I always cringe when I hear about someone using a DSLR to shoot a movie. I've never shot with one, and to be honest, at this point in time, I'd probably fight tooth and nail to avoid it. I've read so many things about the drawbacks inherent in acquiring footage with a DSLR, that I just can't understand the appeal.
With line skipping, poor audio implementation, moiré, compression artifacts, awkward form factor, etc., it seems like trying to make a movie with a DSLR would be an exercise in frustration. The h264 codec is a web delivery codec, not an acquisition format. Is it not true that with so much compression going on, a filmmaker might be better off shooting on a video camera? The Panasonic HVX200 records at twice the bit rate of say the Canon 7d for instance. I have read that the BBC won't accept DSLR shot footage even for standard definition broadcast due to aliasing.
With all of that said, I have to admit, the picture does look good, at least on a small screen. So what's the deal? Is the shallow depth of field at low cost worth all of the "challenges"? For those of you who are using DSLR's, what are your plans for your movie? Are you wanting to get it into theaters, festivals, internet distribution or what? How much manipulation (color tweaks, etc.) can you get by with in post production before the picture quality starts to suffer?
Please understand that I'm not trying to rain on anyone's parade here. I'm just very curious and I would like to know what's going on with DSLR's before I'm asked to shoot with one. I have no experience in this area, so maybe if I can pick some brains, I can overcome my admittedly biased outlook!
Director of Photography
REDRUM Digital Cinema Production