the right story, and combine those shots with good audio, you're going to have what you need to make a great movie. And you can just call all of the artifacts in your shot "an artistic choice..." Watch the movie Rampart to see what I mean.

Although, I do have to say that you should invest in decent sound equipment, because it's hard to convince an audience that poor sound quality was an artistic choice, but as far as a camera is concerned, SD or HD, it really doesn't matter.

I think there's too much emphasis by filmmakers (both new and veteran) put on having the best and newest equipment available. I guess that's human nature stemming from the rapid changes in technology. But, you apparently have a camera since you've already made a film. Why not just use that camera again, and think of some ways to come up with some really cool and interesting shots on your next film. Put your efforts into just becoming a better filmmaker instead of how you plan on buying a new camera. If you want to "get noticed" on your film, it's going to have more to do with your filmmaking abilities than it is with your camera choice...

Just my $.02...

 

[directorik]

I’m not a tech-head so numbers just jumble in my mind and I can’t
grasp what’s being discussed.

I have a JVC DV5000 - top of the line DV camera 10 years ago. It
shoots SD interlaced 30fps at 720x480. I often rented a $12,000
top of the line Fujinon lens. But the camera still shoots interlaced
30fps at 720x480.

I have the JVC HM150 with a fixed lens. I shoots HD progressive
24fps at 1920x1080

Correct me if I’m wrong: the HM150 is recording a “better” image
even with its fixed lens.

 

[don patterson]

@ jax rox -- In the late 1990's -- DVcam was the pro version of DV (mini DV) and had locked audio. MiniDV did not. To say there was no difference between DSR 500 or a DSR 300 and a MiniDV camera is like comparing a low end motor bike and a Harley. Yes, they both have wheels. My DSR 500 produced a high S/N ratio of 63dB, outstanding horizontal resolution of 700 TV lines in the 16:9 mode, and offered long term stability and uniformity. MiniDV, not so much. I said DVcam was a 'bit' better than DV. This was a long time ago... granted, but MiniDV and DVcam were not the same -- if you used both, you would know the difference. Moot point. BOTH ARE DATED TECHNOLOGIES -- was my point.

directorik -- you are correct in your judgement on what camera has the better image.

I am sure that using a Sony NEX-FS700UK Super 35 Camcorder with 18 - 200 mm Lens will get more positive feedback than using a JVC HM150 IF the quality of the person using both cameras are the same and they are both aimed at DVD market.

My point was not to knock any specific format, but explain, that as technology moves forward so does the eye of the viewer and those purchasing for a product to market that eye of the viewer.

And that is why footage from DSLRs like Canon 5D and 7D are so popular... right now. And why large 4K Super 35mm CMOS sensor cameras will be hot for the next four years or longer.

 

[Cracker Funk]

This thread is making my brain explode.

If someone says "lighting is the only thing that matters"

Oops. I did say that in another thread. As some of you know, I'm prone to exaggeration/hyperbole. I didn't mean that statement literally. I only intended to point out that I think the camera often gets more attention than it deserves.

H44, I've been trying to figure out exactly what you mean when you talk about noise in your footage. I'm wondering if you might be mistaking noise for an over-exposed image? I dunno, just guessing.

H44, here's some food for thought -- ask yourself, honestly, are you technically-minded? Cuz the people who master DSLRs tend to be. Could you produce a better product if you narrowed down the number of things that you personally have to master?

 

[jax_rox]

There is not one underlying factor that is necessarily more important than the others... If you have a poor story and poor acting, it will be a poor film whether you shoot in on HD or SD. If your lighting looks fake, it will look fake whether it is shot on SD or HD, if your sound is poor, then it will sound poor no matter what you shoot on. If you have no art department and the set isn't dressed at all, if the edit just doesn't 'flow' right, it doesn't matter what you shoot it on. If you've never shot on a Red or Alexa before and don't understand the formats, they will look poor as opposed to shooting on your own DSLR that you know inside and out and can troubleshoot every single quirk.
Where the HD vs SD factor comes into play is when everything else is good - if your scripts good, actings great, lighting is perfect, sound is awesome... then shooting on an SD camera seems almost like a waste. If your production is at a certain level, you want to take it the next step bu shooting HD and allowing audiences to see (or not see - in terms of lighting, art department etc.) the hard work you've done.

