December 2nd, 2011 Rich
November 3 was a big day in filmmaking. Canon announced their C300 camera followed by Red announcing the Scarlet X — well, trying to announce. Their website crashed under the load of visitors.
There seemed to be a lot of Red fans telling everyone how much better the Scarlet was than the Canon. It was a real 4k vs. Canon’s 4k chip that only gave 1080p. And it was cheaper, less than $10k.
At first, I was caught up in the hoopla. Then I started counting how many pennies I would need. The $10k camera was just the brain. It couldn’t shoot any video by itself. That required the $14k package. But that really didn’t get you very far. You probably need to spend more like $20k, about the same as Canon’s C300 list price. But Scarlet’s $20k was probably on the extreme low side, not what you would be comfortable shooting with.
Oh, I forgot about lenses. Add that to the total and I’m sweating. But Scarlet or Canon, it would be the same.
Shooting 4k also sounds like giving great quality. But what would it cost on the post side? You’d need huge amounts of data storage. Then double that. You want backups, don’t you. And there would be a very high-end computer to push the data through. This under $10k camera could easily cost me $30-40k (before lenses).
Then Canon dropped the price of the C300. Last I heard, it was $16k but if that was list, it would sell for less. And I would only have to deal with 1080p so no change in post. I was breathing a bit easier.
But what about quality?
Some Red users have commented that they felt like beta users with their Red cameras. Things didn’t always go planned. If you needed a camera that worked all the time, every time, you might want to look elsewhere.
What about shooting 4k? I’d be losing quality. And that’s when I realized that I’m shooting a TV series not a feature film. In fact, it’s nearly impossible for an independent to get distribution for a feature so why bother? If consumers cannot display greater than 1080p, why am I worried about 4k?
After the videos I’ve seen shot with the C300, I’m impressed. I’ve seen a video shot on the Scarlet and it looked embarrassing. That could have been the filmmaker. But that’s all I’ve seen. What happened to Scarlet? Why don’t I see video being posted? Why aren’t more people talking about it?
What happened to Scarlet? It seems to have disappeared. To me, not a good sign. Or maybe I’m not in the market they are trying to reach? It seems strange. I’m hearing more about $100k cameras. Where is Scarlet?
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Dailies, Video equipment | No Comments »
December 22nd, 2010 Rich
As Vincent Laforet says, “For the filmmaker, Neutral Density Filters are an essential tool.” Yes, they can be a great help for obtaining that desired narrow depth of field. But what about the downside? ND filters can also get quite ugly.
Filmmakers don’t have the option of changing shutter speeds like still photographers. At 100 ISO, you could be shooting at f16 on a bright sunlit day. ND filters will help you get that iris opened up for the narrow depth of field that is so important for that “film” look. That’s good. Right?
Whoa! Back up a minute. No, that’s not always right.
Laforet is talking about a camera with adjustable settings like the Canon 5D Mk2 or 7D. What about guys like me that are shooting cameras like the Canon HF S100? It still can shoot great hi-def video under the right conditions. But ND filters can turn bad and even ugly with those kinds of cameras.
If the goal is a narrow depth of field, there is something you need to know about these cameras. The lens on these puppies goes from f/1.8 to 3.0. Since it cannot stop down to f16 on a sunny day, it turns down the gain on the video to correct the exposure. It’s a cheap solution. And I don’t know how much the 10x zoom limits the f-stop. Maybe zoomed in all the way limits the iris to f3.
So what happens if you start adding ND to the camera? If it starts increasing gain to correct exposure, you will add noise to your video. That’s the ugly.
Add a heavy ND to your camera when set on a bright scene and you will see two exposure changes. There is a fairly quick change in exposure. I assume that is the iris. And then there is a slower change in brightness. I think that must be video gain and where noise would come from.
Now this doesn’t mean I don’t carry ND filters. My favorite is a graduated filter. It lets me correct a bright area of the picture, the sky for example. I also watch my zebra bars to fix those kinds of problems.
