On Mar 5, 2011, at 5:32 AM, Cotty wrote: > On 4/3/11, John Sessoms, discombobulated, unleashed: > >> I sort of think the whole DSLR video is going to be a passing fad. > > Agree, but now that video is part of the design, it won't disappear. > It'll still be there, and in some ways that's not bad as it represents a > cost-effective way to get into video. More serious users will then move > onto something more suitable. > >> The reason I think that is you don't need the SLR viewfinder, and in >> fact can't use the viewfinder, when you're shooting video. So why would >> you need the mirror & pentaprism and all the other machinery that puts >> the 'R' in single lens reflex? Why wouldn't the manufacturers eliminate >> them to lower the cost and beat the competition on price? >> >> I expect we'll see divergence into a slightly more specialized video >> equipment; it'll be a modular box with the sensor, lens mount, LCD and >> connections to output the video. > > In actual fact, certainly in the professional market, it's always been > like that. From the days of film right through to now. When I bought my > video camera, the only integrated part was the 'camera head' (the front > end with chips and electronics) and the recording media section (the > back end in this case DVCam digital tape mechanism). It came with a > standard viewfinder which is connected by a mount and a power lead to > the camera head. In fact I upgraded to a much better viewfinder and > ditched the standard one altogether. On the back, there are industry > standard connections for audio receivers and battery mounts. Sony make > both the audio gear and the batteries but I opted for Sennheiser and > Anton Bauer batteries. > > What the DSLR video revolution has taught the manufacturers is that > bigger chips are better for producing more film-like images and creative > use of depth-of-field. So now we are seeing proper versions of video > cameras incorporating DSLR type chips. As Krisjanis pointed out in a > separate post, Sony have the NEX camera which is a consumer modular > video camera. More importantly, the professional end is also starting to > see some interesting movement. > > Panasonic have their 4/3 chip modular camera, the Panasonic AF101, and > now Sony have come out with a real game-changer, the PMW-F3. The reason > this camera is important is all to do with data rates. The F3 will > record 50 Mbps out of the box and that's firmly into broadcast > territory. Most broadcasters have structured limits that they require, > although having said that, if you're Obama's brother and shoot a > documentary about him behind the scenes on an iPhone, any network will > buy it. If you have an idea for something slightly more mundane, go buy > a mid-price camera and pitch your doc idea for funding, the technical > requirements will stump you. The F3 is a very cost-effective way to get > into high-end video production and even feature filmmaking. In this > respect, DSLRs have been instrumental in the concept, but in > highlighting the flaws. Sure, an episode of 'House' was shot on a DSLR, > and as a test it was great. But if it was that good, they would shoot > all TV drama on DSLRs, and clearly they don't. Cameras like the F3 will > now make a huge inroads into that market. > >> >> The DSLR will for the most part go back to being used for still photography. > > Totally agree, with the added benefit of a springboard into video making. >
Good to know, Cotty. I will keep this for future reference. I have seen quite a few television crews shooting with DSLRs here, particularly at the auto show. Of course they weren't broadcasting. Those that were on the air had big rigs, but the DSLR guys were definitely shooting for broadcast later the same day. And I believe a number of feature films have been shot in whole or in part on DSLRs. The shooter I worked with on the corporate film shoots some stuff for the various Fox sports cable channels, who provide game recaps of events that weren't originally broadcasted. I'm a little concerned about his focus accuracy with that rig. His HD screen was very good, and since we were dealing with room interiors, he shot mostly with wides, including some with a 17mm fisheye (which is almost rectilinear on an APS camera), so he should have plenty of DOF. The fact that he does sports work makes me believe he can pull focus when he has to, but I won't be happy until I see his results. Of course I'm not responsible for that part of the job. The agency picked him and hired him. I was contracted to provide a script, but then, as these things seem to go, they then wanted me to direct the shoot. That puts me in somewhat of a bad place, because I'm stuck with the decisions of others. But, in this case, I'm hopeful. The guy seemed, at the very least, to be good in terms of knowing what to shoot and making his camera moves. Wish you were here! Paul > -- > > > Cheers, > Cotty > > > ___/\__ > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > ---------- http://www.cottysnaps.com > _____________________________ > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
