There’s something magical about how great depth of field is with these cameras. Here we shoot just a few inches away from our subject using only a shiny board to fill in the scene. We used a short 28mm lens and opened the camera all the way up.
We found the cameras easy to pull tough focus, with the right gear. In order to achieve smooth focus, we needed a large enough image in to view and more precise controls. The folks at Zacuto came through on both fronts. We already owned their Z-finder, and we borrowed a follow focus to put it through its paces.
There’s a lot more to this exciting genre. We’re deep into exploration and I’ll share more soon. Feel free to leave comments and requests for more footage and information. We’ve also got a Facebook group about the book where we’ll start sharing excerpts and more test footage in the coming months.
I agree with poster #1. This really is rather light-weight; there’s no meat here but I suppose all the meat will be in the book. I get no indication of that by reading this article.
I want serious, rigorous comparisons using what real researchers call “clinical research” methodology. There is such a thing as PQA (Picture Quality Analysis) software. It’s objective but, of course, it costs money, you need to color calibrate cameras - which I know is great pain and time-consuming, etc.
I think readers should understand something about 8bit video (all DSLRs released to date are 8bit and may just remain so) as opposed to 10bit (Red One).
In my opinion, 10 bit video should be understood to be perhaps the single biggest differentiator between pro and amateur video. For me, that these cameras shoot 8bit says it all and I don’t even need to read about comparisons, poorly conceived and carried out or not. I’ll explain.
Let’s talk about just the resulting video form any of these cameras, as opposed to camera features, ergonomics, optics, etc.
If you are doing color correction, 10 bit video is far preferrable. That said, you can always transcode 8 bit video to 10 bit using an intermediate CODEC such as Cineform or ProRes. Still, that’s not nearly as preferrable to shooting 10 bit video. If you are shooting commercials, forget about 8 bit. Commercials shot for national brocast - as opposed to many a local cable spot, is shot in 10 bit and you can see the difference.
Then we have the issue of rigorous post manipulation. 10 bit video withstands heavy graphics compositing much better.
What about looking at 10 bit versus 8 bit on scopes? Let your own eyes looking at those comparisons be the judge.
What about affordable 10 bit monitors such as HP’s Dreamcolor? And the coming 10 bit LCD consumer TVs coming out?
Of course these things won’t trouble the photojournalist. But seeing 8 bit’s inherent weaknesses on 10 bit monitors will open a lot of indie video producers’ eyes.
The new DSLRs may become the darlings of some in the indie film crowd but most of them aren’t doing compositing with multilayer graphics and effects.
Yes, those indie producers are doing color correction and I suppose they can get by with 8 bit (or transcoding to 10 bit every bit as indies who have produced very compelling releases using 8 bit prosumer camcorders. But let it be understood that we are currently seeing the emergence of 10 bit prosumer camcorders. To wit, the Panasonic HPX300 is one. And there can be no doubt that we’ll see more.
A digression:
I ‘ll make a prediction. We’ll see larger, single imager prosumer camcorders before long. I’ve wondered aloud to various industry followers as to why Canon hasn’t released a tapeless camcorder yet. The consensus answer I get is that Canon must be preparing a prosumer world-beater. They’ll use their tech know-how in large, single imager DSLRs (technically superior to 3 imagers, which was only a cost-reduction workaround) and first class optics to release a camcorder that capitalizes on everything they’ve done so far.
Indie producers plunking down money for these DSLRs: Watch out!
(Please forgive me if I have committed any, typos, spelling errors, grammatical or syntax errors in my haste).
Posted by wsmith on 11/15 at 02:28 PM
To wsmith
This article is not an engineering test… nor is it funded to the level of testing you want.
It is simply me sharing some footage and observations about popular DSLR cameras that we had access too.
You raise many points, much that I agree with, but again… not part of the article or its purpose.
Posted by Richard Harrington on 11/15 at 02:49 PM
Mr. Harrington. I understand your position perfectly. I also understand that you are pitching a book.
I am hoping that this site will give us more though. I’ve seen many reviews and comparisons on this site done according to standards any engineer would scoff at.
