Thursday, January 17, 2013
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
DSLR fight
Most camera makers continue to build mediocre video capability into their still cameras. Why? Because they can. It costs them next to nothing. A DSLR with live view and some appropriate firmware becomes a video camera. Go for it, if you wish.
But Sony and Panasonic are also in the professional and semi-pro video camera business. They looked at Canon's success in the movie / TV industry with the 5D MKII and were faced with a quandary. They could easily make large sensor video cameras based on their DSLR technology, but what would this do to their traditional pro video products?
But capitalism has its greatest strength when commercial competition becomes inevitable. No one wanted to be the first to blink, but slowly over the past year or so both Sony and Panasonic put their toes in the water, and now the flood gates are opening (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor).
First out of the block was Sony with its VG10 video camera, based on the new NEX series. These use an APS-C sized sensor. As I noted in my initial review, this isn't that exciting a video camera. It had a lot of potential, but clearly Sony was nervous about cannibalizing its pro video cameras, so they clearly crippled the camera's capabilities so that it wouldn't be a threat.
Panasonic AF100/101
But then shortly thereafter Panasonic announced the AF100 / 101. This camera broke the log jam. A high specification AVCHD encoder, full semi-pro video features, and a Four Thirds sized sensor with a Micro Four Thirds lens mount able to take just about any lens, including PL mount, Leica M mount. Zeiss, etc. The icing on the cake was an announced price of under US $5,000. Now you're talking!
Sony's immediate rejoinder was its pro-grade CineAlta F3. This uses PL mount lenses and a Super 35MM sized sensor (similar in size to APS-C, and somewhat larger than Four Thirds), but is a bit out of our league in terms of price (US $23,000) and specification. Nevertheless, it was a signal that Sony had bit the bullet and decided to play.
FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
There is no word on the price (rumoured to be sub $7,000) of the Sony Super 35 NEXCAM, exact specifications, or model name. Delivery is simply mentioned as mid-2011. So, what is this about? Why announce a product more than half a year before it is due, and while it's still in the development stage. This simply isn't Sony's usual MO.
If you ever worked in the mainframe or mini computer industry you will know what I mean when I use the phrase Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD was IBM's tactic whenever a competitor announced a new product due to ship in a short while. IBM might not have anything even close to ready to compete, but they would announce that they had something coming, and would detail some rough specs and a delivery date.
That was all it took to derail their competitors from grabbing too much market share. Since "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," as the well known phrase went, simply knowing that there was something coming from Big Blue was enough to cost competitors sales, while many customers waitied to see what the guys in Armonk had coming for them.
Which brings us back to today and the nascent large sensor video camera market. Panasonic is about to ship the AF100 / 101. As this is being written in mid-November 2010 this exciting new camera is scheduled to start shipping within a few weeks. If initial commentary and response is anything to judge by the AF100 will be a resounding success for Panasonic, especially at its aggressive price point of under $5,000.
Sony's CineAlta F3 will be available soon as well, but at 4X – 5X the price of the AF100 it is targeted at a much more elevated market segment than the Panasonic.
All of this makes sense given the two company's market positions. Sony is a major player in the broadcast industry while Panasonic's involvement in video stops at the top end of the indy / prosumer market. Sony has a lot more to lose than does Panasonic by the large sensor interchangable lens video revolution.
But Sony and Panasonic are also in the professional and semi-pro video camera business. They looked at Canon's success in the movie / TV industry with the 5D MKII and were faced with a quandary. They could easily make large sensor video cameras based on their DSLR technology, but what would this do to their traditional pro video products?
But capitalism has its greatest strength when commercial competition becomes inevitable. No one wanted to be the first to blink, but slowly over the past year or so both Sony and Panasonic put their toes in the water, and now the flood gates are opening (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphor).
Sony NEX VG10
First out of the block was Sony with its VG10 video camera, based on the new NEX series. These use an APS-C sized sensor. As I noted in my initial review, this isn't that exciting a video camera. It had a lot of potential, but clearly Sony was nervous about cannibalizing its pro video cameras, so they clearly crippled the camera's capabilities so that it wouldn't be a threat.Panasonic AF100/101
Sony's immediate rejoinder was its pro-grade CineAlta F3. This uses PL mount lenses and a Super 35MM sized sensor (similar in size to APS-C, and somewhat larger than Four Thirds), but is a bit out of our league in terms of price (US $23,000) and specification. Nevertheless, it was a signal that Sony had bit the bullet and decided to play.
Sony Super 35 NEXCAM
Surprisingly, and showing that they aren't simply willing to compete by halves, not long afterward, in late November 2010, Sony announced a Super 35 NEXCAM camera that uses their NEX E lens mount and a top of the line AVCHD codec. This is the camera that the VG10 should have been.FUD – Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt
There is no word on the price (rumoured to be sub $7,000) of the Sony Super 35 NEXCAM, exact specifications, or model name. Delivery is simply mentioned as mid-2011. So, what is this about? Why announce a product more than half a year before it is due, and while it's still in the development stage. This simply isn't Sony's usual MO.
