Good Egg Productions wrote: Digital grading and processing will make the footage look even.
And none of the footage captured by the d800s was used for more than a fraction of a second. At least not the scene I saw them using them in and the final product.
Cinema lenses are more expensive for several reasons.
One of them is because there are so few made. Macroeconomics works everywhere.
You really think grading will fix things if the quality is not there? That's like thinking you can retouch an out of focus picture and that will "fix" things. If you had $2 million worth of equipment on set why would you waste time shooting with a $3,000 camera?
Also supposedly the show Wilfred is shot entirely with SLR cameras
how are you going to plug in an AC adapter on a rolling dolly or a car chase?
The Dexter scene had them up high on a wall on a bracket, they were stationary.
Car chase is simple, DC adapter in the follow car.
Rolling dolly, most tracks aren't that long, extension cord.
If all that is unsatisfactory for you, get the accessory grip. It doesn't interfere with changing the battery.
The Dexter scene had them up high on a wall on a bracket, they were stationary.
Car chase is simple, DC adapter in the follow car.
Rolling dolly, most tracks aren't that long, extension cord.
If all that is unsatisfactory for you, get the accessory grip. It doesn't interfere with changing the battery.
Riiiightt... I think after a few decades filmmakers have figured out a few things. Things like its not practical to have the camera plugged in to an outlet, therefore thats why they use battery packs. SLRs are usually mounted on rails with loads of other accessories. Sometimes the battery grip isn't accessible. No camera holds enough power to last a 12 hour shooting day.
Meanwhile with a conventional movie camera it takes 2 seconds to swap battery packs
I've been on just a couple of TV studio sets, but there were cables going everywhere. I'm sure on-location for a movie is different, but in-studio for a TV production, I saw 3 cameras with cables coming from all of them. I had a tour of CNN as well, same thing.
You really think grading will fix things if the quality is not there? That's like thinking you can retouch an out of focus picture and that will "fix" things. If you had $2 million worth of equipment on set why would you waste time shooting with a $3,000 camera?
Also supposedly the show Wilfred is shot entirely with SLR cameras
You say Digital SLRs are good enough for television film making. Then you say it's so impractical that they won't use them. Then you say that Wilfred is filmed exclusively with them. Then you say that they'll never replace million dollar equipment.
The facts are that digital SLR cameras ARE being used to film big productions. Sometimes exclusively. They made a big hairy deal that an episode of House was filmed with the 5D. Sometimes along side of the big cameras, as in Dexter.
I'm fairly certain that the power issue is dealt with on set. I have a fairly good Manfrotto cinema pan and tilt head. and I can easily change out batteries on my D800. I'm willing to bet that if they're going to be using these cameras, they will use rigs that allow for fast battery swapping.
Additionally, no scene that I saw them film took longer than about 2 hours from setup to break down.
It just feels like you're trying to make an argument that isn't there.
Yes, they used D800s for one of the scenes. Two of them. It was a stunt scene where it was possible that they would destroy one or both of the cameras. They also used GoPro Hero2 cams. Four of those.
But they didn't use the D800s INSTEAD of the big rigs. They still used the big daddys in the scene, just with a longer lens and from a very safe distance from the stunt.
The D800 is nice, but it simply doesn't replace the quality of those big rigs.
From what I read, they are using the D800 exclusively to shoot DEXTER and Wilfred. The sample you saw was for them to test and see if there was any differences between D800 and the big rigs.
I haven't been on TV series or movie set but I have assisted on a few TVC where almost all the footage was shot on combination of 5Dmk3 with zeiss lens and converted 7D with cooke lens.
DSLR won't replace proper video cams but its a good alternative for some situation.
Good Egg Productions wrote: I'm confused as to what argument you're making.
You say Digital SLRs are good enough for television film making. Then you say it's so impractical that they won't use them. Then you say that Wilfred is filmed exclusively with them. Then you say that they'll never replace million dollar equipment.
The facts are that digital SLR cameras ARE being used to film big productions. Sometimes exclusively. They made a big hairy deal that an episode of House was filmed with the 5D. Sometimes along side of the big cameras, as in Dexter.
I'm fairly certain that the power issue is dealt with on set. I have a fairly good Manfrotto cinema pan and tilt head. and I can easily change out batteries on my D800. I'm willing to bet that if they're going to be using these cameras, they will use rigs that allow for fast battery swapping.
Additionally, no scene that I saw them film took longer than about 2 hours from setup to break down.
It just feels like you're trying to make an argument that isn't there.
Fine let me direct quote you then
Good Egg Productions wrote: The D800 is nice, but it simply doesn't replace the quality of those big rigs.
So you claimed D800 quality doesn't match their normal movie cameras. At which point I say the quality matches up, otherwise why would they bother using it.
