A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

[jcns]

every change brings a new set of challenges.
Previous to all this evolution, pros were the ones with the skill and money to buy the equipment.
Now there are millions of amateurs that have very good equipment.  Some are awful at shooting and some are not bad and some are very talented.
Video/photo customers will and have been hiring bad amateurs; in essence gambling their once in a lifetime opportunity. 
It's only a matter of time before these god awful amateurs go out of business because talented is not something you can develop. Not everyone has "the eye" to shoot.

[motorhead]

jcns,

While I have no love for video at all and will never voluntarily buy a camera with the spawn of the devil in it, I must protest about your claim that photographers/videographers cannot learn to be good at what they do.

It's true that a very lucky few do seem to be born with a gift that we mere mortals can only gasp in amazement at. However most have learnt their trade the hard way, "through perspiration not inspiration" as the saying goes.

I for one am firmly in the second category, only really grasping the knack of composition by accident and after many years of producing total rubbish. In fact I still cannot explain why I can now visualise what I could not 20 years ago.   

[kawasakiguy37]

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

jcns,

While I have no love for video at all and will never voluntarily buy a camera with the spawn of the devil in it, I must protest about your claim that photographers/videographers cannot learn to be good at what they do.

It's true that a very lucky few do seem to be born with a gift that we mere mortals can only gasp in amazement at. However most have learnt their trade the hard way, "through perspiration not inspiration" as the saying goes.

I for one am firmly in the second category, only really grasping the knack of composition by accident and after many years of producing total rubbish. In fact I still cannot explain why I can now visualise what I could not 20 years ago.

[Lawliet]

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common.
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!

[motorhead]

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common.
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!

That last is a VERY interesting  comment and I wish I'd come up with it. The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing. Me? I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well. So better for me would be a socket set, not the pair of molegrips others might choose.

[awinphoto]

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common.
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!

That last is a VERY interesting  comment and I wish I'd come up with it. The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing. Me? I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well. So better for me would be a socket set, not the pair of molegrips others might choose.

That's a fair comment, however, lets look at it from Canon's perspective... Lets say (speaking of tools) they can build and sell a hammer for instance...  It can be the king of hammers and sell it at a 500% profit margin to costs to manufacture and lead the industry in hammers.  Now lets say they build a hammer thats not as good but also has ratchet attachments, bubble level, and ruler.  They put that at 3/4 the price of the top of the line hammer.  Which tool do you think will sell more to the general public?  Yes, the better hammer may sell better to pro contractors however to everyone else, the all-in-on will sell better and yield higher profits. 

Heck, even Nikon has figured this out and have geared their line up to tailor to video as well.  I think everything has their own place in the industry but like everything else for professionals, might as well adapt or you may get left behind competition. 

[CR Backup Admin]

Film is just the evolution of photography, I just dont get why people hate it. In with the new

Only to people who don't understand those media. Once you're past the "point and shoot"-stage you realize still and moving picture have only a few technicalities in common.
Like replacing a tool belt with a mutitool. Smalller, cheaper, it even has more functions, so it has got to be better!

That last is a VERY interesting  comment and I wish I'd come up with it. The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing. Me? I'm the exact opposite. I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well. So better for me would be a socket set, not the pair of molegrips others might choose.

That's a fair comment, however, lets look at it from Canon's perspective... Lets say (speaking of tools) they can build and sell a hammer for instance...  It can be the king of hammers and sell it at a 500% profit margin to costs to manufacture and lead the industry in hammers.  Now lets say they build a hammer thats not as good but also has ratchet attachments, bubble level, and ruler.  They put that at 3/4 the price of the top of the line hammer.  Which tool do you think will sell more to the general public?  Yes, the better hammer may sell better to pro contractors however to everyone else, the all-in-on will sell better and yield higher profits. 

Generally speaking, a middle model will sell better, and often makes the most profit.  Many consumers do not want to buy the lowest cost model, and the high end is too expensive to they go for the middle, which costs only a tiny amount more to make, but has a fat profit.

[Orangutan]

I much prefer a tool to have a single purpose and be the very best tool I can find for that job. As an example, I like my image post-processing software to stick to just that and not pretend its also a digital image management tool as well.

Sometimes the "best" tool for the job is the one you have with you right now.  Think of all the Youtube videos posted during the democracy demonstrations in the Middle East:  the cell-phone video and audio is crappy compared to that from DSLR's, not to mention dedicated video equipment.  Do you think any protesters would be able to smuggle "real" video equipment into those events?

Yes, dedicated equipment is a invaluable for those who have the time, money and opportunity to buy, transport and use it under controlled (or somewhat controlled) conditions.  For the rest of us, DSLR video is a wonderful bonus, and we're happy for the opportunity to create videos well-above the level of cell-phones, even if it doesn't match the quality of dedicated equipment.

[skitron]

The "modern" way seems to require tools that are jack-of-all-trades rather than be the best they can be at one thing.

But this isn't the philosophy behind a video capable DSLR. The philosophy is "Since we have liveview for our DSLR still shot cameras, we can add value to our products by simply capturing that liveview output and allow users to video thru their current investment in glass." The whole thing is a byproduct of liveview for stills, which was designed in an effort to improve stills. It just so happens that the byproduct turned out to be very good.

As for me (enthusiast, not pro), I'll be buying both videocams and still cams for the forseeable future because they are still way too different. I'm not giving up the anti-shake of the CX550 nor the stills IQ of a 50d and will only want to improve on both. But I'm very pleased with the idea of being able to do both functions with either device (well at least when I get a 5d3  ) so I can choose which function is "primary" for the day without giving up the other entirely or resorting to toting both devices. Bottom line is I'm all for improving the stills on a videocam and the video on a still cam and this doesn't mean I want a "jack of all trades". It only means I find value in the secondary function when it is good quality.

[Lawliet]

The philosophy is "Since we have liveview for our DSLR still shot cameras, we can add value to our products by simply capturing that liveview output and allow users to video thru their current investment in glass." The whole thing is a byproduct of liveview for stills, which was designed in an effort to improve stills. It just so happens that the byproduct turned out to be very good.

The problem is that there are quite a few decision makers that see "use current investment" & cheap bodies&lenses, or "its 35mm, so it has to be great" - but don't realize that getting the material up to established quality standards is expensive. Up to redoing the whole shoot with a proper camera, with a six figure price tag for talent and location.
At least the increased rates compensate for the PITA-factor...

[LetTheRightLensIn]

The DSLR revolution is the BEST thing to ever happen to video. Why? Because it allows talent (and not just people with money) to rise to the top.

My day job is I'm a director and designer for multi-media based commercials and TV spots (generic label of Motion Graphics). Until the Macintosh became powerful enough to do this type of work, it was solely the domain of companies who could afford computers like the Inferno or Flame (250K +). But around 2000, the Macintosh, along with After Effects and affordable 3D programs came along, and all of a sudden everyone could do it. It was a revolution.

The result, a HUGE explosion in creativity and the BEST ARTISTS rose to the top, and that's how it SHOULD BE.

Even with all the cheap equipment and competition, I still make a very, very good living. Why? Because I'm good. it has nothing to do with equipment, strictly talent.

The DSLR revolution is the exact same thing. It's going to allow the VERY BEST to rise to the top. It's no longer about whether you can afford a RED, it's about how creative and good of an artist you are.

And just like Motion Graphics, the evolution of video is going to be the same thing. If you suck, you can no longer hide behind expensive equipment because everyone can now afford it. So you have be good because there are going to be tons of hungry, talented people chopping at your heels.

And the best people will always make good money and have a good career. Darwin's law applied to video.

The 5D3 (if it ever comes out) is not going anywhere. It's the only full-frame video camera, so it has a very special, artistic type look with it's very shallow DOF.

With that said, Canon truly BLEW IT! They could have owned this new market, but their conservative, glacial pace, allowed Sony and Panasonic to take over what was rightfully theirs. I'm baffled by Canon, because they had to be really stupid to lose that market, and they somehow did, or are well on the way to losing it. Canon as a company, truly baffles me. How you can blow something that was such a sure bet, is beyond comprehension.

