Guide: DSLR or Video camera? (work in progress)

[ShadowCaptain]

Ever since you made your statement I have been searching online to see if I can find any discussion of how line skipping and scaling processes used by DSLRs to record video affects low light performance in any way.  I found 0 articles discussing this,

 

I cant find it either and have never found anybody mention this or discuss it... 

 

AFAIK the full sensor is still used to capture the light information but line skipping is used when recording the image leading due to processing power etc (also the gh4 i believe has full sensor readout) - this is what leads to Aliasing and Moire

 

Obviously I could be wrong, its something nobody ever seems to discuss

 

however not ALL cameras have line skipping some new models have full sensor read outs, like the A7rII you mentioned when in super 35 crop mode

[ALwin]

I cant find it either and have never found anybody mention this or discuss it... 

 

AFAIK the full sensor is still used to capture the light information but line skipping is used when recording the image leading due to processing power etc (also the gh4 i believe has full sensor readout) - this is what leads to Aliasing and Moire

 

Obviously I could be wrong, its something nobody ever seems to discuss

 

however not ALL cameras have line skipping some new models have full sensor read outs, like the A7rII you mentioned when in super 35 crop mode

 

I figured out what he/she was referring to, it was simply stated it a bit incorrectly.

 

He/she was talking about how two sensors (same size) with different pixel count (e.g. Canon 5D mk II vs Nikon D800E), one physical factor for low light capability is how tightly the photo sensitive cells are packed into the sensor.  I didn't go into technical details regarding this topic in my guide, but I briefly mentioned something about pixel density when I was explaining about why larger sensors can be better:

 

As for low light capabilities of larger sensors, consider the millions of tiny photosensitive cells on a camera sensor like buckets that can hold light that falls upon the sensor.  A larger bucket means it is capable of holding more light, so an 8 megapixel sensor that is larger will have larger photocells than a smaller 8 megapixel sensor.

 

Yes, the density of the photocells on the sensor, the size of these cells and the spacing in between them can affect low light performance and high ISO noise.  Because unlike film where changing ISO is a matter of changing the actual film, a digital sensor changes ISO by using electricity.  Boosting ISO in a digital sensor is simply a matter of using electrical power to amplify the electrical charge that occurs when light hits the photocells on the sensor.  The higher the ISO the higher the amplification, which can cause photocells to "leak" the charge over to neighboring photocells.  This is what causes noise.

 

EDIT: and I can safely say that larger sensors tend to have better low light and high ISO noise performance is simply because the 42MP sensor on the Sony A7rII and the 12MP sensor on a Canon G16 do not have the same pixel density.  The sensor density doesn't isn't constant with increase in sensor size, larger sensors tend to have lower pixel density which result in larger photocell size (pixel size) and more spacing between each of these cells (dot/pixel pitch).

[ShadowCaptain]

I figured out what he/she was referring to, it was simply stated it a bit incorrectly.

 

He/she was talking about how two sensors (same size) with different pixel count (e.g. Canon 5D mk II vs Nikon D800E), one physical factor for low light capability is how tightly the photo sensitive cells are packed into the sensor.  

 

Sure that makes sense but its still something that differs on a sensor by sensor basis and is too specific for a "general" guide

Since you also have to bear in mine things like BSI sensors and all sorts of sensor tech to really drill down, also just because one sensor is low resolution, does not mean they are using bigger pixels or anything, that really depends on the sensor manufacturer and is too specific to apply generally

 

If you want to sum it up in two sentences and only speaking in general terms

 

bigger sensor = better low light,

 

lower resolution, same sensor size = better low light  

[ALwin]

snip

 

Agreed.

 

Just because a full frame sensor has only 10MP doesn't mean they are using larger photocells, they may be using the same sized ones with greater spacing in between.  (I recall a sensor design where they put even smaller photocells (photodiodes) in between the spaces of the larger ones. Can't remember if it was Fuji or Sigma that did it, looking for it online now.)

