Is this a DSLR?

Don't worry; I have the nerves of an angel. (Satan doesn't count)

Ok so, lets recap.
-Captain America/Avengers = Crash cam. Short cuts. Disposable.
-Black Swan = Darren Aronofsky is notorious for shooting films on laughable budges, he's less Hollywood and more "high-end indi", if there's such a thing. DSLRs made sense in the shooting environment, but their footage looked horrible (IMO) compared to the rest of the movie, which is no great looker itself. (loved the movie though)
-That one episode of House = Made sense size-wise in the claustrophobic shooting enviro, and was chosen specifically for extremely narrow DOF to depict the insanity and closed nature of one of the characters. Interview with the director he only talked about how hard the 5D2 was to work with.
-Haven't seen Act of Valor, so no comment. I'll need to see it in at least 1080p to make a judgement. IMDB says money and size constraints.

Ok, so if you didn't know, asked a question, and you got an answer, you get angry? I don't know a lot of things myself, no one's James Bond after all, but I always strive for more knowledge and am grateful for any grain of information that I get. When I wrote my original comment, I expected you to become more interested in the subject and perhaps ask me for more info, instead of constantly reinforcing the fact that you don't know. If you find a person who you think knows more than you do - ask him sh!t!

Anyways, if Hollywood wants to use a digital large sensor camera that doesn't suck, they'd use a Phantom 65 and have kick-ass slow-mo capability to boot, disposable income and whatnot. In most cases shallow DOF is neither needed nor desired.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #14865128
Anyways, if Hollywood wants to use a digital large sensor camera that doesn't suck, they'd use a Phantom 65 and have kick-ass slow-mo capability to boot, disposable income and whatnot. In most cases shallow DOF is neither needed nor desired.

you could not be more wrong about this statement. other than the fact that phantom cameras are used in hollywood movies when it calls for a super slow motion shot. using a phantom 65 as your primary camera on set would be dumb, 9/10 movies would not even start using majority of the features on that camera so having the ability to do super slow motion and not using it is stupid. i know you were kidding but the joke was not at all funny. i love movies and i would love in my lifetime to continue watching movies shot on film. but the mentality of lets just shoot the whole thing on a overkill video camera is disappointing.

in most cases shallow DOF is almost always used in hollywood movies its just subtle. hollywood doesnt over use SUPER shallow DOF. watch a movie and look at it super close majority of the time the backgrounds are soft rather than completely obliterated like most amateur videographers do these days because they think its cool

Brian_R wrote in post #14863197
um as far as professionals are concerned DSLR shooting is not done because its trendy. every camera provides a unique characteristic to what is being shot. a DSLR offers small size and value making it an excellent crash camera to be destroyed for shots you dont want to risk your main expensive camera as well as being a super cheap camera to offer cinema like qualities after the correct amount of processing. as far as 24p is concerned that is because 24fps has been the standard for filmmaking for a very long time. and most cameras are easily recognizable as cameras the only extras you add are matte box, lens, rails, monitor, viewfinder, and film loader. not sure what extra junk you are referring to that makes it tough to recognize a camera as being a camera lol

just remember its not how you look through the camera its how you use ALL your tools. everyone looks through a camera the exact same way. with either the left or right eye...

I agree that every camera does offer unique benefits and sometimes characteristics that make people use them. I was referring to the fact that lots of people Dont know WHY they use a certain piece of gear, the simply do because the other guy used it and if I dont my product will not be as good. This is a totally stupid reasoning. In the professional world Cameras are picked due to the circumstances they are used in. ( Tight Space / Light weight) But we dont all live in this well educated world. Most of the people I run across are people doubling as a director or producer because the boss told them to do it. I wish i could work in the educated world but alas I don't I would be willing to bet that half the people in hollywood only know the fancy names and are basically namedropping when they shoot their mouths off, As for the 24p remark You are correct that 24 frames has been the standard almost from the beginning, But lots of people don't, They hear buzz words adn throw them down to impress the "Indie" film crowd. Thats what i was referring to.

Hows this for the new standard digital film camera?

Sony F-65

Brian_R wrote in post #14865454
you could not be more wrong about this statement. other than the fact that phantom cameras are used in hollywood movies when it calls for a super slow motion shot. using a phantom 65 as your primary camera on set would be dumb, 9/10 movies would not even start using majority of the features on that camera so having the ability to do super slow motion and not using it is stupid. i know you were kidding but the joke was not at all funny. i love movies and i would love in my lifetime to continue watching movies shot on film. but the mentality of lets just shoot the whole thing on a overkill video camera is disappointing.

Well... yes that was a joke actually. I never said anything about using it as a primary camera either, that is, indeed, stupid... But the few times I've seen one in action it was the coolest thing I ever saw.

Yes, I know it's used, but never emphasized for it's own sake. There are maybe only two people on set who even think about DOF during shooting, the focus puller and 1st AC because it's their job to keep track of it. You'll never see the DoP shouting "we need less DOF!" it just doesn't happen.
The standard s35 film/sensor size is IMO just right for the "right" amount of DOF, when at typical working apertures of f/4~5.6 or so, if you want to keep the focus puller sane. For this reason, 1.6x crop cameras are typically favorable for video, you can expect to have the same or close-to DoF and focal length as the rest of the gear.

Looks pretty standard to me. I could probably wrap my head around all the controls in half an hour or so, once you use one big camera, everything else is just devils and details.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #14869681
Well... yes that was a joke actually. I never said anything about using it as a primary camera either, that is, indeed, stupid... But the few times I've seen one in action it was the coolest thing I ever saw.


Yes, I know it's used, but never emphasized for it's own sake. There are maybe only two people on set who even think about DOF during shooting, the focus puller and 1st AC because it's their job to keep track of it. You'll never see the DoP shouting "we need less DOF!" it just doesn't happen.
The standard s35 film/sensor size is IMO just right for the "right" amount of DOF, when at typical working apertures of f/4~5.6 or so, if you want to keep the focus puller sane. For this reason, 1.6x crop cameras are typically favorable for video, you can expect to have the same or close-to DoF and focal length as the rest of the gear.


Looks pretty standard to me. I could probably wrap my head around all the controls in half an hour or so, once you use one big camera, everything else is just devils and details.

other people might not realize what you were posting was a joke and take it as serious fact, while most people in america that are knowledgeable about cameras will pick up on your sarcasm but being that the internet is global a lot of people might miss that joke, just sayin. and i agree you wont hear a DP shouting more DOF, but i guarantee you that the DP does worry and stay concerned about DOF as it affects what is in focus and its the DP's job as an artist to create the image that we see on the screen and if something crucial isnt in focus its the DP's job to make sure everything is perfect in the frame before the camera rolls. part of DOF is understanding how the bokeh will work and making sure that if the background is out of focus that the bokeh doesnt ruin the shot because we all know that every lens produces a different look and feel to its bokeh

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #14869681
Looks pretty standard to me. I could probably wrap my head around all the controls in half an hour or so, once you use one big camera, everything else is just devils and details.

I doubt it... It took someone that is hugely talented and his AC a couple of hours to learn it all as well as having a engineer from Sony there to guild them through it all the day before the shoot. The Sony engineer stayed with the crew for the entire three day shoot.

Confidence is a good thing until it gets you killed or makes you look like an ass.

yea i agree the mentality of once you know one camera you know them all is a terrible way to work. while exposure will always be the same. extensively understanding how a camera performs and what the limitations are is crucial to effectively working a professional production.

at a certain level of professional work DPs are sometimes chosen not by what they have done but by the camera they have mastered and while lots of DPs know more than one camera they do not know them all.

while its easy to learn where each button is within half and hour. everything else you need to do to understand how the camera performs takes at least a full day to learn, and even after a full day you are far from mastering that camera

By the end of day three I think the DP and AC had the camera down pretty good. But the Sony engineer was still there answering questions from them. This Sony F-65 is not just "another camera."

holy cow lol

ChasWG wrote in post #14870317
Confidence is a good thing until it gets you killed or makes you look like an ass.

BA HA HA HA HA! Boy aint THAT the truth!

Just speakin' the truths!

I am suprised that 1080p quality of a SLR is good enough for the big screen.

I am not saying it isnt. just that it suprises me!

dannybres wrote in post #14885692
I am suprised that 1080p quality of a SLR is good enough for the big screen.

I am not saying it isnt. just that it suprises me!

good? if only you could see it on a big screen knowing what you watched.

DSLR video on a big screen after grading and color correction is good enough for most people to not even be able to tell that it was shot on a camera that cost less than $5k.

Brian_R wrote in post #14886011
DSLR video on a big screen after grading and color correction is good enough for most people to not even be able to tell that it was shot on a camera that cost less than $5k.

Yes these days that an unfortunate truth IMHO. due to that there have been many great directors that have been able to bring their vision to the big screen. Also Tons of crap with it. Used to be if you were an idiot you had to at least be a wealthy one to get your crap idea on the screen or into an edit suite…… Edit suite, theres another one.