I understand that you are not - unless I am mistaken - an engineer. But it doesn’t take an engineer to run these signals through bench scopes and tell us what they see.
I understand that a good analytical tool can cost around the same as a fully loaded new Lexus.
My criticism is really aimed at the producers of this site. I want more than this.
Posted by wsmith on 11/15 at 03:22 PM
First off nice article, good information here and I would love to see more. My only major complaint is using Facebook for the sample videos, the quality isn’t to hot and looks blurry, would have much rater seen it on Vimeo.
Also I would like to respond to wsmith, a person that seems to be too caught up in technical stats then real world ones. 8bit has been uses professionally for years and will still be used. Yeah 10bit is better but it doesn’t mean you can’t do stuff with 8bit.
A good professional can get professional results with 8 or 10 bit, doesn’t matter a person works with what tools they have at their disposal. Also the whole bit thing has to do with processing. I superior imager can the processes at 8bit can still look better then something that is 10bit.
Its much more beneficial to focus more on using the tools then to get caught up in debating numbers. The end results is what matters, if you can get the job done with LESS then whats the problem with that? Nothing thats what.
Posted by Silton Buendia on 11/18 at 05:48 PM
Silton,
Many an indie film producer and news shooter has done well enough with 8 bit.
I thing we’re beginning to see the dawn of newer prosumer camcorders such as Pannasonic’s HPX300 for around 9,000US that shoots in 10 bit. I’m sure we’ll see more.
Somehow I doubt that Canon, Nikon et al are in any big rush to develop 10bit DSLRS. I just don’t think photo-journalists need it.
Regarding 10 bit, I think people who’ve been around in this biz for a while understand that there’s more than meets the eye with video. All of the advantages I describe above are all quite valid. Those things are rather indisputable.
Here’s another advantage of 10 bit video. We’ve all heard the phrase “Garbage in, garbage out.”
For web delivery, where compression can be quite heavy, and DVD too, resulting picture quality is always better when you start with higher quality video. And by that I do mean 10 bit video.
I’ve been involved with DVD authoring and web video compression for some important organizations, since the beginning and I can vouch for it. Experts agree.
I very seriously doubt that any reputable post production company will deprecate 10 bit one iota. If they have a choice between the two, 10 bit wins without any contest whatsoever. The qualitative difference when it comes to heavy post manipulation is huge.
I think this site and it’s users could benefit from some serious discussion and articles on this subject.
Posted by wsmith on 11/19 at 08:09 AM
With out question 10bit is better and given the choice why wouldn’t you. But my point was that getting to caught up in the debate and knocking down a product because its not 10bit has little value. Some people only have access to certain tools but that doesn’t mean that they can’t get the job done. 8bit can make a perfectly fine movie. Its all about the end result.
A great modern day example is the recent movie Paranormal Activity. Huge success on what hollywood would consider inferior equipment. But thats the kicker, in the end it has more value then all that high end gear because it cost little and made a ton of money.
Also as for internet delivery I have to disagree to a point. 8 vs 10 is less a factor her. I’ve been dealing with encoding for longer then most people I started back in 96 when the technology was still very new and unavailable to most. At that time it was a struggle to get good results, but now so much has changed. And yet while we have seen mind blowing advances in compression and encoding, especially for online delivery its still not as good as the original footage. So as long as you don’t got to crazy with things you can still get as good as you can get conversions for online delivery. For example a product like the Canon 5D encodes more then perfectly to something like HD Vimeo. Razor sharp and minimal artifacts that aren’t caused by the source footage itself.
Now if you are doing heavy effects works then that I can see a big advantage for going 10, but really only a small percent of real world productions needs to be doing that kind of effects.
Posted by Silton Buendia on 11/19 at 02:06 PM
Hi Stilton,
I’m not trying to knock anybody down and don’t think I am. I don’t consider this a debate either, just a worthwile discussion.
My experience in compression is that the most common deleterious encoding buggaboo I can point to is darkened output. Darkened output seems to happen across the spectrum of cource type, irrespective of output quality settings.
I’ve personally had more than a few encoding results that showed - all things being equal, with same sets/lighting - that are lighter using 10 bit source.
Netflix “Instant Streaming” is apparently the latest example. The NY Times just had an article on that. Netflix is most like encoding from DVDs and not the Hollywood original film or masters or files. (At least I doubt it)
All DVDs and even BluRay discs are 8bit video. I’m sure Netflix doesn’t employ slouches or neophytes to compress them for online delivery. Yet the streaming movies are reportedly all somewhat darker that the physical DVDs.
I agree re your point 8 bit being fine for Paranormal Activity and quite a few others too. (actually, 8 bit was probably overkill…)
Best of luck!
Posted by wsmith on 11/19 at 02:37 PM
When I said: “Darkened output seems to happen across the spectrum of cource type, irrespective of output quality settings.”
I misspoke. Of course the heavier the compression the greater the darkening.
Posted by wsmith on 11/19 at 02:40 PM
No worries I get your point, like I said its always nice to have the best, in a perfect world everything would get a long fine. To bad thats not the case.
Even with TVs and the cheap TVs on the market, there are huge differences in the way they handle things, especially in the blacks. I have a cheap Vizio for my room TV and while ok sometimes especially because I work in the field little things are lacking. But hey can I really complain about a $260 HD 1080P TV? LOL I guess not.
Its really about the budget, you get the best you can afford and work with it.
Posted by Silton Buendia on 11/19 at 03:17 PM
Silton,
Exactly!
I’m just trying to get by with only what is needed for the type of work I do or want to do without spending more than I need to.
I’m always trying to get down to the core fundamentals of cameras and what they really do well and what they cannot. It’s hasn’t been easy with things changing so rapidly.
The new DSLRs are intriguing for certain work. I’m pretty sure those same manufacturers will soon begin to announce regular video cams that merge the best of both still and video acquistion. I don’t think the DSLRs are there yet for me.
Eventually I suppose it’ll come down to ergonomics. The video capbility is positioned towards photo journalists but will also have appeal to many indie film makers. Improvements will probably make them appealing to ENG.
I’m optimistic that Canon will give us all that the DSLRs have going for them in something more geared towards pro videography.
For someone who ‘come up’ through DV and then HDV, and who has now begun investing in 10 bit I/O and monitoring gear there’s no way I can rationalize just stepping backward to 8bit.
Posted by wsmith on 11/19 at 05:04 PM
yeah sadly I didn’t see much worth to the article. Sharing is nice but this billed itself as more than that. So the 5D is the best HD-DSLR out there, best chip, highest price, big surprise. The only interesting thing was the comparison to the RED one but then lenses used we’re drastically different. And Facebook video was terrible, Vimeo has this down. Anyway, this late in the game I’d expect more info than this provided, especially if the article is called a shoot out. Where’s Adam Wilt??
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 11/27 at 01:28 PM
You can click the facebook text or the link in article to see in HD for the videos.
This is a real world comparison of footage and capabilities. That’s all.
Posted by Richard Harrington on 11/27 at 05:47 PM
I am curious as to why all of my comments have been deleted. Who did this, and why?
Posted by Jeff Kreines on 12/01 at 03:32 PM
I addressed all of your suggested edits. It was deemed that you and I were in a flame war.
Changes to story were updated where appropriate.
Out petty arguments were removed.
Posted by Richard Harrington on 12/01 at 04:39 PM
I’m stunned bothered and bewildered. Who deemed that and who deleted those comments.
Who decides what’s appropriate? I’m more than curious!
PS. the guy who so much has troubles with my grammar is, so it seems, not in a flame war, right? I’m just joking of course.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/01 at 04:56 PM
I am sure that there’s a committee on PVC that decides this sort of thing. But who is on that committee, and what made them decide to do this?
What I am asking, given Richard’s very passive sentences, is who did the deeming? He writes as if it were an act of the PVC gods.
To me it appears that the committee of PVC gods decided that they should take it easy on the new guy. Fair enough. But is this the sort of thing that is done regularly? If so, my respect for PVC is greatly diminished.
Posted by Jeff Kreines on 12/01 at 05:40 PM
All in all, I sort of agree that things were flaring up a bit, in a tit for tat sort of manner. Whether it deserved to removed or not, I’m not sure I agree. No ones feelings we’re getting hurt, it’s just the internet after all.