 

And it's not just that one physical factor that determines performance.  Computing power increase with each year, the image processor in a DSLR from 2008 is less powerful than the one we find in current DSLRs.  Sony, Nikon, Canon, etc. all have been producing digital cameras for over a decade.  They understand how the physical design of the sensor can affect image quality, hence they implement various methods (and I don't know all of them) to compensate for that.  Otherwise we would see a linear relationship between megapixel count and decrease in low light performance (i.e. the Sony A7rII with the 42MP sensor should perform less than a 21MP Canon 5DmkII which has half the amount of pixels, yet in reality it performs much better).

 

I personally am not a fan of looking at pixel count to determine a camera's "quality", the megapixel war seems to have died down.  Sensor technology is improving with almost every generation of cameras.

[ShadowCaptain]

 

I personally am not a fan of looking at pixel count to determine a camera's "quality", the megapixel war seems to have died down.  Sensor technology is improving with almost every generation of cameras.

 

Actually canon just started it again with a new 250mp APS-H sensor

 

I bet Sony release a 10billion one (obviously without lossless RAW...i bet nobody gets this joke)

[ALwin]

Actually canon just started it again with a new 250mp APS-H sensor

 

I bet Sony release a 10billion one (obviously without lossless RAW...i bet nobody gets this joke)

 

LOL yeah I saw that Canon sensor article last night.

 

Anyway, I do feel that for a guide like this which is intended for beginners to understand what differences exist between using a photo camera for video and a proper video camera (whether it is a camcorder, prosumer model, professional level model) the information regarding the very technical aspects of sensor technology may be a bit too much.  If they are interested they can find much better articles online than any I could write or cover.  And simply because at a certain point, or reaching a certain level, the only thing that matters should be going out and capturing the moment(s) and not sit at home worrying about all the tiny technical details.  If you are creative enough, if you have the experience, if you have the knowledge there are ways to work around all of these "design issues".  i.e. Compared to a more current camera the Canon 5DmkII sensor performs badly, yet people are still using it to make movies. I am talking about Mad Max of course, and did anyone notice the image flaws in the movie due to the sensor?  I doubt anyone watching the movie, even the most obsessive pixel peeper, would've noticed.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

100% agree, unless there is some MAJOR flaw in a camera, its not worth the worry

 

frankly for what 99% of people do, even in the pro world it just doenst matter

 

Heck Jason Lanier has done pro shoots with a Sony A7 and a 30 year old Minolta lens (kind of why I got the same stuff) yet all you see online is people complaining that sony did not implement lossless RAW - yet Lanier, Bloom and Gary Fong dont give too shits and instead make a living taking photos that look amazing

 

Unless you have a Hollywood budget, the signal ratios of a camera sensor are the least of your worries when you are using a kit lens and an ikea lamp for your video shoots

[ALwin]

Ok another thing about making videos with whatever camera you have.

(I am only saying this because I know people have a lot of expectations when they come online to ask about buying a camera and people can have high hopes and dreams of what they want to achieve.  I know a lot of people give up because what they were hoping to achieve and what the reality was in store for them wasn't what they expected.)

 

1. Videos like Linus Tech Tips, NCIX tips, JayzTwoCents stuff

They are easy to make because 99% of the time the camera is stationary, the subject is relatively stationary in the same position and the lighting is near constant.  Keeping the subject in focus and within the composition is relatively easy as almost every moment of the scene is predictable.

 

2. Now go out and try to film even a short few minutes segment of an action sequence, unless you want your camera to be fixed at one position, it is not easy to do.  And it gets harder with a photo camera which was primarily designed for capturing still images and not moving images.  Even a simple short scene of your friend at a park skateboarding can be tough.  If you want to make the video interesting you will need to invest in proper accessories and do several takes in order get the video, it is not something a beginner will accomplish on the first attempt or even the first 100 attempts.  Otherwise you put the camera on a tripod or use a simple shoulder mount and follow your friend around, getting general perspective shots.  No closeups, no low angles or high angles, nothing that would make the video look even more interesting or exciting.