Agree with everything you said from first paragraph to last.

(You could tell Canon doesn't get it from their insanely arrogant speech a few years about being infinitely far head in the FF DSLR world and with room to lounge at the top doing nothing for years before competition would arrive hah and then not even getting basic things like why 5D2 should've had manual controls from day 1. They still don't even have a fully working AutoISO for stills and refused to outline the histogram so you can actually see it when using it outdoors for stills mode and don't flash overexposed video which even the magic lantern hack does. Granted they get praise for heading this way to begin with but OTOH....)

[Lawliet]

It might apply if we where ever hard limited by the camera.
But - we weren't. For example: giving my consumer camcorder the DOF of a 35mm was actually much less work&money then getting set, costumes or talent up to desired standard. But it required a bit of thought instead of buying gear. If that VDSLR enables you to do anything new you're just as stuck as before.

[catz]

I think the revolution is that talents that can not afford $$$$$ or $$$$$$ camera, have now chance now express and use their skills and the rest is to let the Darwinism to work. Those who have skill will remain, no matter what's the price tag of their gear and it can surely happen that pros with $$$$$$$ worth of gear will lose because what they have is gear, but not really talent, they do how they have always done before. Traditional TV producers at least in here are those dinosaurs which are going to fall (I would predict). I have been attending on events which have had traditional TV-professionals with so heavy gear SD camcorders and other gear on them and the picture they are doing looks like absolutely crap - I prefer all the rainbows of my 5D in comparison - SD has ugly aliasing when displayed upscaled (without antialiasing) on a sharp HD display and the nicest "cinematographic" effect these guys are using is zooming ;-) because their cameras are so big they can't move them even on a dolly... It might be that in USA everybody is doing HD already and Pros constantly do better stuff there than here, but it is interesting here on events to see these enormous SD cameras that are like size of a truck and do worse picture than my Sony handycam from stone age. People with more versatile gear like FS100s, AF100s and and F3s are going to replace those SD gear guys sooner or later and we may even start seeing some sliders, steadicam, shallower depth of field etc. in TV which has not been there ever before (in this country at least where I am from, at least as far as I have seen the little I have watched, I generally don't watch TV because I don't have time and it is crap that only goes to people that are 40 years older than me).

Anyway, skill is two things a) talent and b) practice, practice, practice and not gear. Owning a RED would not turn me a pro-DP overnight, so I rather keep doing this b) with my 5D mk II now and mkwhatever later. And yeah, I am I software engineer, product owner and a project manager and not a certified professional cinema person - I know C++ and how to build teams and to run projects, but it does not matter, I keep doing the b) because I like to do that. I am just happily shooting more and more material, terabyte by terabyte, and now I am even progressed enough to have a storyboard and a plot for a script (script under construction) for ~50 scenes and 5 minutes and we are going to film these despite pros would laugh us out loud . We are not afraid of that. We have several plots actually for the future too. Some of them are not possible to implement yet with the current tool and skill level, but hopefully will realized someday - they are rather cool, something you haven't seen from Hollywood.

[Lawliet]

It seems you really think that the cost of the camera is a factor beyond static noise? Keep in mind that simply changing the lighting on your average set to deal with the lack of genlock in the 5DII costs about as much as a dozen F35s.

Funny - its the same story told when video became available. Production got cheaper, the reduced quality was associated with video as technology instead of all the shortcuts in front of the camera. Reprise in HD...

[Jedifarce]

I saw this on a video production forum in my home town. Not sure if I agree with it all, but it sure gave me a chuckle. Enjoy:

I believe whoever wrote that piece was doing a bit of trolling and probably never filmed with a DSLR. Sure there are video limitations with a DSLR, but as long as you are aware of them it's not really a problem. Video camcorders are great if you need to capture action-oriented shots or some overcranking, but in terms of visual quality, they pale in comparison with what can be achieved by a DSLR fitted with the right equipment.

 There's nothing wrong with utilizing both technologies, if you need to film lots of movement use a video camcorder, for the static shots bring in the DSLR for the nice DoF you can't get with the former.