frankencamera...

http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Fe...hdv-d-slr.html

OMFG! Is there no end to idiocy?
Let me see he would a top of the line exchangeable lens video camera produce
an order of magnitude better results than this contraption, at all levels?
Narh, of course not. And it wouldn't cost less, either...

On 16/04/2012 8:31 PM, Noons wrote:
http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Fe...hdv-d-slr.html

OMFG! Is there no end to idiocy?
Let me see he would a top of the line exchangeable lens video camera
produce an order of magnitude better results than this contraption, at
all levels?
Narh, of course not. And it wouldn't cost less, either...

There is a very fine line between broadcast quality Video and That which
can be produced with a DSLR capable of recording video.

The single biggest problem faced by DSLR vidcam operators is focus. No
DSLR has yet managed to auto focus on variable distance objects with any
degree of consistency. The current popular solution is to mount a DSLR
on rails and use a wheel with friction drive to manually focus with.

Once you go to that trouble, the temptation to kit up an outfit with
remote screen and very large hood capable of taking broadcast level
filters and provide shoulder mount capability is tempting to people who
think they can do the impossible.

Your example is where the madness begins. From there there is steadycam
holders costing up to $20,000 so you can have smooth vision on the run
and a whole spate of accessories meant to imitate real professional
cinematographers capabilities.

It's like a kid in a candy store. Not happy with changing fixed length
lenses for different scenes shot from a fixed position, old timers used
to build rails to run the camera along. Boys and their toy DSLRs today
expect to run along beside the object using a gyroscope (steadycam) rig
to smooth out the bumps. Maybe even use an overhead gantry.

I've got a model helicopter I mount a camera under (still or video). To
get enough power to hold everything aloft, I spent as much as a car
building the thing and no insurance company will cover it.

Why did I do this? So I could film a race from above and create Promos
and commercials for small resorts that couldn't afford the cost of a
real helicopter, pilot and film crew.

That outfit you point to is definitely functional overkill. It only
makes up for the functionality DSLRs don't have when it comes to
broadcast quality video. For what that gear probably cost, you could buy
a Pro level camcorder and get the added advantage of being able to shoot
60 fps and on at least one such camcorder I've seen, slow-motion too.

Noons, as long as there are idiots around, idiocy will prevail. The one
thing critical to all footage shot with these DSLRs is the need for
equally expensive editing equipment. It'll all be outdated soon anyway
and if the idiots have any money left, the idiocy will resume.

The interesting thing is that I've shot scenes on my iPhone that make me
just as much as if I'd used my camcorder! I glued a thread to the iPhone
and screw on a hood or filters. I've even flown it on the helicopter to
see what the results were like. For Utube stuff I can't see you'd need
much more!

Chloe

Chloe wrote,on my timestamp of 16/04/2012 11:24 PM:

There is a very fine line between broadcast quality Video and That which can be
produced with a DSLR capable of recording video.

I really don't think so. Unless we count surveillance camera work as "broadcast
quality". Yeah, su lots of definition. And some of the most boring, steady
camera footage I've ever seen!


The single biggest problem faced by DSLR vidcam operators is focus. No DSLR has
yet managed to auto focus on variable distance objects with any degree of
consistency. The current popular solution is to mount a DSLR on rails and use a
wheel with friction drive to manually focus with.

And a few others. Like for example: move (or shake) the camera and the entire
sequence turns to jello. IOW: only surveillance camera footage.
Completely ignoring the simple fact that one of the most effective and used
video and cine camera technique is a panning/moving camera.
But let's not allow reality to interfere with gizmo marketing!


Your example is where the madness begins. From there there is steadycam holders
costing up to $20,000 so you can have smooth vision on the run and a whole spate
of accessories meant to imitate real professional cinematographers capabilities.

You got it in one: imitation.
And expensive, as well!


to run the camera along. Boys and their toy DSLRs today expect to run along
beside the object using a gyroscope (steadycam) rig to smooth out the bumps.

The funny thing is they can't. The moment they do that, it all turns to jello.


I've got a model helicopter I mount a camera under (still or video). To get
enough power to hold everything aloft, I spent as much as a car building the
thing and no insurance company will cover it.

Why did I do this? So I could film a race from above and create Promos and
commercials for small resorts that couldn't afford the cost of a real
helicopter, pilot and film crew.