 

Look at this video from the 90s showing all the different accessories they had to use to get different camera movements.  You can see that while the camera was important to record the scenes, all those accessories played an even bigger role.  Without them to enable the camera, these guys wouldn't be able to do anything.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/06/these-were-the-devices-used-for-camera-moves-back-in-1993/

 

I'm primarily a stills photographer, and I can photograph in almost any type of environment whether it is in a controlled place like a conference hall where unpredictable things rarely happen or on the streets where I may have to chase down a moment and unpredictable moments can occur.  It's easy to do because all you have to do is be at the moment, aim the camera, focus and press the shutter (assuming you have relatively correct settings).  But when it comes to video, I am experienced with the camera being stationary (tripod) or in a controlled environment (interviews, conferences, etc.) but I would do a poor job recording events that can have unpredictable moments.  I don't have the experience to do what those guys in that video clip above are doing, I would need tons of practice.

 

Though I do have some experience with using certain gear such as motorized tripod mounts, dollies and sliders.  Simply because all I need to think about are the starting point and the end point, everything else in between is predictable.  Setting up your equipment for making a video like this (see below) is easy, the important thing is how creative you are.  The only reason why I find this video interesting is due to the beautiful landscapes (subject matter), the cinematography is boring.  There are so many similar productions like this that it doesn't really stand out.

 

Now here's a similar timelapse video where both the subject matter and the cinematography are interesting, and Tom Lowe used a lot of accessories for the cameras to get those interesting sequences.

 

[ALwin]

100% agree, unless there is some MAJOR flaw in a camera, its not worth the worry

 

frankly for what 99% of people do, even in the pro world it just doenst matter

 

Heck Jason Lanier has done pro shoots with a Sony A7 and a 30 year old Minolta lens (kind of why I got the same stuff) yet all you see online is people complaining that sony did not implement lossless RAW - yet Lanier, Bloom and Gary Fong dont give too shits and instead make a living taking photos that look amazing

 

Unless you have a Hollywood budget, the signal ratios of a camera sensor are the least of your worries when you are using a kit lens and an ikea lamp for your video shoots

 

I completely agree.

[ALwin]

Actually canon just started it again with a new 250mp APS-H sensor

 

Canon announced they are planning a 120MP camera, ok I think they won the war  :rolleyes:

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/08/canon-were-building-a-120-megapixel-dslr/

[nickl]

So far I haven't seen anyone asking about what follow focus, rails, rigs, microphones, deadcat wind covers, tripod heads, audio preamps, etc. to buy yet.  Most just ask for a camera and a basic kit lens.  And all of these are just as important, to some degree or another, as understanding the recording formats and editing workflow.  I have also yet to see anyone asking about NLE workflows.

 

I have to think about how to cover certain topics in a general guide, especially topics that may be better discussed as a form of Q&A.

 

And if you have any other specific areas you feel I should cover in a guide, let me know.

Good ideas there, I have been wondering for a while what things would make up a sorta "pro" camera rig. Like all the rails stuff, the difference between different tripods and head types. Follow focuses, matte boxes, filters, and even storage media! Mics and audio are certainly a very important part of the whole video production process, and would also be a good thing to add to the rest. Follow focuses are sorta confusing to me still. Steadicam's are also cool as well as the whole motorized gimbal stuff.

 

Plus there also is the whole NLE and post stuff, with all the composting and crazy 3D stuff, as you said! There is just sooo much, its becomes really hard to have everything in one place. I have become interested in the "normal" workflow for color grading, editing, composting, VFX, and CGI stuff. There is just so much!

 

Ok another thing about making videos with whatever camera you have.

(I am only saying this because I know people have a lot of expectations when they come online to ask about buying a camera and people can have high hopes and dreams of what they want to achieve.  I know a lot of people give up because what they were hoping to achieve and what the reality was in store for them wasn't what they expected.)

 

1. Videos like Linus Tech Tips, NCIX tips, JayzTwoCents stuff

They are easy to make because 99% of the time the camera is stationary, the subject is relatively stationary in the same position and the lighting is near constant.  Keeping the subject in focus and within the composition is relatively easy as almost every moment of the scene is predictable.

