-
I guess it’s So Long and Thanks for all the Fish!
-
Herb, so you are saying right tool for the right job?
And what appealed most to you about the 5D? The color, short DOF, the contrast, all the aliasing? OK, that last one was a dig. What couldn’t you get out of the AF that you could out of the 5D besides audio/video and tc?
You can get all that with other cameras (have you tried DOF adapters?). And I’m sorry, but a red blows the pants off the 5D, but since you haven’t tried it, I’ll leave that alone. In video, the sensor size certainly matters, and bigger is not always better. This is probably another thread.
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Come on now. They certainly didn’t include common variables. Hey, how about a waveform? No? Oh, a histogram that only works when I take a still? What about real time audio meters? No? Exposure reading? Format feedback? A viewfinder? Real time video out while shooting to connect to external hardware? No? Sorry, but I can’t agree that out of the box, it isn’t hobbled. Im also sorrry for my double negatives and truncated iPhone ramblings. But I think people tend to forget just how hobbled it is, because they can get a result out of it.”
I was not clear enough. I absolutely agree that it’s badly hobbled for video, for all the reasons you describe.
My point was on the stills side — you know, the thing that DSLRs used to be used for. Canon observed standards. Physical things like the control ring arrangement, shutter release placement, lens mount, the hot shoe, the media. Conceptual things like aperture, exposure, and sensitivity.
Canon DSLRs, like any professional stills cameras, are extensible with accessories because there are standards. Video is a feature glommed on to the camera that surprised everyone (Canon included, I’d think). The only reason the camera is even remotely usable for video is because the camera itself is open to first- and third-party extension.
When FCPX’s APIs are released, FCPX will become extensible, too. It will be interesting to watch how the industry responds when you can stack accessories onto FCPX to make it more usable (or perhaps less unusable), just like the 5DmkII. With enough accessories, can you Frankenstein the wrong tool for the job until it becomes the right one? If you can, is it worth it, or are you better off just using the right tool in the first place?
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
“Herb, so you are saying right tool for the right job?”
No, what I’m saying is that if your going to deal with a lot of problems then a tool better be able to deliver something you can’t get any other way. If the final results are worth the pain then you call the problems “idiosyncrasies,” if not then the tool is simply a piece of crap.
“And what appealed most to you about the 5D? The color, short DOF, the contrast, all the aliasing? OK, that last one was a dig. What couldn’t you get out of the AF that you could out of the 5D besides audio/video and tc?”
Yes to the color, the contrast, the DOF but mostly I just thought of it as the way the 5D handled the light. The AF looked like the other Pany’s except with a slightly shallower depth of field. The 5D reminded me of when I was first starting out, working with 16mm film, and I got to edit 35mm for the first time – there was a glow to the image that at first I thought must be some filter combination the DP was using – later I realized it was just the difference higher resolution and smaller grain size brings. In the hands of a skilled DP, someone who could take advantage of those properties, you could get a look that simply couldn’t be matched on 16. Something about the way the 5D handled the light reminded me of that. I’ve been looking for it ever since I switched to video and I never saw it before.
I would be thrilled if Canon, or anyone, would put that sensor in a real video camera body – but for now I will put up with it’s “idiosyncrasies” when the right situation comes along.
If I could afford to keep a Red or Alexa around to just pull out a few times a day for special shots, then I would be happy to say good-bye to the Canon.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
A late addendum –
“I realized it was just the difference higher resolution and smaller grain size brings.”
And it took even longer for me to learn that larger image (sensor) size brought out different lens properties as well.
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions -
[Walter Soyka] “My point was on the stills side — you know, the thing that DSLRs used to be used for. Canon observed standards. Physical things like the control ring arrangement, shutter release placement, lens mount, the hot shoe, the media. Conceptual things like aperture, exposure, and sensitivity.”
Got ya. Yeah, it is still a still camera. 🙂
[Walter Soyka] “The only reason the camera is even remotely usable for video is because the camera itself is open to first- and third-party extension.”
Can you explain what you mean here? I see it as a remarkably closed system.
[Walter Soyka] “When FCPX’s APIs are released, FCPX will become extensible, too.”
Did you see foolcut yet? With the help of AE and PPro, you can get an honest to goodness XML from an FCPX timeline, and this is with no API. Almost all of FCPXs timeline nomenclatures are supported in an Applescript that is in v0.9, and the developer doesn’t tout himself as a code writer.
[Walter Soyka] “If you can, is it worth it, or are you better off just using the right tool in the first place?”
No question, in my mind it’s the right tool. FCPX is certainly not there yet, although if you need to organize 1000 shots quickly, it is definitely the right tool.
-
[Herb Sevush] “No, what I’m saying is that if your going to deal with a lot of problems then a tool better be able to deliver something you can’t get any other way. “
Then i disagree that DSLRs are the only way to get those results you speak of. In my mind, they really aren’t that special.
[Herb Sevush] “The AF looked like the other Pany’s except with a slightly shallower depth of field.”
That’s because right out of the box Canon understands how to trick the eye in to believing what you are seeing is a high quality image, when really it’s not. You eyes sees contrast, then color, then resolution and that’s what Canon has tweaked in that order. The AF100 can be tweaked to match these physical properties. The giant sensor does help with sensitivity, but throws a lot out in the process to get there when used for video.
[Herb Sevush] “I would be thrilled if Canon, or anyone, would put that sensor in a real video camera body – but for now I will put up with it’s “idiosyncrasies” when the right situation comes along.”
So, it’s been long enough. Why haven’t they?
[Herb Sevush] “If I could afford to keep a Red or Alexa around to just pull out a few times a day for special shots, then I would be happy to say good-bye to the Canon.”
Yeah, one wouldn’t use an Alexa or Red for special shots.
-
[Herb Sevush] “And it took even longer for me to learn that larger image (sensor) size brought out different lens properties as well.”
Yeah, and some of those are imperfections.
-
Perhaps this is hint of what’s to come?
https://www.engadget.com/2011/09/07/sonnet-announces-rackmac-mini-xserver-makes-apple-desktop-it-li/
“My Name is Steve and I’m an FCPX user”
-
Herb’s right. There were some things that a DSLR could do that a video camera couldn’t – at the time they were gaining popularity anyway. Now, video cameras are evolving to take in the best elements the DSLRs had to offer, which is the way it should be. We, the community, discovered how to push and manipulate these little gems into something valuable. We expressed what we loved about them (shallow DOF as a tool, access to a huge range of glass, and small form factor). We expressed what we hated about them (line-skipping, excessive moire, lack of manual controls, lack of audio support, etc.) Then the giants looked at the pressure we built and, after a few years, responded to it.
Enter the AF100 from Panny and the F3 from Sony . . but that’s intelligent.
Some organizations would rather be different.You see, the camera manufacturers get it.
You let the pros play with toys, and see which ones they cling to. That becomes your market research. Then you incorporate those features into more “pro” products – blammo – instant success. Repeat often.
It’s cheap, self-financed research.And it doesn’t require you to EOL something in order to force your clients to keep supporting your next product line! Nor do your engineers have to become experts at cinematography.
All they have to do is watch and listen. -
“Yeah, and some of those are imperfections.”
Depends on the design and quality of the glass, no?
HD exposed all sorts of imperfections that the lack of resolution of SD kept hidden – is the answer to watch everything on an Iphone?
Herb Sevush
Zebra Productions
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up