The one thing I think that is at the core of the issue is that people expect more from ProVideo Coalition content. I love sharing, i think it’s part of what makes the internet so great. But here we want more than what we’d see on personal blogs or Facebook groups. I was excited to click on this article, I love techy, nerdy camera shootouts. But felt i learned little more than seeing what they shot, and was particularly put off by the product placement. I know self-promotion is important but the Meyer’s, for instance, reference their work all the time but it’s subtle and they provide substantive information at the same time so I don’t mind. Anyway, just my two cents for the PVC gods.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/02 at 12:38 AM
Yeah your right…. I just whipped up all those things in about an hour… I copied and pasted a few things off the net… stole some pictures from someone else’s sites. [SARCASM if not clear]
Oh… yeah.. and the economy’s great… we’re flush with cash.
Lynda.com’s giving their stuff all away for free now too, right Scott?
Come on guys move on… stop whining.
Jeff & Scott… the articles not for you… I took your feedback and addressed concerns in the article… I wrote it for other independents and small businesses to share what we’ve learned from the cameras. Their strengths and weaknesses.
It is not an engineering shootout… I did test 3 cameras. I shared what we found. I talked about some gear that I liked.
I am hard at work on a 400 page book with 4 hours of video and a ton of profiles and case studies. I think you’ll probably like it… if you don’t… that’s fine.
No… I can’t take things from the book and post it for free… yes, I’d love to give everything I do away for free… but I can’t.
I felt the last comments were out of line… I addressed the concerns. I asked the editor of the site to edit or remove the thread because it was heated. It was removed.
If you’d like to take the time (in this case it was about 30 hours of manpower to do the shoots and write the article… go ahead.
I find it amazing… how flush with cash you must think a author for a niche website is. I did this to share… the cash I’ll make is about enough to take the wife out for a nice dinner and pick up a box of Legos for my son.
So… PLEASE MOVE ON
If you have additional comments or questions about the facts of the article.. I am happy to discuss.
If you want to just sit here bashing the site, comparing one author to another, or whining about your expectations… MOVE ON
Posted by Richard Harrington on 12/02 at 12:55 AM
Why not get rid of the ‘comments’ section altogether, so no more of those ‘bashing, comparing and whining’ can happen. And no more need for censuring the readers and whiners who might think that the above article doesn’t exactly meet somewhat professional expectations - it’s a commercial for an audience that I didn’t know provideocoalition is targeting - it is amateur by all means. And there’s nothing wrong with amateur but this site calls themselves….PRO after all.
It is a sad day for ‘provideocoaltion’. I think it’s time for the owners/runners of this site to explain the reasoning behind this rather absurd ‘it was deemed that….’ and so on. Hell, an apology to all who comment here would be not bad either.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/02 at 03:27 AM
Well I was gonna add something about not taking it personal but didn’t think it was necessary.
Richard, I love this site, I use it all the time and refer others to it all the time. I want it to get better. My first comment might not have been the best but I was trying to give constructive feedback as fan of the site in my follow up.
I don’t expect you to give all your work away for free, again I just thought it was misleading. And quite honestly, I respect you for making the changes that you did.
While this article might not be for me, that’s what these comments are for, feedback and discussion. I think that’s what’s happening here right? Or at least thats what the steady stream if email alerts feels like….where’s that check box again?
btw, look at the last line of the first page real quick for a typo…just trying to help
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/02 at 09:43 AM
This all sounds like perfect fodder for a discussion in the forums…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/02 at 02:06 PM
“I am sure that there’s a committee on PVC that decides this sort of thing.”
Actually, there isn’t. PVC isn’t a magazine or some other media monolith; it actually is a “collective” of individual writers. Each writer maintains his or own channel in the way they see fit, including posting content and managing comments. Each article and blog channel is the work of the author(s); not of “PVC.”
That said, the writers do regularly discuss common ways of handling situations, and I occasionally step in and edit a piece; I made some edits to this one before it was posted. But in general, I try to exercise a light touch and leave it to the writers to decide how they want to carry themselves - and to the readers to decide whether or not they want to follow a specific writer.
