A grateful end to the DSLR video "revolution"

[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.

 

[AGMedia]

My biggest complaint about the new large sensor cams (hs100.af100.f3) is that they don't cost enough to keep out the riffraff. Now my marketing costs are going through the roof just so I can convince my current and prospective clients that there is still a huge diff between professional visual arts and fly-by-night hobbyists.

This is pretty standard fare over at DVXuser.com

These are the same people that first scoffed at the 5Dm2 video (actually, I was one of those). Two years later the 5Dm2 hit every studio in Hollywood, the winner at Sundance was a 5Dm2 film, and almost every national TV ad spot (in the US) is filmed on a 5Dm2.

You can't really condemn people who write comments like that -- but you should have a little sympathy for them. The fellow who wrote those comments probably mortgaged his home to buy a Panasonic HPX3700 along with ONE lens -- then, out of nowhere and against all the old rules -- suddenly Mercedes Benz is filming ads on a Canon 60D (along with a GoPro, I think).

Is DSLR movie making reaching it's end? Yes and no. Yes in the sense that camera makers are scrambling to get out more affordable large sensor cameras. No in the sense that consumer cameras are going to continue to improve -- and in the right hands -- produce pro level results. Will the 5Dm2 be in every Hollywood studio a year or two from today? No. Will some really bright kids with a consumer camera of two years from now produce a feature film that ends up banking millions -- bet your bottom dollar on it.

 

[SimonMW]

I used to be one of the people who hated the DSLR 'revolution'. I've used pretty much most professional video cameras in some way or another. I was one of the first people in the UK to own XDCAM when it first came out in 2/3" SD form. And I have to admit to being quite snobbish about 'pro' cameras. I wouldn't be seen dead turning up for a shoot with what I considered to be a 'toy'.

But I have gradually changed my tune. The video industry, at least in the UK, seems to be in an unrecoverable nose dive. I could no longer justify keeping my £18k worth of 2/3" SD broadcast camera sat on a shelf due to nobody wanting SD anymore (even when their videos were going to be on the web at VGA resolution!) It had to go, so I sold it, too late. The £12k camera body was worth £2500! Over the course of ownership that works out as a depreciation of £1900 per year I owned it!

Mind blowing! I also bought into a Sony EX3, an absolutely stunning camera, but again, at around £6k cost to purchase people just want that softer, more organic look that the DSLRs offer.

So, with the total lack of work going around I just sold my EX3 today. Luckily that camera has held its value nicely. But I am now left with my 60D.

As someone who does professional work (when it exists!) this is a big risk for me to take. The moire and aliasing issues can put people off. But here's the thing. If clients are now only willing to pay rock bottom prices, and the videos are mostly going to the web (lets be honest here, most video does these days) there can no longer be any justification for the big expensive cameras. Less expensive, with more regular upgrades I think is the way that things are going, much like professional video software did.

The 60D does have moire and aliasing issues, but part of being a pro is not the camera you use, but the knowledge of how to use it. That not only includes technical and creative abilities, but the ability to work around the issues the camera has. All cameras have issues. Arguably the way the EX cameras rendered black clothing as brown was more irritating than aliasing, and it was just as hard to correct in post!

The other thing is that while video cameras catch up, the DSLRs will continue to improve too. The only thing that will hold them back is the manufacturers who might place artificial limitations to stop them imposing on their video lines. A recent interview with one of the top cheeses at Canon seemed to indicate that they are wondering where to go from the 1DX because of possibly taking sales away from their new video cameras.

This would be a shame. If they can produce a camera that makes professional grade pictures at a lower price then all it does is show that the price charged for professional video cameras is artificially marked up. It seems clear that the 1DX solves aliasing and moire issues, as well as rolling shutter to a degree. A the DSLRs get better then at the lower and even to the mid end markets the need for an over priced video camera becomes less and less.

I agree with the sentiment of many who say that the accessibility of the newer cameras means that skill can now triumph over your ability to pay for fancy equipment. However there is a caveat. The result is that many companies who were clients in the past can now make their own videos, and they do.

So personally I think that the low end video production market for corporates will get small and smaller, and may even disappear completely. The ability to make money at that level is almost non existent over here already. That leaves the higher end market which will expect the big cameras. There are no pieces of the pie left unless you can find something truly original to offer clients. I don't mean in terms of cinematography or raw talent, but in terms of what they actually get out of hiring you.

 

[dr croubie]

Today i'm happy. I've been reading for ages here and elsewhere about people complaining "oh my 7D does line-skipping", "my 5D2 has moire", "I want RAW video", "I want XLR inputs".
Well, now you can get one. But don't expect it to come on your $500, $1000, $2000 or even $6000 dslr. There's a price for all those features, and it's the C 300.
For the actual pros, not just the wannabes, there is professional stuff out there, and canon is now among them.

