Within the next year or so, my prediction is that all the video cameras will be using large DSLR type sensors. There is no question that they produce a better image than the smaller camcorder types. The NEX VG10 is one of the first of these, but it doesn't have proper xlr audio ins. Wait a bit and there will be plenty of options with real audio inputs. The DSLRs with video will fall out of favor when there are proper camcorders with the same quality sensors.

"But if someone shoots with DSLR and don't use a mattebox with NDs to control the exposure (and uses shutter or f-stops instead) then allow me to laugh quietly at them behind their back as they are using wrong tools for the job."

Amazing how someone's ego can totally remove any credibility.

PerroneFord Said:

"And when this decorated, professional cinematographer finishes laughing in your face, he might invite you to a lesson in cinematography on DSLRs:

Well said Bro'...

Cliff Etzel
Solo Video Journalist | Micro Documentary Film Maker
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q9400 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Source: WD Black 2x750GB RAID 0 | Video Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Vista x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 5400RPM

Can you be a bit more specific because all i see is mattboxed cameras with a few -used for specific shots only - without. Cause your link only proves my point. That mattebox and NDs is the easiest/cost effective way to control the exposure. So please stop spreading misinformation.

I wasn't going to take sides on this discussion, but since my inclusive response was entirely ignored, I feel compelled to say I agree with the ND approach.

Efficiency arguments notwithstanding, using ND filters and/or lower ISO to achieve underexposure is entirely consistent with the way the human eye reacts in low-light situations; i.e., reduced depth-of-field and increased motion blurring as a direct result of an open iris. However, if one achieves deliberate underexposure by any combination of fast shutter/smaller iris alone, the result is exactly the opposite -- deeper depth of field, and less frame-blur.

So if I wanted a really scary unnatural effect, I would go with shutter/iris control, and a higher ISO. If I wanted a more natural effect, consistent with the way the human eye reacts in low light, I would use grad ND filters in a matte box (for easy access).

The 5D is definitely NOT a run and gun documentary camera. I think the NEX will serve you better. Your mileage may vary...

MV, I don't think the debate is about whether or not to use ND filters (that's a given), but is using them in conjunction with a matte box is absolutely necessary in every situation.

Certainly, matte boxes are nice and very functional. My 35 years of experience have shown that they are not manditory.

P.S. Personally, I'd go with the VG10.

I think Perrone's point is that while an ND filter on a mattebox may be preferable, it is not the only way to control exposure.

Jay, see seven posts up and then read down. See what you think the discussion "was" about then, and what it has become since.

;?)

John and I interpreted it the same way: Matte box with NDs vs. NDs without matte box.

That is precisely my point.

Most people I know making small movies are using 2-3 lenses to get that done. The current film we just finished used exactly 3 lenses. A Canon 24-70 F4 for the majority of the film, a Nikon 50mm F1.8, and a Nikon mount 19-35 F3.5-F5.6.

The production company owns many things, but does not own a mattebox and for this production it was not in the budget. Most of the shots were indoors, and we had two shots to get outdoors. So the question was, do we go into debt to get a mattebox, and new filters for what will amount to 15 seconds of screen time, or do we use the ND we already own that fits on the 24-70? Choice was simple for us.

Would we like to have a Mattebox? Sure. We already have several sets of rails, a follow focus, and many other implements. We are also in need of an on-camera monitor, a dolly, and a few other things.

But my point, which Patryk seems to continue to miss or ignore, is that there is more than one way to solve the problem. The mattebox is the simplest and most efficient. And frankly the most desireable in some cases. But there are times when it is absolutely the wrong tool. For instance when you are shooting a DSLR in a crowd and not trying to draw attention to yourself. Nothing will get the attention of passers-by and the authorities faster than a movie camera in a place where it ought not be. Or in places where you can't control. You don't really want a boom, a mattebox, rails, follow focus, and lights on a city street if your character is supposed to be blending into the crowd.

Shooting in tight spaces (like inside a vehicle) may not leave room for a mattebox. And if you want filtration (polarizer, diffusion, etc.) you're going to have to leave the mattebox out of the equation.



So use the right tool for the job at hand.

I almost always just use a screw in polarizer. It avoids blowouts from glare, darkens the sky a little, and opens the iris up a little. Footage looks great and works well for run and gun shooting.

" Footage looks great and works well for run and gun shooting. "

In documentary film making it's more "see gun....RUN...".

I did meet one young doco maker who took the opposite approach of "see gun..run in for closeup of someone taking one to the head". Don't know if the lad was brave or stupid but his first effort was sold to Al Jazeera.

Bob.

Patryk, your work is amazing, I'm a fan, not paronizing you here either. Obviously you feel very strongly that if you're shooting with a DSLR you need a mattebox, I respect that, we all have our go-to tools and must-haves. I can only tell you that that isn't something I've ever seen as necessary for me in 99.999% of situations that I've encountered nor something that I personally would consider or would advise others is a must-have. That's just me, I can only give my opinions here, you're more than welcome to disagree, no biggie.

- Ray
Underground Planet

i sort of concur with bob (farss). it's what you're shooting that should decide the best equipment to use in the circumstances.

there's no way you could shoot a 'run 'n' gun' doco on a dslr - it would be a disaster from a practical point of view.

then again, given the time setting up a talking head to use in a doco could well benefit from being shot with a dslr as 'value adding'.

but over all, i think i'll leave dslr to you 'cutting edge' types out there - i've been there and bled dollars before jumping in on new technology that wasn't really fully thought out.

and, as an aside, we all seem to be in search of the lost chord (cue moody blues), or rather the perfect picture - which, unless you're going to end up on film - seems rather pointless given that nearly all of the lcd's i've seen in peoples homes (excepting those in the business) have usually had either theatre mode turned on, or are set to showroom default, ie. vivid picture!

i often wonder why i bother to the extent i do cc'ing, etc., when my final product is watched on an incorrectly setup lcd / plasma screen.

"i often wonder why i bother to the extent i do cc'ing, etc., when my final product is watched on an incorrectly setup lcd / plasma screen."

Your doing it for the folks that have bothered to adjust their displays properly. Remember when BillyBoy insisted that you do all your color correction on a $99 Walmart TV so it would look "right" on cheap TVs. He thought professional monitors were a giant ripoff. I wonder what fast food restaurant he's working in now...

I wonder what fast food restaurant he's working in now...

No doubt one with a 32" Samsung OEM on the wall . . .

Since I can't control how other people watch my stuff, I color correct for ME. I take pride in my product and want it to look as good as possible.

OK, so does that mean we're going with Sony or Canon?

Lightads go the creative route. get them both and suffer the consequences afterward

My very first pay check. paid the rent and spent the rest “all of it on a Washburn 12 string”, no food for a month, it hurt so good
For that Sony NEX I can endure many months of hunger and then some.

well i'm going with both!

z5 for video, 550 for stills, and if the situation warrants it, maybe a talking head (will get back on that after i've done one!)

Within the next year or so, my prediction is that all the video cameras will be using large DSLR type sensors.

Obviously, compact consumer cams will never have them due to size constraints, but for pro cameras, I would go with "or so".


There is no question that they produce a better image than the smaller camcorder types.
Somewhat better, sure usually. Lots better, not really. Most recent pro cameras are putting out really good images. Of course DOF=creativity, so no pro non-DSLR camera is capable of creative work.

The large APS size sensors will take over when 4K becomes SHD in the future since it is not possible for current 1/3" & 1/2" sensors to fit the pixels on their chips.

I see they have a special on the NEX VG10 you get Sony Movie Studio Platinum as well. Would that be an incentive for me if I already have Pro 9? I'd prefer if they thru in another lens or at least another memory card :))