There is nothing wrong with dreaming the dream, but we have come to an age of digital snobbery. Many students who graduate film school never even touch a film camera let alone learn about film technique and theory behind cinematography. I have even been shocked by my own school because they bought consumer grade cameras that cost around $200-$1000 and I have seen them buy those flip HD cameras for news broadcasting. Keep in mind this was a university. I was fortunate that my department had 16mm film cameras and wonderful cinema teachers who work hard to keep film alive and well, but university politics may cause those cameras to become extinct.
The main reason why I bring this up is the fact that most DV or HDV cams are full auto this and that and there is no more attention to detail or conservation of footage shot. Amateur filmmakers just set the camera on the tripod and hit the record button and let it stay running till they feel like they want to cut. Actual motion picture film is expensive because of development and telecine and so on. If you let film run threw the camera on a film set you would not only be fired but ostracized by your own film community.
Coming to this new age far surpassing HDV in to the DSLR revolution, filmmakers complain that there camera is not auto this or that or does not have port such and such. We basically hit a point of digital technology where in essence we are starting all over again. The Red revolution started a new era of filmmaking that many filmmakers adopted, but still the fully decked out 50 k hybrid DSLR monster is still expensive for many. Even my self, it was hard enough to get the Canon xha1.
What surprises me about this new digital age is how cheap DSLR are in comparison to the more expensive HDV cameras. I can buy the best of the best DSLR for under 5 k and have a fantastic DSLR for under 1 k that far excedes any HD camera on the market and still mesures closely to the red. and with the advent of the magic lantern firmware hacks we are in essence repeating history for the better. Even the sony F900 camera george Lucas used on his film star wars episode one the image size and quality does not even come close to some of these DSLR cameras. Sure these more expensive cameras are more ergonomic in design and function but the image size and quality far lacks that of film let alone 8mm film.
Philip Bloom on DSLR Movie making
Philip Bloom Canon Body Production "San Francisco's People"
Mass amateurs
It was mass amateurs who eventually claimed the amateur title, becoming permanent beneficiaries of the industrial exploitation of photography. Mass amateurs were born out of the success of a single firm, the Eastman Dry Plate Film Company, which produced its first roll-film camera in 1888. By 1900 the company had released an entire line of easy-to-use, inexpensive cameras, and established the world's first commercial processing service. The Kodak system was so user friendly that in 1900 the company released a child's camera, the Brownie. Priced at 5 shillings ($1), it was affordable for most middle-class children; moreover, its use established picture-making habits that would carry over into adulthood.
Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/history-amateur-photography#ixzz1BpwJ4D9Z
I think For centuries studios have the leg up because they have a system that has money and power backing it up along with pricy equipment. People who begin in this industry are thrown at the mercy of the studio and power players for a chance to just be a part of any film let alone actually make a film in any respect. I see the new indi hollywood like the modern day music industry. for less then 10 k you can get the best of the best and still pull off a killer sound track and far excede music recording quality of that of a major label or recording studio.
I think the business modle pertaining to the music industry could be mirrored with the indi film industry. We will have so many revolutionary artest coming out of the wood work and agents will be forced to scout for the indi filmmaker and ask them if he or she is willing to be represented by them.
Things are going to be different and old hollywood is going to feel the growing pains not the indi filmmaker.
Now that I have ranted a little bit, I want to talk about DSLRs. I know I wrote a whole Blog about HD DSLRs and image and normal focal length. But now I want to discuses the arguments pertaining to HD DSLRs. I know these arguments because I was advising my film buddy to invest in one of these cameras. More specifically the Canon 60D. After a week of research I have come to the conclusion that the 60D is the most cost effective and filmmaker friendly camera out on the market. The T2i 550D is nice but has 3 draw backs. The first is the T2i does not have a swively screen and the second is the fact that the camera has a little more noise then the 60D. The third is the 60D's camera body is more solid and durable and less resistent to the elements. Many people don't know it but the 7D is really just a more expensive version of the 60D and the 60D is just better for filmmakers all around. there are still some button quarks but I am more concerned that the image then I am about ergonomics. It is widely known that these DSLRs cameras are definitely not intended to be cinema cameras and canon never thought that these cameras would have the effect it did on the filmmaking community.
Now for the myths concerning DSLRs. The first major myth is the lens focal length multiplier also known as the crop factor. The Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D all have the same image sensor size respectively and all have a 1.6 X crop factor. I was so frustrated in what this means so I ended up calling canon reps and tried to sort this mess out. Keep on mind I was freaking out thinking the image it self was being cropped. But little did I know that the crop factor has nothing to do with cropping at all. All that means is the full frame sensor of the Canon 5D mark II is equivalent of that of a 35 the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is the rough equivalent of 16mm film.
Here is the math behind the whole length multiplier aka the crop factor.
the normal focal length 35mm film is a 50 mm lens. the normal focal length of 16mm film is a 25mm lens.
the crop factor on a 16mm fim compared to a 50 mm is 2
that is 50 / 25 = 2
the crop factor on a 60D compared to 50 mm is 1.6 that is 31.25 mm lens.
that is 50 / 1.6 = 31.25
because the CCD on the 60D is slightly larger then that of film it requires a longer focal length lens to be considered normal.
A 27 mm lens also works as normal focal length for these cameras too.
So basically what the whole film community may not know is that the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D are all 16mm equivalent thus the normal focal length. The normal focal length on a 16mm camera is 25mm lens the normal focal length on the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is 27mm. What is more impressive is that the image sensor size is slightly larger then that of 16mm film. So in essence, us filmmakers are having to choose from a 16mm vs a 35 mm camera. I am totally fine with that, in fact, I love 16mm film and with the fact that these digital cameras out perform the low light factors then that of film is absolutely amazing.
