I need to grab a DSLR with 1080 HD video feature to team with my camcorder.
Just wondering if all HD video quality produced by DSLR are more or less the same ? For example, I add Nikon pro lens on Nikon D3100, D5100 or D7100 for HD video shooting, do they make difference video or all video quality are same ?
Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn (record Netflix) :)
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker or buy PlayOn (record Netflix) :)
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
Assuming the same optics (swappable lenses),
Sensor size matters.
Sensor/processor noise & sensitivity matters.
Storage format/compression matters.
"HD" = 720p60, 1080p30, 1080i60 and 1080p60. They vary in spatial resolution, temporal resolution & artifacts. These all matter.
Also, processing done to debayer, noise-reduce, sharpen, gamma-adjust can all be different from manufacturer to manufacturer and from model to model and as settings within the cam.
Thanks Scott again.
In some occasions, I need to take some wide shoot video in narrow spaces but my camcorder is not wide enough. Just thinking if it is a simple way to add one 14 mm wide lens on DSLR for 1-2 min 1080 HD video.
It's fairly simple, but you'd want to MATCH the look of your various cameras as close as possible. Exposure, White Balance, Sharpening/NR. Better when both have manual control and can be fully set up beforehand. Even better when all cams can reference the same whitecard/chipchart.
Remember cropping factor when dealing with lens' FOV. IOW, a 35mm full-frame "wide angle" lens of 35mm (~54º) is the equivalent of a 52mm Normal lens (~36º) when it's used on a DX-type camera (CF=1.5). If you are looking for something with say, ~90º FOV, like a 18mm, you'd need a ~12mm to get the equivalent on a DX.
You could also try a 0.5x WA diopter attachment, but you get some blurriness, optical artifacts, and a stop-down or 2 when using it, so that has to be factored in also.
You could try using a POV camera with a super-wide FOV, such as a GoPro, but those have their own sets of problems (auto iris, noise, very compressed storage format=artifacts).
I agree it's good also, pandy, but as this thread followed on the heels of a previous thread wherein the OP only had a total budget of $1500, I ruled out all the BMD devices as too expensive.
One stupid question.
I know I need to adjust WB before every shooting.
What if under WB keeps changing situation ? Something like I shoot and walk through different rooms with different light sources in the office. How can I adjust the WB rapidly ? Or I pan and shoot various broths in a lighting trade show, is auto WB the only option ?
Most cameras can be WB in < 20 sec with practice. If you're wandering the floor of a trade show it's unlikely you'll have to change often.
Were you saying even I am walking and shooting 10 rooms in the office, I have to repeat "Stop - adjust WB - Shooting" procedures before arriving every room ? How about the dim lighting in the corridor that access to no window workshop, big window board room, open area patio ?
I hope I can do this 2 minutes walk and shoot video without cut and paste.
The ways you can go about it:
1. All Auto, set it and forget it. Take the WB shifts as they come. Might not be a big deal for you or your clients. It is a big deal for some (I try to avoid it if at all possible).
2. All Manual preset. Set it to Incandescent, Daylight, Flourescent. Whichever works best with the most lighting situations.
3. Manual custom preset. Find a representative lighting area (even if it's "mixed" sources), use a White card, WB, and save that custom preset.
4. Manual but with quick resets (what you've just been discussing). You would have gaps in the "walkthrough" if you meant it to be continuous and you had walked through multiple lighting scenarios (with differing sources). Some cams, like the Nikon, can have a one-touch button dedicated to WB assigned at your discretion, so then you wouldn't have to stop recording and the reset would take MUCH less time (<3 sec?).
If your example is actually going to be an attempted real shoot, I would suggest you do a test run one way and then do it another way.
Of course, you would have more issues than just WB. Exposure is going to span the spectrum. Were you planning on using AutoIris? or a manual exposure adjustment. Note that most videocams (and photocams in video mode) will NOT allow you to adjust shutter speed WHILE recording, so adjustment will be done via Iris & ISO/Gain/Sensitivity changes. You may or may not be able to control which (depending upon your cam).
Since the exposure will have its own set of problems, it might be in your interest to just let the cam do auto for it and maybe for WB as well.
Best thing to do is test, test, test. Then you can at least live with your (well-thought-out?) decision.
