Interesting vid with a couple of ASC Pros discussing the use of Canon DSLRs in making movies. Towards the end they mention asking Canon to make dedicated lenses for the motion picture industry. I hope this doesn't take away from their regular lenses development!
I hope the guy that was telling me a few weeks ago that video in these bodies had no real professional applications watches this!
Interesting. Judging from the videos I've seen about the subject I think that most of the 5d2 demand is coming from people in film.
As for shifting development resources, it has to happen. It's hard to tell if they'll come from the still camera division or the video camera division, but it's inevitable. Canon competes with Sony in the video market, and I would guess Nikon gets its video expertise from Sony too, but the real competition could be from RED.
rd4tile wrote:
Interesting vid with a couple of ASC Pros discussing the use of Canon DSLRs in making movies. Towards the end they mention asking Canon to make dedicated lenses for the motion picture industry. I hope this doesn't take away from their regular lenses development!
I hope the guy that was telling me a few weeks ago that video in these bodies had no real professional applications watches this!
I'm unsure of what the differences between regular lenses and DSLR movie lenses would be? Seems current lens lineup and sensor size and attendent IQ are the two main reasons for film industry 5D2 purchases.
rd4tile wrote:
Interesting vid with a couple of ASC Pros discussing the use of Canon DSLRs in making movies. Towards the end they mention asking Canon to make dedicated lenses for the motion picture industry. I hope this doesn't take away from their regular lenses development!
Take away from? Actually, some of Canon's pro-quality video lenses are simply on a different level than even "L" glass. I would hope that they would take some of that video lens technology (admittedly, for zooms) and apply it to our still lenses. Of course, I'm sure the price tags are consequently astronomical, comparatively.
I am just getting into video, first with my 7d and now with my 1d4; but I have noticed some consensus about using DSLRs for video.
First off a 7d, 5d, and 1d4 body is usually cheaper than a real pro level video camera. Even the 7d has a larger sensor than a a pro level video camera, but the pro level video camera usually has 3 sensors not just one.
Making videos requires lots of additional stuff like stabilizers, matte boxes, devices to assist in MF, devices to assist in viewing the Live View output; and this goes for both DSLRs and pro level video cameras. Not to mention you may want mikes for audio and a dolly and/boom for some shooting.
The bottom line is that the camera, be it DSLR or video, is only a part of what is needed; and usually only a fraction of the hardware needed to make movies. Many movie guys look at a DSLR as a very cost effective addition to their stuff.
My biggest shock in my limited video experience was how little the IS and AF counted. Most movie guys turn off the IS and never use AF. If Canon does start to make movie lens (and for the guy who mentioned Red, check out the price of Red lens and the adapters to use Canon or Nikon stuff on a Red); I suspect they will not have IS or AF.
rd4tile wrote:
I hope this doesn't take away from their regular lenses development!
Why would it? Canon also makes printers, copiers, and even motors. Looks like they're a big enough company to do multiple things. If anything, the technological improvements and R&D for one will likely benefit the other which is what we have seen thus far.
Ariel Bravy wrote:
Why would it? Canon also makes printers, copiers, and even motors. Looks like they're a big enough company to do multiple things. If anything, the technological improvements and R&D for one will likely benefit the other which is what we have seen thus far.
I was being facetious with that comment. I see so many threads with everyone's "wishlist" for new lenses I expected people to post something to the effect that Canon would do less development on new still lenses if their R&D became focused on movie/video specific lenses (whatever differences those would have).
I've read that Canon was surprised at the market they created when they added video to these cams, that video just kind of reinforces that.
Mike Mahoney wrote:
I'm unsure of what the differences between regular lenses and DSLR movie lenses would be? Seems current lens lineup and sensor size and attendent IQ are the two main reasons for film industry 5D2 purchases.
Good movie lenses, as a whole, tend to be far superior to still photography lenses in most respects. It loses out in size, weight and price. Movie lenses, are big, heavy and expensive.
First and foremost, the lenses tend to be much quieter than still lenses. Still lenses make a lot of noise when they zoom and focus. Even the aperture blades make noise.
Most lenses made for movies on a professional level are manual. The focusing rings on movie lenses are definitely have much better dampening with a longer throw for more precise focus. The manual aperture is similar to the focusing ring (I don't think they have detents) allowing for on-the-fly aperture control (if a camera goes from dim to bright in a scene they would want to control the aperture rather than the frame rate).
Still lenses tend to have focus breathing, which is unattractive for movie making.
Movie lenses are also measured in T-stops. Where the F-stop is the size of the aperture, the T-stop is the amount of light hitting the film plane. Lens coatings and glass will absorb or reflect some amount of light. The T-stop will give you a value (in an f-stop ratio number) of the actual light hitting a sensor. For instance, a lens may be 100mm f/2, T/2.2, where a third stop of light is absorbed by the glass itself.
Moreover, most movie lenses are also engineered to give consistent color between lenses so that you can film a movie with multiple focal lengths and not have to worry about color correction in post.
It's also important to note that movie lenses are huge. I'm guessing the extra size is meant to address optical defects that smaller pieces of glass may exhibit.
In the video, the gentleman mentions "Exo skeleton" the name of the aluminum frames that the camera were mounted into, anybody have a link to one of these?
Former co-worker now works for Canon's pro lens division. He's a factory rep that deals with the TV/Video ENG/production end users. Trust me, I tried to get some DSLR lens hook ups from him. He said it was impossible. It is almost like two totally different "companies" under the same name. FWIW, those pro video lenses are $10K and up. I cannot tell you how many I have sent off to State Salvage due to the fact that each lens is made for a certain type of video camera and won't work with something made 10 to 15 years later by the same manufacturer.
The Image wrote:
In the video, the gentleman mentions "Exo skeleton" the name of the aluminum frames that the camera were mounted into, anybody have a link to one of these?
The "support system" needed for video is shoot dependent from what I can understand. The basic one consists of a set of rails the camera is mounted on, and that is mounted on some type of "steadycam" system that can vary from a DIY one created from an old tripod to a store bought one that can cost thousands of dollars.
