DSLR for serious filmmaking?

[Ken Hendricks]

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!

Ken Hendricks
Director of Photography
REDRUM Digital Cinema Production

[Charles McDonald]

I am not experienced yet with using DSLR's for cinema, that will come with my summer project. There are many drawbacks for using these photo camera's for video creation. Web work is my distribution method right now and that makes these camera's suitable for my use. You have a larger sensor then an equally priced dedicated camera. You have control of what kind of lens, focal length, ISO then with a video camera at the same price. Audio is a problem internally but I use an external set up to record on. Overall my choice was to use what a photography camera has to offer to video production. As far as professional production I would suggest looking up Phillip Bloom and seeing the kind of production he is getting using HD DSLR's. If money was there I would go with a Red camera set up for use of big screen production. My HD DSLR allows me to produce some great footage at a fraction of the cost for my web productions. As an photographer buff and user it makes sense for me. Story is what drives good cinema though and someones choice in production tools is always how to tell the story best. For my budget the HD DSLR is what helps in my story telling.

[De'vo vom Schattenreich]

I've had great use out of my Canon 7D - though I've only just begun to film with and learn it. I used to use a Canon GL2 which I liked, but this just blows it away in many ways. The picture looks great - depth of field AWESOME! With 24p and the depth of field you can achieve what many cameras can't. But the major downside is that Canon are only MANUAL mode including focus - making it hard to use for roaming shots unless you have a great follow focus/focus puller or have a huge Fstop/bright day. There is a great 10x zooom for focusing and a very cool box that you can move around to make the focus on that spot which I do like very much. The h264 codec is nice because the files are much smaller than RAW format, and semi easy to use, even though you need to convert them to PRORES 422 befor you can really use them. Coloring is no problem, but brightening/darkening can be tricky. I took Philip Blooms course and he says to slightly under-expose the footage to capture detail and you can brighten it in post - however if you attempt to brighten them in any way in post, you get crazy noise that's very tough to fix. without a ton of filters. Apple's "Color" program is supposed to be best for colorizing the footage, but I didn't have much better luck with it as I did the normal color wheel in FCP7. However for those shots properly exposed that needs no light correction, everything looks fantastic.

The audio for DSLRs suck and is why I'm getting a H4N with shotgun mic. External sound for DSLRs is best.
The major plus side to DSLRs is that you can get some great lenses for decent prices, and have awesome depth of field making it more cinematic which you can't do as well with normal HD cams. Also the 7D and others film in 24p, 25p, 30p and 60p. Converting 60p to 24p or 30p makes some great slowmotion! DSLRs like the 7D and 5D and even Mark IV have GREAT low lighting capabilities as well, much better than most HD video cameras on the market. I haven't yet exported to film or even DVD, but web applications look awesome! Mobility is also a major plus with DSLRs, very light and mobile, but also can be shaky handheld without some kind of steady cam. But with a heavy tripd, that's no problem at all.

I bought it to use for shortfilms - but until I see it on the big screen, I won't know exactly what it looks like. Maybe we can do a test?

Hope this helps,
De'vo

[De'vo vom Schattenreich]

I can bring mine on Thursday if you want to play around with it. Just let me know.
De'

[Kevin Cunningham]

Ken,

My last project was shot on a 7D. I'd be glad to show you the first cut on my laptop.

K.

[Paddy]

It's an interesting discussion, Ken. Fewer and fewer movies are actually being made for the big screen. More and more movies are direct-to-dvd and an increasing amount of content is being watched on computers and mobile devices. I've seen a lot of content designed specifically for the internet and mobile devices that was done on DSLRs and often looks fantastic - one might even say 'better' than most HD cameras can produce for that viewing option. Would they still look 'better' on a large TV or even on a movie screen? Perhaps not.

Add to that the fact that many filmmakers are perfectly content to make their movie and throw it on the internet, passing up chances to run in festivals or even at local screenings like the Emerging Filmmakers Project. As filmmakers we must always be aware of how (and on what) our products will ultimately be viewed. If a DSLR is the best tool for certain jobs, then I guess we'll be seeing more and more of that.

The real problem, of course, is that technology continues to make it easier and easier for people to put together footage and call it a movie even (or especially) if they have no idea on what makes a good story or how to write a good script. Maybe, though, story is becoming less and less important to audiences that prefer their content through the internet or mobile devices. I hope not, but a lot of evidence suggests that it may be the case.

p

[Charles McDonald]

I believe that story will always matter. The tools are going to change, story will always be wanted. It is great how things have advanced allowing emerging cinema artists to have a chance to tell the story they always have wanted. I think that the best will float to the top. This topic is interesting. In the decades to come we will see more amazing work and more amazing technology, yet a simple good story will keep the works memorable.

[De'vo vom Schattenreich]

This interesting article may be what you are looking for. Just came out at the creative cow: http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/hdslrs-for-video-beyond-the...

[Todd Bradley]

I'd be curious to hear about local director - and CASA member - Kayti Grant's experiences with the DSLR approach she used for her feature film. Kayti, are you out there?

[Jay J Sarder]

I think the main appeal is the DOF. Simply can't get the same DOF with any of the prosumer line of cameras without some form of lens adapter. I dont think you can knock the image quality at the price point. For most low budget independents, imo, you can get a more filmic image than you can with anything else in the ball park of the 5d/7d price point. Workflow is clumsy, but a lot of issues will undoubtedly get ironed out as the latest update for the 5D has shown (which addresses the audio issue on some level).

Is HDSLR image quality good enough for the big screen ? : apparently it is, based on the growing number of DPs using it as a tool on their features. There's things you can do with these cameras that you could not do with the more robust digital/film cameras. I suggest looking at Shane Hurlburt's blog (ASC - DP - famous for being on the receiving end of Christian Bale's tirade on Terminator) for
an educated look at how these cameras can be used for features and other work. Granted, he's using glass that is ridiculous, but it doesn't discount the possibility for the meaningful application for these tools. All cameras are tools.If it can help tell the story, it shouldn't matter if it's pixelvision.

Though I understand the importance to technicians, resolution is overrated. From the standpoint of mass viewership, nobody's wondering is this 2K, 4K, or below? The never ending debate - it used to be film grain (ie. 16mm and 8mm not being appropriate for feature work) now its resolution/compression. When DVX100's came out the same debates for broadcast acquisition existed.' No way can we shoot Dv over beta/digibeta. '
Look at how many reality series ended up using that line for production. (not saying that's necessarily good)

Is it good enough for broadcast? I think so, especially if it's good enough for large screen projection. the Genghis Khan Denver Museum spot with the arrows was shot with a 5D. By the looks of the spot it was also graded a bit without noticeable loss in image quality. The last version of the Saturday Night Live open another more famous example. Cartoon network IDs, and I'm sure other things. it's obviously not the choice format for acquisition when you have budget and you're working for a production company that doesnt want to mess with figuring out a workflow on a tight delivery schedule. They'll never be on a gold standard list for Discovery but neither are 90% of cameras.

Most video cameras have issues with aliasing , line skipping, moire ,judder, compression artifacts - including the red. Like anything , you have to be aware of the things you cant do with a camera and plan for the things that will show any format's weakness.
But in the world of shrinking budgets, I wouldn't be surprised if more and more production houses
start working with HDSLRs.

[Steve Clodfelter]

Here's an article Shane Hurlbut did for American Cinematographer magazine: http://www.shanehurlbut.com/pdf/ShaneHurlbut_ASC_Mag_Jan2010-2.pdf