They need 2 cameras, so selling the only one they have wouldn't be very smart, even if they can get decent money for it (which is a long shot). There is also a time constraint, waiting to sell another cam adds undue delay.
Nice try, pandy, but it helps to have already done the homework on this one.
IMHO DSLR differences are usually purely cosmetic nature.
I'm going to have to disagree with you there.
As an OWNER of a DSLR, I love much about it, but know that it has very real limitations, even compared to "video cameras".
1. Running time - most DSLRs won't run (record or play) continuously for more than ~30minutes before power cycling, otherwise they overheat. My Nikon does this, the BMPCC does this. I have tested both. And it doesn't matter if the "recorder" portion is offloaded to external HDD (e.g. Atomos ninja) or not.
2. DSLRs have a whole range of sensor sizes, and a whole range of accompanying sensitivities & crop factors, making their differences very real and often a deciding factor.
3. DSLRs have a whole range of processors & algorithms, and a whole range of accompanying framerates & noise profiles, again making their differences important and again NOT simply cosmetic.
4. Camcorders routinely include motorized (and even remotely controlled) zoom and/or iris functions. DSLRs and the BMPCC use swappable/interchangeable lenses (nice!), but that means the motozoom feature is a 3rd party aftermarket add-on accessory. That changes the cost, workflow, and bulk.
5. If you are making suggestions/pronouncements for someone, you need to factor in the TCO, which includes technical, workflow, and raw economic costs, and include all the systemic & ancilliary devices (monitoring, storage, cabling, cases, media, lenses & adapters). Even things like tax & insurance & shipping time-to-live.
With those in mind, the picture changes considerably. If large sensor/nice bokeh-DOF/good sensitivity isn't a major requirement, standard video cameras are probably a better deal (you can get ones with good compression levels and good D.R. latitude now). If they ARE important, something like what I already suggested is your low end entry point. BMPCC, because of the clear need for external storage & lenses, automatically bumps the budget up by about $700 or so. That is exactly why this last spring I decided NOT to go with it for now.
And again, the OP doesn't have this extra time that you are wanting him to wait for. It's a matter of "what's possible, here, now, with these requirements?".
Lens is different story as motorized lenses are available on market also second hand (so perhaps 700$ can be lowered).
Having opportunity to work with footage from various DSLR and reasonable priced cameras like BMDPCC i see obvious difference also as additional post processing is possible sometimes opportunity to almost resurrect footage (bad light conditions for example) simple devices like BMDPCC record and store more data and those data can be used.
This was my point - other factors mentioned by are not visible in this topic (as you mentioned there is another topic that i not aware where all those information's are provided).
So i hope no one is offended by my proposal - from my perspective - technically this is good alternative but other factors are important too and at some point i'm not the one that pay for this.
Please, show me WHERE a remotely-controllable motorized zoom lens that mounts on standard DSLRs are available for as cheaply as you say, and I'll buy you a beer or present or something! Cheapest controllers alone look to be $350-$600 range (that's without the lens!). And you rarely find those used (as users seem to hold on to them).
You may not have originally seen all those other factors, but now it has been pointed out to you, so you could refer to them.
I agree, I'm not the one who's going to be paying for this. But I do have the benefit of hindsight having just bought one of them recently. BMCC, etc. is in my sights, but probably not feasible for another year or 2 (and by then, the landscape may have changed again).
1. AVC is a "format", it is the settings used (bitrate, color sampling, IBP frametype choice, Layer+Profile) which determines it's usability as a professional origin point. For every AVCHD or "MP4" possibility, there could be an AVC-Intra or XAVC possibility.
2. DSLRs don't HAVE to be limited to that, even if it's the native internal storage format. Witness DSLRs (like mine) which have clean, live HDMI out that can hook up to external recorder that records/stores in ProRes, DNxHD, etc. No real limitation, just minor starting one that one can "grow out of". That's why the Atomos Ninja is such a hot commodity.
On that other point, I'm just saying I wouldn't give a powerful pronouncement about budget if I couldn't back it up with examples. I see you currently have none in the motozoom area, so I'd say my original estimate of TCO was more reliable.
Last edited by Cornucopia; 5th Sep 2014 at 11:01. Reason: typo