 

[harmonica44]

I did some asking around to people I know in photography, and two people in particular who have shot projects before.

They said that prosumer priced cinema cameras tend to have less noise than consumer priced camcorders, and DSLRs.

And they all said that the lens matters more than the camera in most cases, and that lenses on prosumer priced ones tend to be better than DSLR lenses as well. So I was just going by what they said, but if they are wrong...

Well I guess if story matters, and not the camera, then in the future, maybe just keep my Canon T2i, if it still works well by then, and just shoot my first feature on that. Or something better if something is cheaper in the future. But it seems that the camera must matter somewhat. I mean out of all the features shot on a lot of cheaper cameras, including the T2i, never seem to get picked up, so that makes me wonder if they were rejected cause of the video quality. There are movies shot on the 5D and 7D on DVD all the time now, but can't find one shot on a T2i, or cheaper. Nor have I found hardly any movies before digital, shot on Super 8, that went to video.

 

[knightly]

I'm looking at moving up to a T2i, right as they're killing it off... you're currently shooting on a camera that I am looking at moving into a decade of learning on in my experience... and from a prosumer camera. The T2i takes great pictures if you spend the time on lighting (I said it -- sue me) to create the best possible picture BEFORE IT HITS THE CAMERA AT ALL! A properly lit scene will look better in HD than SD... and look crappy in both. But a properly lit scene in SD will be a better image captured than much of the stuff being made and released on youtube every day in HD. Spend the time to give your camera something beautiful to capture and it won't fail you... when you do capture it, make sure you hit the big 3 -- Focus, Exposure, Composition (which if you abbreviate and say fast, sounds like a Irish guy swearing).

 

[chilipie]

Oops. I did say that in another thread. As some of you know, I'm prone to exaggeration/hyperbole. I didn't mean that statement literally. I only intended to point out that I think the camera often gets more attention than it deserves.

I've said the same thing too - it's a good point. I don't think you can be blamed for others taking your obvious hyperbole all too literally

Well I guess if story matters, and not the camera, then in the future, maybe just keep my Canon T2i, if it still works well by then, and just shoot my first feature on that. Or something better if something is cheaper in the future. But it seems that the camera must matter somewhat. I mean out of all the features shot on a lot of cheaper cameras, including the T2i, never seem to get picked up, so that makes me wonder if they were rejected cause of the video quality. There are movies shot on the 5D and 7D on DVD all the time now, but can't find one shot on a T2i, or cheaper. Nor have I found hardly any movies before digital, shot on Super 8, that went to video.

Correlation does not equal causation. That is to say, just because films shot on RED or Alexa are more likely to be picked up than films shot on Canon DSLRs that doesn't mean that the camera is the reason why they were picked up.

Very talented filmmakers with the financial support needed to make a good feature can afford to use better cameras. Filmmakers that are just starting out tend to use cheaper cameras… and they also tend to be less experienced storytellers more likely to produce dodgy lighting, amateur camerawork, badly recorded and edited sound and poorly-dressed sets.

If you'd shot your first film on IMAX it would be no more likely to win accolades or help find you funding for a feature… just a lot more expensive.

 

[jax_rox]

They said that prosumer priced cinema cameras tend to have less noise than consumer priced camcorders, and DSLRs.

It really depends.. A prosumer on +6Db gain at night time is going to be more noisy than a 5D with a lens open at f/1.2.

And they all said that the lens matters more than the camera in most cases, and that lenses on prosumer priced ones tend to be better than DSLR lenses as well. So I was just going by what they said, but if they are wrong...