Canon 550D Night Test
Canon EOS 550D a.k.a Rebel T2i.
Only light source is from a street lamp at a bus stop.
Lens is a Sigma 30mm F1.4. Used 1600-ISO and 1/50 shutter speed.
Canon 60D vs 550D vs 7D - which one is better?
Now for the myths concerning DSLRs. The first major myth is the lens focal length multiplier also known as the crop factor. The Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D all have the same image sensor size respectively and all have a 1.6 X crop factor. I was so frustrated in what this means so I ended up calling canon reps and tried to sort this mess out. Keep on mind I was freaking out thinking the image it self was being cropped. But little did I know that the crop factor has nothing to do with cropping at all. All that means is the full frame sensor of the Canon 5D mark II is equivalent of that of a 35 the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is the rough equivalent of 16mm film.
Here is the math behind the whole length multiplier aka the crop factor.
the normal focal length 35mm film is a 50 mm lens. the normal focal length of 16mm film is a 25mm lens.
the crop factor on a 16mm fim compared to a 50 mm is 2
that is 50 / 25 = 2
the crop factor on a 60D compared to 50 mm is 1.6 that is 31.25 mm lens.
that is 50 / 1.6 = 31.25
because the CCD on the 60D is slightly larger then that of film it requires a longer focal length lens to be considered normal.
A 27 mm lens also works as normal focal length for these cameras too.
So basically what the whole film community may not know is that the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D are all 16mm equivalent thus the normal focal length. The normal focal length on a 16mm camera is 25mm lens the normal focal length on the Canon T2i, 60D, and 7D is 27mm. What is more impressive is that the image sensor size is slightly larger then that of 16mm film. So in essence, us filmmakers are having to choose from a 16mm vs a 35 mm camera. I am totally fine with that, in fact, I love 16mm film and with the fact that these digital cameras out perform the low light factors then that of film is absolutely amazing.
Canon 550D Night Test
Canon EOS 550D a.k.a Rebel T2i.
Only light source is from a street lamp at a bus stop.
Lens is a Sigma 30mm F1.4. Used 1600-ISO and 1/50 shutter speed.
Zacuto's Great DSLR vs Film Camera Shootout
As you can see the results are stunning as even the toughest test performed by some renowned cinematographers and filmmakers stood up to even the toughest of Film critics. Even critics that where from kodak and fuji and film biased artest where blown away with the results. What is even more amazing is that the 7D and MKII have little to no diference. The 7D is so simular to the 60D in all respects. The fact is people can make a feature film and still distribute it on the big screen with these DSLR cameras. The whole misconception that the focal length multiplier AKA the crop factor hinders the visual quality substantially is un true to say the least. In fact even in the "Zacuto's Great DSLR vs Film Camera Shootout" youtube video said the 7D had some advantages over the 5D MKII.
We have entered a new era of filmmaking and yes there are some issues that need to be adressed such as contrast and highlights but low light of these digital SLRs exceed that of 35mm film. Film will always be vastly superior to any digital imaging technology we have out today. Its just a fact. And because film is so superior All digital imaging technology will have to campare them selves to film respectively.
There is some more concern with this DSLR revolution and that is moire and aliasing. But is it really a problem? Or are we Digital filmmakers just not used to seeing these defects in this level of image quality. The fact is moire and aliasing even occurs in film and even the human eye. moire and aliasing is just a part of optical physics and should be seen as something that is a natural phenomena rather then a digital hiccup. The thing about moire and aliasing is that it is more susceptible in DSLRs. Mostly because of the curent DIGIC codec. But it just means that the camera has a limitation just as all high quality cameras do. When shooting try to avoid patterns and you should be just fine.
Aliasing and moire
Aliasing
This article is about aliasing in signal processing, including computer graphics. For aliasing in computer programming, see aliasing (computing). In signal processing and related disciplines, aliasing refers to an effect that causes different signals to become indistinguishable (or aliases of one another) when sampled. It also refers to the distortion or artifact that results when the signal reconstructed from samples is different from the original continuous signal.
Moiré is something more seen with the human eye as a optical illusion.
"Moiré" and "Moire" redirect here. For other uses, see Moire (disambiguation).
In physics, a moiré pattern (pronounced /mwaˈreɪ/ in English, [mwaʁe] in French) is an interference pattern created, for example, when two grids are overlaid at an angle, or when they have slightly different mesh sizes.
So there is nothing to really be concerned with as far as the overall making or braking point when deciding between shooting on expensive film vs Cheap DSLR. Just avoid any thing with patterns and you should be just fine.
There is one thing that can't be avoided and is a huge disadvantage that most or all DSLRs have and that is the rolling shutter. Film and many digital video cameras do not have this problem.
Rolling Shutter
As you can see this is not a desired effect and any fast pans should be avoided all together.
I pretty much tackled most of the myths and problems concerned with HD DSLR cameras in respects to filmmaking. As you can see there is nothing to be afraid of and many of the issues that there are not even big at all. So get out there and make movies already and stop worrying about all the hype and criticism theses cameras get from the media and friends. They are all mesurebators and nothing is ever good enough for them and when there is something that works they will just brush it off because its not film or whatever the case may be. Learn to love and respect the medium you shoot on and know its limitations. Only then will you understand what it means to be a true progressive filmmaker or cinematographer.
By
Robert Sawin
0 comments:
Post a Comment