 

2. Now go out and try to film even a short few minutes segment of an action sequence, unless you want your camera to be fixed at one position, it is not easy to do.  And it gets harder with a photo camera which was primarily designed for capturing still images and not moving images.  Even a simple short scene of your friend at a park skateboarding can be tough.  If you want to make the video interesting you will need to invest in proper accessories and do several takes in order get the video, it is not something a beginner will accomplish on the first attempt or even the first 100 attempts.  Otherwise you put the camera on a tripod or use a simple shoulder mount and follow your friend around, getting general perspective shots.  No closeups, no low angles or high angles, nothing that would make the video look even more interesting or exciting.

 

Look at this video from the 90s showing all the different accessories they had to use to get different camera movements.  You can see that while the camera was important to record the scenes, all those accessories played an even bigger role.  Without them to enable the camera, these guys wouldn't be able to do anything.

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/06/these-were-the-devices-used-for-camera-moves-back-in-1993/

 

I'm primarily a stills photographer, and I can photograph in almost any type of environment whether it is in a controlled place like a conference hall where unpredictable things rarely happen or on the streets where I may have to chase down a moment and unpredictable moments can occur.  It's easy to do because all you have to do is be at the moment, aim the camera, focus and press the shutter (assuming you have relatively correct settings).  But when it comes to video, I am experienced with the camera being stationary (tripod) or in a controlled environment (interviews, conferences, etc.) but I would do a poor job recording events that can have unpredictable moments.  I don't have the experience to do what those guys in that video clip above are doing, I would need tons of practice.

 

Though I do have some experience with using certain gear such as motorized tripod mounts, dollies and sliders.  Simply because all I need to think about are the starting point and the end point, everything else in between is predictable.  Setting up your equipment for making a video like this (see below) is easy, the important thing is how creative you are.  The only reason why I find this video interesting is due to the beautiful landscapes (subject matter), the cinematography is boring.  There are so many similar productions like this that it doesn't really stand out.

 

Now here's a similar timelapse video where both the subject matter and the cinematography are interesting, and Tom Lowe used a lot of accessories for the cameras to get those interesting sequences.

When you go from capturing video with a static subject and camera to a situation in which you have your camera and/or your subject moving, it becomes amazingly complex and difficult. I can't imagine what it took RocketJump to do some of the VGHS in-game shots with everyone running around and shooting each other with fake guns, as well as shooting it with RED cameras at like 6K, as well as doing crazy CGI for something like that. Something like that must take immense amounts of experience and time to learn how to do and plan. Even something simpler is complex and time consuming to do, and especially if you don't have time, it can be near impossible.

 

BTW @ALwin, this is an awesome thread. Really like what you have put together and done here. Amazing reference for people and a good general explanation about cameras and video!    . Keep up the good work!

[ShadowCaptain]

Canon announced they are planning a 120MP camera, ok I think they won the war  :rolleyes:

http://petapixel.com/2015/09/08/canon-were-building-a-120-megapixel-dslr/

 

to me it sounds like them going like "hey guys, wait we will catch up, we promise"

[ALwin]

snip

 

Thank you for your kind words Nick.

 

I have considered starting another thread or adding to the current guide an example of making a DSLR/Mirrorless video setup, not just camera and lens but also what accessories are needed.

 

Right now I've started another thread with links to film making guides, videos that explain certain topics, etc. that may hopefully teach beginners a thing or two.

[nickl]

Thank you for your kind words Nick.

 

I have considered starting another thread or adding to the current guide an example of making a DSLR/Mirrorless video setup, not just camera and lens but also what accessories are needed.

Good idea. 

[PrimeSonic]

This thread really should be stickied

[Captain Matt]

On 8/31/2015 at 2:50 PM, ALwin said:

No one really interested in this thread?

I asked you for camera advice recently and out of frustration/extreme curiosity, I read through all of this last night. I'm going to read your other guide today. Thank you for such a fantastic resource!!

[Nancy Rodriguez]

Thank you for this article, I am so glad that I have got this. I agree with this  that DSLR have more eternal volume with mirrorless cameras. I have recently go through one site which is more about on camera hacks : http://guff.com/camera-hacks-to-take-pictures-like-a-pro. I hope you will love this site.