Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,503   Posts: 1,543,425   Online: 886
      
Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Video + stills

  1. #1
    David A. Goldfarb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawai'i
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    17,281
    Images
    20

    Video + stills

    I saw a guy on the train this evening who looked like a PJ type with an interesting setup--Canon DSLR, off camera strobe, and an L-bracket with an extra tripod screw on the side for a Canon P&S (like a G9) for shooting video. Glancing over at his screen it looked like he was coming back from shooting a dance party or a fashion show. In any case, it seemed like a neat way of keeping track of shots for any kind of event, and the still camera wouldn't have to be digital obviously. Anyone else using video this way, out of curiosity?
    flickr--http://www.flickr.com/photos/davidagoldfarb/
    Photography (not as up to date as the flickr site)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com/photo
    Academic (Slavic and Comparative Literature)--http://www.davidagoldfarb.com

  2. #2
    Mustafa Umut Sarac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    İstanbul - Türkiye
    Shooter
    35mm RF
    Posts
    3,837
    Images
    108
    David ,

    I am a member of KONVAS list , which relates to use russian optics and the cameras. I saw many lenses but I did not see a better lens than LOMO Anamorphic Square Front lenses. These are old and heavy equipment made for Soviet State sponsored films. So the cranes , lights , trucks and assistants were available and the money and the film plus processing at MOSFILM.

    Well , times changed and people started to write threads on new Canon DSLRs and their wide sensor , big ram and the HD mode.
    Rich cinema people rushed to camera and the lomo to canon mount hardwares and the result was unsatisfactory.
    Than BBC announced any dslr would not qualify for their broadcast standarts and bubble burst.
    I think any serious cameraman who has no money to Red cameras would need to wait least 5 years to get a canon for serious shot.
    If you want to see the example shots with 15000 dollar russian anamorphics and the canon , you will have to register to konvas list , very friendly , kind environment.
    As you know , may be 10 years ago Canon was using Sony ccds and colors were muted and dusty but ok.
    Than canon started to produce their own ccds optimised for the worst lenses I have ever used and hated , and the skin colors become flat sodium yellow , like a milk butter.
    So you have to buy a Sony Z series camera with a excellent Zeiss lenses and the difference is Goerz Dagor to Lomo toy plastic lenses. It is 4000 or 7000 dollar , I am not remembering.
    Go to vimeo and find irina shatalova and her white sea video , She is from Moscow Russian State Cinema School VGIK and she performs excellent.
    And if you want to see the same grade canon HD professional camera with fluoride lenses and look at her rock group video.
    If you have a eye , you will understand the difference or if you are not blind.

    Best ,

    Mustafa Umut Sarac

    Istanbul

  3. #3
    JBrunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    6,780
    Quote Originally Posted by Mustafa Umut Sarac View Post
    David ,

    I am a member of KONVAS list , which relates to use russian optics and the cameras. I saw many lenses but I did not see a better lens than LOMO Anamorphic Square Front lenses. These are old and heavy equipment made for Soviet State sponsored films. So the cranes , lights , trucks and assistants were available and the money and the film plus processing at MOSFILM.

    Well , times changed and people started to write threads on new Canon DSLRs and their wide sensor , big ram and the HD mode.
    Rich cinema people rushed to camera and the lomo to canon mount hardwares and the result was unsatisfactory.
    Than BBC announced any dslr would not qualify for their broadcast standarts and bubble burst.
    I think any serious cameraman who has no money to Red cameras would need to wait least 5 years to get a canon for serious shot.
    If you want to see the example shots with 15000 dollar russian anamorphics and the canon , you will have to register to konvas list , very friendly , kind environment.
    As you know , may be 10 years ago Canon was using Sony ccds and colors were muted and dusty but ok.
    Than canon started to produce their own ccds optimised for the worst lenses I have ever used and hated , and the skin colors become flat sodium yellow , like a milk butter.
    So you have to buy a Sony Z series camera with a excellent Zeiss lenses and the difference is Goerz Dagor to Lomo toy plastic lenses. It is 4000 or 7000 dollar , I am not remembering.
    Go to vimeo and find irina shatalova and her white sea video , She is from Moscow Russian State Cinema School VGIK and she performs excellent.
    And if you want to see the same grade canon HD professional camera with fluoride lenses and look at her rock group video.
    If you have a eye , you will understand the difference or if you are not blind.

    Best ,

    Mustafa Umut Sarac

    Istanbul

    Currently I am shooting almost all of my broadcast video production with the Canon, so much so that I now own two of them, fully rigged with mat boxes, follow focus, and miniaturized two channel audio mixers. The problem with pigeonholing modern tech is that it is a target that moves faster than someone can write when trying to categorize it. This has transpired in the last six months. I have access to RED and rarely use it anymore, because it is ponderous in comparison and not at all cost effective. When the Canon is used by a professional cinematographer and set up with a colorspace and contrast that is suited for professional grading by someone who knows what they are doing the footage is equal and most of the time superior to anything short of a RED, and gives even the RED a run for its money when you consider the cost difference. Most of the early issues have been sorted by the pros (artifacting, rolling shutter, etc.) so these days once the codec has been converted and graded the BBC wouldn't know what camera it came out of. Most of the poo pooing comes from vidiots who are put off by the idea that they have to think about things like focus, depth of field, and camera support. As a result he large sensor video aspect is a resounding success in the actual production world, and not so much in the guy with a camera newsie TV station world. Good lenses are a must, but past a certain point, irrelevant except for speed and color, because the resolution of HD is still lilliputian compared to film or a modern sensor.

    Although the camera will capture stills doing so together with video is very difficult to pull off on practice, for a variety of reasons, in particular you have to switch your head back and forth. Jack of all and master of none as they say, so the idea of a separate little video camera shooting on a still job makes some sense, and I may try it. Trying to shoot stills during a video shoot on the other hand is something I'd personally pass on.
    Last edited by JBrunner; 07-02-2010 at 11:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin