Recording time cornfuzion?!

[Ken B]

I am looking to buy 4 eos cams for a church going on local tv (no IMAG only record). Looking at t4i or eos m for focus reasons. Can not find a clear enough answer about total recordring time options online. We need shallow DOF because of video screen behind the speaker so standard prosumer video cams look bad.

1. What is the max continuous recording time on any size card for 1080. I have seen 22min listed for an 8gig card but is that because of the card size?
2. Is there a limit on how many gig a card size can be used?
3. If there is a max time, can i start a second right away? if so about how long a gap between clips.
4. Is a 5 or 7 any better for recording time? The new $15k cinema even? I mighjt be able to swing one good cam like the cinema for continuity and three t4i with pauses every so often. (leave the 4k wide and pan and crop in post.)

About to recomend a big purchase and would like a push in the right direction.
Thanks!

 

[paul13walnut5]

We need shallow DOF because of video screen behind the speaker so standard prosumer video cams look bad.

You need to think about focal length, you need to think about perspective (perhaps more distance between the speaker and the screen) the larger sensor will help a little, but if its a problem with a conventional camera I don't think its something that a DSLR in and of itself would enitrely eradicate.

2nd problem with DSLRs and video screens in shot is the scanning pattern. If you use a camcorder off the same phase mains then it usually isn't an issue, if you use a camcorder or camera off of battery it can be, and can be compounded if the video screen is traditional interlace and the camcorder is progressive (as on the EOS cameras) canon video cameras sometimes feature a clearscan mode to eradicate the scanning pattern, I'm not sure if the 1DC or c300 etc feature this, I'm fairly certain that it would be a bit specialist for the lower EOS cameras.

1: Max recording time on any card depends on the size of the card. Max file size under the FAT32 formatting is 4GB. This equates to around 11 mins per clip at 1080. More recent EOS cameras such as the 1DC, 1DX, 5D3 and (I think) the 650D feature continuous recording across files up to a clip maximum of 29mins (this is to avoid a different product classification) If you load magic lantern onto some cams (5D2, 60D, 600D, 550D) you can lower the recording data rate to get longer run times within the 4GB cap.

2: No. Big cards tend to be very very expensive, and there is an arguement that if you have smaller cards and one fails or corrupts it's less of a problem than if a huge card fails.

3: Yep you can start a new file straight away, prolonged recording times may cause the sensor to overheat.

4: For this application I would say you are better with conventional camcorders. Maybe Canon X300s or x105s or similar.

 

[JasonATL]

Paul has given you some very nice advice. Having used DSLRs to record live events, I can say that it can be done. However, I think you should definitely consider Paul's advice to consider the XF100 (or the more expensive XF300) series.

My assumption is that you will have camera operators and that the you would prefer an editing workflow that is relatively straight-forward.

I have the Canon 5D Mark III and have used it for live event recording. It will record 29 mins continuously (and as Paul said, across mutliple files, but without any gaps). After 29 minutes, the recording will stop and then automatically start back up. The pause between those two clips is about 5 seconds in my experience. Magic Lantern installed on a 550D/T2i or 600D/T3i (or 60D or 5D Mark II) can be set to restart recording after those camera's 11 minute segments. The gaps between clips for ML seem shorter to me than the 5D3 (and, presumably the 650D/T4i's). If target is TV, I don't recommed cutting the bitrate via ML to lengthen the recording time. It takes planning to make sure that these gaps do not overlap.

You could mix-and-match an XF100 or XF300 with 3 DSLRs. I've done this using a Sony PMW-EX1, a 5D3, and 600D/T3i. But, this makes post-production quite a challenge. The nice thing is that you have a continuous A-camera, with no drops in sound, off of which you can sync the other cameras. The downside is having to color-correct in post-production to make the cameras match. In the church's case, assuming limited windows in the church, the lighting should be constant from week to week. Thus, some color presets could be set after a lot of testing and these would presumably not stray to much. The only main post work is to sync and then edit (my recommended workflow).

