So apparently, a group of Media 3rd years shot their final film using a Canon 500D (or something similar) — a still camera (that can record video, obviously).
I’ve been hearing a lot about these new hybrid cameras recently. Lots of high praise from cinematographers, photography teachers, various websites.. but I remained dubious, thinking that the full HD footage would be compressed to hell with some awfully lossy codec. Or that it would look fine, until you tried to edit it, and found it loaded with sneaky artefacts, or immensely slow to work with because of all the interframe compression… etc.
But then last week, Paul mentioned this 3rd year group that actually decided to use a still camera for their final film. And it worked.. they’re editing it, it looks great.. etc. Perhaps my compression-phobia was misplaced. It’s h.264 compression, which is a complex codec.. i’m quite sure it’s got inter-frame GOPs (the exception is AVC-Intra, Panasonic’s new h.264 codec which only records I-frames) and I don’t know how easy it is to work with in post. But, as with HDV, you can convert the footage to Apple ProRes and the lag will be gone (along with all your hard drive space.. still. ProRes is awesome)
Anyway, my point is.. what does this trend towards still cameras shooting video mean? They shoot full HD, (progressive, I’d guess) and you get to use lenses designed for 35mm sensors. That’s brilliant. The depth of field’s going to be much shallower than it is on a Z1 or something with a tiny sensor. In the case of the Canon 500D, you’ve got an APS-C sized sensor.. not quite the full 35mm, but pretty damn big by camcorder standards. And you could use a more expensive still camera with a 35mm sensor for even better results in this respect.
I’m thinking that the downside of all this is physically operating a still camera. It’s so comparatively small, susceptible to being knocked and shaken. That’s a big problem if you’re wanting to pull focus during a take, or zoom or whatever. You’ve got to do it smoothly, without shifting the frame. I’m not sure how viable it is, but in my head it seems quite difficult. Then you’ve got problems with the viewfinder. Shooting in broad daylight, using the glossy LCD screen on a still camera would be difficult. And if you’re doing an extreme low angle shot, there’s no way to tilt the viewfinder.. you’ve got to be lying under the tripod to see what’s going on (obviously not possible most of the time). Of course, you could bring a field monitor and hook that in, but then you’re operating by proxy.. trying to pan the camera while looking somewhere else, etc.
The upside is, of course, the 35mm lenses and the full HD capture. Apart from RED, I don’t know of any digital video cameras with full frame sensors. Even high end HD models tend to have a 2/3″ sensor..
And so rather than hiring a RED for $850 per day from Lemac, plus $650 per day for a good set of 35mm PL mount cine lenses, you can buy a Canon 500D outright for $1500 or something (And then you make friends with photographer and they let you use their awesome L-series Canon lenses). In some ways, that’s quite compelling.
Of course, the other option is to get a 35mm lens adaptor, and plug it into a Z1 or something similar. Then your camera handles like a proper video camera, and gets the shallow depth of field of full 35mm cameras, and captures in HD, and has a better viewfinder. Lens adaptors also need more light for correct exposure and can cost thousands of dollars, depending on the make. hmm. I really should be talking about my TV2 shoot coming up this monday. Tomorrow. half-promise.
the slag heap 