So although we do try to gather a collection of interesting, useful writers for you to read, it would be inaccurate to think that the actions of any one writer represents all of PVC.
That said, feedback on how you would like to see PVC writers carry themselves in general is useful input for when we do get together and discuss if there’s any standards and practices we could or should be following.
Chris Meyer
so-called Editorial Director
(Cat Herder may be more appropriate)
Posted by Chris Meyer on 12/03 at 04:41 PM
Chris Meyer writes:
” Each writer maintains his or own channel in the way they see fit, including posting content and managing comments. Each article and blog channel is the work of the author(s); not of “PVC.””
Ah, that is interesting. It means that Mr. H was being somewhat disingenuous in writing this:
“I addressed all of your suggested edits. It was deemed that you and I were in a flame war.
Changes to story were updated where appropriate.
Out [sic] petty arguments were removed.”
The implication is that this was done by someone other than himself—“it was deemed”—when that is apparently not true.
Fine for him to delete any comments that might reflect poorly on him, but he should at least be honest enough to say “I didn’t agree with what you wrote, so I deleted it, because this is MY channel.”
That would have been more honest than hiding behind passive sentence construction.
Jeff “remembers Chris from the old PAN days” Kreines
Posted by Jeff Kreines on 12/04 at 05:24 PM
Hi, Jeff - still doing music?
“The implication is that this was done by someone other than himself”
In the interest of full disclosure, I and the “publisher” Scott Gentry do work behind the scenes to delete posts we deem to be spam (for example, ones that link directly off to another site selling something - particularly if they are unrelated to PVC). Some of this spam is fairly tricky, apparently commenting on the article, while containing a spurious link. I err on the side of asking Scott to delete them (and to block the poster). Richard, to be fair, errs on the side of being helpful, answering many of those posts.
As for a general policy, I don’t like censorship. But neither do I like flame wars. I agree that patience and transparency are the best options. But I can also empathize how hard it is to be patient when you feel you are being personally attacked.
So I ask everyone to be civil in their disagreements. For example, ‘wsmith’ was constructive with his/her criticism; ‘keenast’ wasn’t with his/her initial comment (the later ones were better, although the tone may have obscured some of the substance). The former is more likely to effect positive change than the latter. And at the end of the day, all of us want more, better information, right?
- Chris
Posted by Chris Meyer on 12/05 at 03:49 PM
(sigh)
In the interest of further disclosure, I just learned that it indeed was _not_ Richard who deleted the posts in question; he conferred with the site’s publisher Scott Gentry, and Scott deleted the posts. So it is not fair to hang this completely on Richard’s shoulders (and I apologize for adding to this perception - I didn’t see the background correspondence, and therefore incorrectly assumed that none took place). Hopefully Scott will get a chance to get up here and share his reasoning.
In the meantime, this has been a good lesson to all of the PVC writers to be even more diligent about transparency. Thanks to everyone who added constructively to this discussion.
- Chris
Posted by Chris Meyer on 12/05 at 04:29 PM
The idea behind PVC from the beginning is that it’s a collection of great writers each maintaining their own content and managing their own site. By aggregating everyone together we can approach the market with strength in numbers, and supply readers great content from the best writers all in one place.
Chris is correct, we are still learning how this model works. It’s not like traditional magazines where there are managing editors overriding content and assigning stories. That’s what makes this site strong. However, it’s a learning process in this new model as well. It was I who made the move to delete a few comments I felt were too personal and not necessarily in keeping with a constructive nature. I am against censorship and will only take those down that cross a line or get vulgar, because that’s just not the site we want.
Collectively I and the writers will open a discussion about the best way to handle non-constructive comments (if at all). Often it’s best for the community to police themselves.
I really appreciate the comments we’ve been getting because this is how we get better. We’re still less than two years old as a site. Our ultimate goal is to deliver the best content available, your constructive comments often make for the best reading. Please keep it up!
Scott
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/05 at 04:47 PM
As an addendum to the above, my sincerest apologies to Richard, Chris and the commenters whose posts were removed.
I’m searching for the best punishment now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 12/05 at 04:51 PM