It's all really conjecture, a $7k DSLR lens is going to be better than the lens on a $4k prosumer camera. The lenses on prosumer cameras are (almost) always zooms, and usually ~F/1.8. They're also usually ~4-7mm-~90-130mm. That, however, is usually because of the smaller sensor size. The lens needs to open up to f/1.8 because otherwise you simply can't get enough light on the lens in some cases. Also note that 7mm on a 2/3" sensor is actually ~17mm, on a 1/3" sensor, possibly more like ~21mm so whilst the lens in itself may be somewhat better, the smaller sensor negates any benefit that there may have been.

maybe just keep my Canon T2i, if it still works well by then

Why not? Why would you go from a T2i to an SD camera? If lenses matter that much to you - rent some!

out of all the features shot on a lot of cheaper cameras, including the T2i, never seem to get picked up.
There are movies shot on the 5D and 7D on DVD all the time now, but can't find one shot on a T2i, or cheaper.
Nor have I found hardly any movies before digital, shot on Super 8, that went to video.

Comparing S8mm and Digital is comparing Apples and Oranges. There is no comparison. Keep in mind that the T2i/550D shoots the same video as the 7D. The sensors are almost identical.
Also have a look at:

• Monsters - Sony EX3 prosumer 1/2" sensor
• 28 Days Later - Canon XL-1s prosumer 3CCD sensor
• Blair Witch Project - Hi-8 Camera - consumer
• Like Crazy - Canon 7D - same sensor as T2i/550D
• Wolf Creek - Sony HDW F900 2/3" sensor
• Avatar - Sony HDC-1500 2/3" sensor
• Crank: High Voltage - Canon HF10, Canon XHA1, Sony PMW-EX1 prosumer 1/2" sensors
• Inland Empier - Sony PD150 prosumer 1/3" CCD sensor
• Full Frontal - Canon XL-1s prosumer 3CCD sensor
• Act of Valor - Canon 7D, 5D, 1Ds etc.

To name a few major films - either studio films, or films that got picked up for major distribution, or films from notable auteurs - that were shot on 2/3", 1/2" and 1/3" sensors...
These films are major/were picked up not because of the camera they were shot on. Like Crazy (for example) would've been picked up if it were shot on a 7D, T2i, or Arri Alexa.

Now think of how many films shot on 5D and 7D are made that don't get picked up and don't end up on DVD. Sure, there are some that do get picked up and released, but think of the amount of films that are shot on those cameras - only very few of them get picked up/released. If the story is right, the camera doesn't matter.

*edit*

For films shot on T2i/550D, look up:

• Alem De Ti
• Ghost Shark 2: Urban Jaws
• Holodad
• Killing Keith
• Leap: Rise of the Beast
• The Jones'
• The King of Baltimore
• Tilt
• Ultrasonic
• White Out

THey may not necessarily be major studio motion pictures, but are you going to be making a major studio motion picture? You don't quite seem to have the budget... Plus if you think that the t2i has the same video as 7D, then lal the movies shot on 7D essentially could've been shot on a t2i.

 

[don patterson]

I guess my point was completely missed.

My advice was -- Get the best camera out there THAT YOU CAN AFFORD to work with. Newest technology. Learn by using and then sell in 3 years and advance camera knowledge as well as personal quality, developing style, etc as a film maker. Use what you buy.

As Jax Rox points out with the cameras above --
ALL THESE CAMERAS WERE THE LATEST TECH CAMERAS WHEN THOSE MOVIE WERE MADE! THAT IS MY POINT (sorry for yelling).

Monsters - Sony EX3 prosumer 1/2" sensor
(I would love to have a EX-3 @ $8,000.00 PLUS needed cards, batteries, additional glass)...
28 Days Later - Canon XL-1s prosumer 3CCD sensor
Blair Witch Project - Hi-8 Camera - consumer
Like Crazy - Canon 7D - same sensor as T2i/550D
Wolf Creek - Sony HDW F900 2/3" sensor
Avatar - Sony HDC-1500 2/3" sensor
Crank: High Voltage - Canon HF10, Canon XHA1, Sony PMW-EX1 prosumer 1/2" sensors
Inland Empire - Sony PD150 prosumer 1/3" CCD sensor
Full Frontal - Canon XL-1s prosumer 3CCD sensor
Act of Valor - Canon 7D, 5D, 1Ds etc.

 

[don patterson]

sorry, left out that I am now using 12 year old cameras... while the quality of the product is vital, the way it is presented is as well. Had a lot of people say that from a ot of different threads about DEATH WALKS BEHIND YOU trailer -- old looking production cameras...