I also say: "Just the day to day stuff regular video cameras much easier to work with."
You then claim:
Good Egg Productions wrote: Digital grading and processing will make the footage look even.
Your claim is that digital grading and processing will make the inferior quality video match up.
At which point I question why they would use equipment that gives inferior image quality when they have millions of dollars of equipment at their disposal.
The example of "Wilfred" further supports the argument that DSLR video quality is good enough.
You also claim:
Good Egg Productions wrote: Cinema lenses are more expensive for several reasons.
One of them is because there are so few made. Macroeconomics works everywhere.
At which point I supply links explaining the differences between cinema lenses and still photography lenses. The supplied links give many reasons why still lenses aren't suitable for many filming needs.
You then claim:
Good Egg Productions wrote: You say Digital SLRs are good enough for television film making. Then you say it's so impractical that they won't use them.
False. I said controls are easier to use on dedicated video cameras, making it easier to use on a daily basis. I never claimed they would never use a DSLR on set
My exact quote:
Yingwah Productions wrote: Mainly it has to do with minor technical things, like controls and inputs. The SLR form factor isn't very good for video controls. Even changing the battery is hard because you have to disassemble the rig to do it. Just the day to day stuff regular video cameras much easier to work with.
.
.
Good Egg Productions wrote: Then you say that they'll never replace million dollar equipment.
False once again. I never made this statement. I said why would filmmakers use equipment that YOU claim gives inferior image quality, when they have millions of dollars in equipment available.
DOUGLASFOTOS wrote: What TV and Movie Scenes go beyond 10 seconds? Without a Cut. Come on let's think.
AND plus...You would burn up the sensor!!!
Seriously dude, you sound like an MTV kid. The first name to come to mind is Stanley Kubrick, but I could come up with three dozen more if I wasn't feeling sleepy.
As far as the file system thing goes, it's a chicken or the egg question. Which means most of you are right, but you're also wrong for thinking there is only one reason. The FAT32 system that memory cards use means that no single file can be over 3.7GB, or whatever a formatted 4GB card works out to. This is because the drives are designed so that each 4GB section is its own separate sector. Bridging this, and creating multiple files from a single file that is still recording, requires extra programming. It can be done. My NEX makes, if I'm not mistaken, a 4 GB file AND a 2 GB file if I let it run until it times out. Making it run indefinitely would require an upgrade to the heatsink, the processor, and new programming.
Since the camera/camcorder taxes exist, and since designing something easily hacked would probably get them slapped with those taxes anyway, there is no reason under current regulations that they would actually bother to do that. They can't market it as recording an hour of video in one go, so why bother going through all the effort of making it do that?
So whether you want to blame the regulations of the manufacturer, you're correct. But they would BOTH need to change in order to get more than half an hour or so of continuous video.
I know, this doesn't answer the OP's question. I don't think there is an easy firmware that you can heck it without buying external equipments (which cost more money).
I know there is something like a $15k difference between two Canon EOS Cinema cameras with identical hardware. One is limited to 29 minutes of video, one is not. Different firmware. Identical hardware. Thousands of dollars difference in price.
Seriously dude, you sound like an MTV kid. The first name to come to mind is Stanley Kubrick, but I could come up with three dozen more if I wasn't feeling sleepy.
As far as the file system thing goes, it's a chicken or the egg question. Which means most of you are right, but you're also wrong for thinking there is only one reason. The FAT32 system that memory cards use means that no single file can be over 3.7GB, or whatever a formatted 4GB card works out to. This is because the drives are designed so that each 4GB section is its own separate sector. Bridging this, and creating multiple files from a single file that is still recording, requires extra programming. It can be done. My NEX makes, if I'm not mistaken, a 4 GB file AND a 2 GB file if I let it run until it times out. Making it run indefinitely would require an upgrade to the heatsink, the processor, and new programming.
Since the camera/camcorder taxes exist, and since designing something easily hacked would probably get them slapped with those taxes anyway, there is no reason under current regulations that they would actually bother to do that. They can't market it as recording an hour of video in one go, so why bother going through all the effort of making it do that?
So whether you want to blame the regulations of the manufacturer, you're correct. But they would BOTH need to change in order to get more than half an hour or so of continuous video.
Chicken or the egg.
and one more time...You would burn up the sensor. I am from the day of David Lean...Long and steady shots...that Spielberg uses today.
And today's shows are cut up...10 seconds here and there and MTV is even worst...2 and 3 seconds...
Robb Mann wrote: I know there is something like a $15k difference between two Canon EOS Cinema cameras with identical hardware. One is limited to 29 minutes of video, one is not. Different firmware. Identical hardware. Thousands of dollars difference in price.
| 
| 
| edu