Like Simon just pointed out, there's a market for everything. People wanting to broadcast on youtoob, or add a video to their website or whatever, they can use their dslr, and will probably compress it to 640x480 anyway. Just the same as people who just use point-and-shoots for portraits and events. They don't care about the outcome as much as some of us would like to think.

example: There's a house for sale down the road from me (actually, more than one, different real-estate agents even). On the 'for sale' sign about 2/3 is taken up with a photo of the interior, maybe shot with a P&S, maybe shot with a hasselblad. Who knows, because they've shrunk it to 500 pixels wide or so for their website, then they've taken that shrunken photo and blown it up to 3' x 3' and printed it on a billboard.
It looks horrible when I walk past, maybe 15-20dpi, pixels are well over 1mm square. But will it impact on the sale? Probably not, one of them has sold already.
I was contemplating offering my services to the agent, rent a TS-E 17mm, maybe take some HDR shots from inside to show the garden in sunlight through the window and keep detail in the dim inside. But i'm not going to bother, they don't think they need the IQ, and adding extra cost (ie, paying me/anyone to shoot proper photos) won't increase their sales much and will reduce their profit if anything.

Basically, my point is, if you can't afford the pro gear, expect some drawbacks. If your life does not depend on the absolute best IQ (in photo or video), then it's up to you to calculate the trade-offs in extra money spent on cameras etc compared to the extra profit it will bring in.
These days, when everyone's trying to save a buck, consumers don't care that much about the last 5% of detail in advertising or whatever, they want the cheaper product. Sometimes i've walked into a shop and seen all the effort they've put into displays and whatever, all I can think is "wow, these shirts must be overpriced if they can afford as nice a shop as this". Restaurants i wouldn't mind paying for the ambience, but not a clothing shop.

Unfortunately, as Simon's mentioned, this is really fragmenting the market into the very-cheap "we just want a video / photo" and the very-expensive "we want the best video / 300-dpi-billboard visible from space".

And that's going to make the pro-market even harder to break into, everyone who's starting out can now afford a dslr and a good lens for $2k or so, but noone's going to hire you to give you experience. And the ones who actually do want to pay good money will expect cinema-quality video or Phase-One-quality stills, if you can't deliver that, why should we hire you when we can make 7D-quality movies and still ourselves?


Maybe we're just about to go back to the old days of cinema, like in the 30s. Noone had their own cameras then, noone could get experience without starting off getting the coffee in a studio for a few years before getting their big break. Will this stifle creativity? Maybe, maybe not. If you have a vision for a film, now you can shoot it well enough on a dslr as a demo to get producers interested, then when they lay the money down you can get real 'pro' equipment to re-shoot in better quality. Or just release the dslr version as another Blair Witch.

 

[briansquibb]

Totally agree - the semi pro market place has virtually disappeared

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Well, now you can get one. But don't expect it to come on your $500, $1000, $2000 or even $6000 dslr. There's a price for all those features, and it's the C 300.

For now, yes.

But you're kidding yourself if you think that Canon is going to hit the brakes on full-sensor sampling for cheaper DSLRs as soon as that processing power becomes affordable. It might not happen on consumer DSLRs in this generation, but it will almost certainly be a feature of most DSLRs by the generation after the 1D X (except for maybe the cheapest of DSLRs). If Canon doesn't keep up feature differentiation, other manufacturers will jump in and make that distinction for customers. It's that simple.

 

[dr croubie]

By no means. The 5D2 was the first that did what it did with a 4-figure pricetag. But then everything that followed has had a smaller and smaller price-tag (except the 1D4), and people still complained it wasn't good enough. Even then, features have gone up since the 5D2 (60fps in 7D, digital zoom in 600D).
Those features were relatively simple, firmware for digital zoom, extra cpu-power of the 7D for 60fps. But people asking for less moire, no line-skipping, even XLR inputs on a dslr-sized body were just a bit unrealistic. The features are avilable now, and the price has been set. 5 or 10 years from now we're going to laugh at the pitiful features the C300 has compared to something that costs $500 in the future. But for now, this is what you get.

(still, whatever camera is next, 7D2, 5D3, 70D, 650D, will have more features than the last model. But it won't have anywhere near the video performance of the C300 without its pricetag).

 

[Jettatore]

Technology is supposed to get better with each new generation. DSLR Video is just finishing up generation 1.

If it continues on the path it was on, uninhibited, then yes it does threaten to cannibalize the high end cinema market over a long enough time. Is it there yet? No of coarse not and has a long way to go, but it's already a useful tool in the right hands and it's still only generation 1.

 

[rmblack]

just to toss another opinion in -

I really believe that artists have so much potential, only part of it can be accessed through practice and experience. The impressions from other people give you so much more to consider, every second you're shooting a video or taking a picture there are a million others in your head, influencing you and giving the urge to make something even greater than what you've seen, by combining these ideas with new ones. It's such a hybrid environment that we live in. When the HDSLRs were introduced into the market, just think of how much more creative content filled youtube and other community sites, as the price barrier of a more professional market was knocked down. Although I'm a photographer, I love video and have always wanted to shoot it, but I couldn't justify buying a video camera for "just a hobby." 5DmkII? best of both worlds. I finally had something that would allow me to explore my potential. Every advance in the film and video community that lowers cost while making special equipment more available to the public. I know a lot of my friends that if they went out and bought a HDSLR, they could become the next big indy film maker after a couple years. Such potential was dormant when expenses were high, but now that you can film a sweet movie for maybe 700 bucks, all it takes is the will to buy it.