If you are using this kind of camera, there is a great way to get narrow depth of field. Use your zoom. It may require the use of a tripod (which you probably should be using anyway). But this way you can avoid the problems associated with trying to change exposure.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Video equipment | No Comments »
September 10th, 2009 Rich
I was so pleased with the performance of my HF S200 that I purchased it’s big brother, the HF S100.
I wanted to be able to shoot a three-camera setup. The third camera allows me to shoot an interview, for example. I have a camera on a two-shot of the interviewer and interviewee. Another camera is close on the interviewee. The third camera is close up on the interviewer. I have all three cameras running, introduce a sound sync mark, and then I can easily edit in a multi-camera mode. It’s a piece of cake. And if someone flubs, I have coverage to edit past that.
A couple of key camera features include zebra bars and exposure adjustment so it is much easier to get the exposures you desire. On occasion, I want a scene dark, for example. Instead of having the camera turn up the gain automatically and create noise in the dark areas, you set a lower exposure value and it doesn’t auto adjust. It you are getting zebra bars, it is also helpful to lower exposure so you don’t blow out your whites.
I also enjoy the 8 megapixel still pictures. This allows me to shoot clean plates for use in green screen and compositing. The 16:9 format may not be so great as a still format but turning the camera sideways can give some big verticals.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Video equipment | No Comments »
September 8th, 2009 Rich
I was shooting a client’s musical DVD where performers lip-synced to pre-recorded music. Having a second camera made a lot of sense for reducing the amount of time shooting. I could get two different angles of a performance at the same time.
I found a refurbished Canon HV20 for under $500 and purchased it. My first camera had done a great job and this fit my price range. However, part way into the shoot, the camera failed. B&H Photo was very helpful in getting an RMA. I got a credit because I planned on buying a third camera.
So I would have a second camera on the shoot, I purchased a Canon HF200. At first, I was leary of going to an AVCHD camera but decided to give it a try when I learned it did 24 mb/sec., the same as the HDV format on my HV20. It turned out to be a good move.
There were several features lacking on the HF 200 that I decided I could live without since I was using my HV20 as well. The main one was zebra bars. That feature really helps with getting good exposures. It also didn’t have an eye-level viewer. But the pluses far outweighed the negatives.
The first thing I found was that there was less blurring on fast action. This has always been an issue with HDV. It shot full 1920x1080p instead of 1440x1080p I got with tape. That gave better images with fewer artifacts.
Shooting on a 16 gig class 6 SDHC card gives about 90 minutes worth of recording. Once a shot is taken, it can be watched on the camera’s display to make sure you got what you wanted. And of course, it doesn’t take an hour to dump a tape. It’s a drag and drop operation.
The camera feels tiny in your hand. I have heard that small cameras are hard to hold steady. But this one is easily cupped in two hands for rock steady operation. I can also use the loosened strap to hold it in one hand for a fairly steady picture.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Video equipment | 2 Comments »
February 25th, 2009 Rich
JVC’s new camera, the JVC GY-HM100U ProHD, looks like a real honey. It records to SDHC cards instead of the extremely expensive P2 card. It runs at high bit rates to give great HD quality. It has 2 XLR inputs and manual audio control. And many more great features. It sells for about $3,500 at B&H Photo.
When I looked at the specs, I was bummed out. Turns out this camera is a dud for the independent producer. It uses small 1/4 inch sized chips. JVC thinks of them as super chips that will perform as well as the 1/3 inch chips. But therein lies the weakness of the camera.
Smaller chips mean less wide angle and more depth of field. The 35mm equivalent of the zoom is 39-390mm. I don’t think I would call 39mm “wide angle.” As an independent filmmaker, wide angle is much more important to me than shooting nearly 400mm.
Depth of field is another important spec to achieve the “film” look. With this camera, I’d have to spend another $1500 for a 35mm lens adapter plus lenses.
Sure, having XLR connectors and higher quality sound for this camera would be cool. But I could also shoot double-system sound and have 8 inputs instead of 2.
Maybe my money would be better spend on a Canon 5D Mark II. Then I would have money left over for pizza. Cast and crew can get hungry.
– Rich Pulham
Posted in Video equipment | 4 Comments »