Set far enough back and framed with enough zoom, you should have a fairly shallow depth of field with a good video camera such as the XF100 or XF300 (or the Sony PMW-200), provided there is some distance between the subject and the video screen, as Paul mentions. For other cameras, such as one focused on the congregation, you don't need (and perhaps don't want) shallow depth of field for the projection screen reason anyway. Same might hold if you place the other B cameras at angles that exclude the projection screen (e.g., to the side of the speaker, one on the choir, if any).

I love DSLR's for the shallow depth of field and look they get. But, I only shoot live events with them (along with my EX1 as the primary camera) because I can't afford additional proper video camera just for live events - and I don't shoot that many live events. In a way, I pay for this in post-production time. Many wedding videographers use DSLRs. But, they might only have a couple of cameras for an event that is relatively short and the artistic quality or look matters a lot to them. And, they have a lot of skill in shooting with them - and probably would not dream of relying on the DSLR's autofocus. Add in autoexposure and the good sound you will get (without spending extra money) with proper video cameras. I wonder how much skill you can expect from 4 camera operators, week in and week out?

Finally, as has been documented and discussed here, DSLR's do not have full HD resolution. This might or might not matter to you, depending on whether you are delivering HD for broadcast. But, at some point in the next few years, it might matter to someone. The Sony PMW-EX1 that I spent a fortune (to me) on 5 years back is still delivering a nice picture in good light and, as mentioned above is still a capable workhorse for its intended use.

In the end, I would not rate this situation as one in which a DSLR is the right tool. Again, it can be done as I've laid out above. But, I'm not sure you're really setting things up for the best result. If the budget and other considerations dictate, then so be it. But, having 4 identical cameras all with the same profiles and white balance and continuous recording would make delivering a program for broadcast each week much more efficient and, probably, with better quality.

 

[Axilrod]

If you can afford the Cinema DSLR, just get some Canon XF 300's or Sony FS100's, DSLR's are a pain in the ass to shoot video and something you should only go with if you need the shallow DOF on a budget and you clearly aren't on a budget. I assure you something will go wrong if you're trying to run 4 DSLR's by themselves, they just aren't worth the trouble when there are much better alternatives out there at this stage. For live events they are probably the worst possible solution. I think the guy above me broke it down in much more detail, so that's all I'm going to say.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I second the above opinions, get a camcorder suited for the job. HDDSLR's are fantastic where you can rehearse and have a dedicated focus puller, and redo missed sequences, but using four of them for a live event with no autofocus will be frustrating, even if you can manage all the other details needed to produce a finished product. The T4i has autofocus of sorts, but not up to camcorder capability.

 

[unadog]

It would certainly be worthwhile to run at least 1 DSLR, maybe 2, if you are going to get the C300 and another semi-pro camera. You can also throw some cheap, older HD Canon camcorders in the bag

(Canon has 45% off on clearence, refurbished consumer camcorders right now. Do a search at fatwallet.com, etc. About $150 for small HD cam.)

There is no easy way to get that beautiful large chip, cinematic "look" with a smaller chip camera. That is why the DSLR's sparked such a huge video revolution only 4+- years ago.

You might find more detailed information on a site like dvxuser.com


As far as the T4i, a few small things:

a) It will automatically restart a second, third, etc. file as the first file comes up to teh 4GB size

b) It has a two stage heat warning built in. It will show yellow when it is getting warm, then red before it shoyts down.

c) In good light, the face tracking algorithm, along with the touch screen and Servo Auto focus will do an excellent job of tracking a persons face and keeping that. This will help the T4i reach more into what was, traditionally, "camcorder" territory. How far depends on your needs and use.

If you want to see some beautiful large chip depth of field, this Nike ad is beautiful (not sure what camera, this is big, big budget stuff too, etc.):

Nike: "Voices"


Good luck!
Michael