But that's perfectly legit! Compare the cost of your contraption to buying a
real helicopter and licensing it for the effect? Surely it was less. But the
stuff these guys are selling is, added up, as expensive as a pro-quality video
camera to start with, with none of the advantages! Why bother?

I know a pro video maker (international tv channel) who still uses his Pana
pro"tank" (for those who don't know, it's a H-U-G-E camera similar in size to an
Arri), initially with a S-VHS back, after with a digital tape back and now with
a digital video back. He's never changed the body, only added lenses and backs
to it. Blessed thing cost him nearly 12 grand 18 years ago and the HQ digital
back was around 8 grand. That investment has paid so many times over it's not
even funny to compare. Then again he uses it for a living, just about every day...


That outfit you point to is definitely functional overkill. It only makes up for
the functionality DSLRs don't have when it comes to broadcast quality video. For
what that gear probably cost, you could buy a Pro level camcorder and get the
added advantage of being able to shoot 60 fps and on at least one such camcorder
I've seen, slow-motion too.

Bingo!

Noons, as long as there are idiots around, idiocy will prevail. The one thing
critical to all footage shot with these DSLRs is the need for equally expensive
editing equipment. It'll all be outdated soon anyway and if the idiots have any
money left, the idiocy will resume.

And now we've got 4K just around the corner, to buy editors for as well... It
never ends, does it?



The interesting thing is that I've shot scenes on my iPhone that make me just as
much as if I'd used my camcorder! I glued a thread to the iPhone and screw on a
hood or filters. I've even flown it on the helicopter to see what the results
were like. For Utube stuff I can't see you'd need much more!

Absolutely! It's why I keep telling folks who only publish 800X600 on the
internet: their 20+MP dslrs are completely W-A-S-T-E-D! They might as well use a
Mavica and save heaps!

Chloe wrote:
On 16/04/2012 8:31 PM, Noons wrote:
http://www.avhub.com.au/index.php/Fe...hdv-d-slr.html

OMFG! Is there no end to idiocy?
Let me see he would a top of the line exchangeable lens video camera
produce an order of magnitude better results than this contraption, at
all levels?
Narh, of course not. And it wouldn't cost less, either...

There is a very fine line between broadcast quality Video and That which
can be produced with a DSLR capable of recording video.

The single biggest problem faced by DSLR vidcam operators is focus. No
DSLR has yet managed to auto focus on variable distance objects with any
degree of consistency. The current popular solution is to mount a DSLR
on rails and use a wheel with friction drive to manually focus with.

Once you go to that trouble, the temptation to kit up an outfit with
remote screen and very large hood capable of taking broadcast level
filters and provide shoulder mount capability is tempting to people who
think they can do the impossible.

Your example is where the madness begins. From there there is steadycam
holders costing up to $20,000 so you can have smooth vision on the run
and a whole spate of accessories meant to imitate real professional
cinematographers capabilities.

It's like a kid in a candy store. Not happy with changing fixed length
lenses for different scenes shot from a fixed position, old timers used
to build rails to run the camera along. Boys and their toy DSLRs today
expect to run along beside the object using a gyroscope (steadycam) rig
to smooth out the bumps. Maybe even use an overhead gantry.

I've got a model helicopter I mount a camera under (still or video). To
get enough power to hold everything aloft, I spent as much as a car
building the thing and no insurance company will cover it.

Why did I do this? So I could film a race from above and create Promos
and commercials for small resorts that couldn't afford the cost of a
real helicopter, pilot and film crew.

That outfit you point to is definitely functional overkill. It only
makes up for the functionality DSLRs don't have when it comes to
broadcast quality video. For what that gear probably cost, you could buy
a Pro level camcorder and get the added advantage of being able to shoot
60 fps and on at least one such camcorder I've seen, slow-motion too.

But that won't give the DOF effects of 35mm or the high ISO for candle
lit scenes. The setup in the OP is not over the top compared to shooting
film, and it's still a lot more compact.


Noons, as long as there are idiots around, idiocy will prevail. The one
thing critical to all footage shot with these DSLRs is the need for
equally expensive editing equipment. It'll all be outdated soon anyway
and if the idiots have any money left, the idiocy will resume.

The interesting thing is that I've shot scenes on my iPhone that make me
just as much as if I'd used my camcorder! I glued a thread to the iPhone
and screw on a hood or filters. I've even flown it on the helicopter to
see what the results were like. For Utube stuff I can't see you'd need
much more!

Chloe