If you ever worked in the mainframe or mini computer industry you will know what I mean when I use the phrase Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. FUD was IBM's tactic whenever a competitor announced a new product due to ship in a short while. IBM might not have anything even close to ready to compete, but they would announce that they had something coming, and would detail some rough specs and a delivery date.
That was all it took to derail their competitors from grabbing too much market share. Since "No one ever got fired for buying IBM," as the well known phrase went, simply knowing that there was something coming from Big Blue was enough to cost competitors sales, while many customers waitied to see what the guys in Armonk had coming for them.
Sony's CineAlta F3 will be available soon as well, but at 4X – 5X the price of the AF100 it is targeted at a much more elevated market segment than the Panasonic.
All of this makes sense given the two company's market positions. Sony is a major player in the broadcast industry while Panasonic's involvement in video stops at the top end of the indy / prosumer market. Sony has a lot more to lose than does Panasonic by the large sensor interchangable lens video revolution.
So What?
If you are involved professionally or personally in the video segment of the market I assume that the above will have been of some interest – pointing out some of the exciting products that are coming our way in the weeks and months ahead.
Needless to say, the traditional small-sensor pro and semi-pro camcorder business is about to be whacked up-side the head. While deep DOF small sensor camcorders are desirable for some documentary work, anyone doing narrative movie production at any level – from Hollywood films to New York TV shows to Indy producers are going to fall all over themselves over the shallow DOF capability of this generation of large sensor interchangeable lens cameras.
And while the massively shallow DOF of the full frame Canon 5D MKII is oh so attractive, many film makers find it hard to work with. It's actually too shallow for day-to-day shooting, and if one stops down to reduce DOF then one needs to add more light to the scene, which is contrary to the gestalt of current film making, let alone today's constrained production budgets.
The smaller (but still large in cine terms) APS-C and Four Thirds sensors are at the sweet spot; small enough to allow shallow DOF when desired, yet not so shallow that a moderate aperture presents lighting issues. Indeed the Four Thirds sensor's size is isn't that much smaller than traditional 35mm motion picture film.Thus we will have both Sony and Panasonic with their new video cameras having sensors aimed at the DOF sweet spot.
All of the begs the question – is there room for video DSLRs in this new brave new large sensor video camera world? The answer is likely both yes and no. At the pro level there will always be those cinematographers who love the small size / big picture that a DSLR offers when shooting video. But for anything other than shooting in incredibly tight quarters, DSLRs make truly terrible cine cameras.
To be usable they need a range of handling accessories that increases their bulk to that of a proper video camera. They also are completely lacking in terms of obligatory video features such as built in ND filters, zebras, peaking, under and over cranking, live EVFs, wave form monitors, and the like.
I therefore think that over the next year or so the video DSLR revolution, begun by Nikon with the D90 and brought to a peak by the Canon 5D MKII, will have run its course. Naturally all DSLRs will continue to offer ever-improving video capability, but they will essentially remain stills cameras that can (Oh, by the way) shoot video, while the new generation of large sensor video cameras such as the AF100 and Super 35 NEXCAM become the tools of choice for Indy film makers and other budget-oriented producers and cinematographers.
At the high end we will have Sony, with its new CineAlta F3 and successors. Whether Panasonic will decide to play in this more rarified segment remains to be seen. This is traditionally Sony CineAlta, Arri Alexa, and RED territory.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Z96 LED Light
LED lights have hit the industry by storm and why not? There are many advantages to using LED lights and not quite as many disadvantages. An LED light produces almost no heat at all making it comfortable for you and your subject. They produce an excellent color balance for either 3200k or 5600k temperatures and, at the same time, they are dimmable without affecting the color temperature. Another advantage is that most LEDs have an exceptionally long lifespan of up to 100,000 hours. Depending upon their placement, they are excellent for close up interviews without creating hard or distracting shadows, especially when using a diffuser.
F & V has produced a light weight, camera mountable LED light in the Z96. The HDV-Z96 is fairly small at 5" x 1.77" x 3" and weighs only 6 ounces without the 5 AA regular or rechargeable batteries that power it. Without the white diffusion or red color filters that come with it the Z96 light produces a very clean and natural color at 5600k.
What surprised me the most was how powerful this light was when compared to similar models of small LED lights I have reviewed here in the past. Utilizing 96 small LEDs the Z96 produced significantly more light than others I've seen and works well with the 16x9 format when shooting video whether on a camcorder or DSLR. A mount for the light comes with it for easy placement on the shoe mount of most any camera. The mini ball head can be tilted to most any degree you wish. The Z96 LED light can also be mounted onto a separate tripod or other stand.
The firm white diffusion filter, as well as the red filter, have small magnets on each of their four corners for a very secure attachment to the light's own 4 magnets. This is a cool feature as you don't have to worry about flimsy plastic diffusion filters slipping out of their holders or falling unnoticed by the way side. These filters are solid and will not fold, tear or fall off.
Additionally, a single link plate is included which will connect multiple Z96 lights to be connected together when more light is needed.
All LED lights are fairly directionless; their light tends to have an even throw, preventing shadows and harsh contrasts. This characteristic, however, is not always what you may want as there may be times when shadows are an important part of the ambiance you are trying to create. Thus, LED lights are wonderful to have but are not necessarily the type of light you will need for all occasions. Additionally, there is a greater light 'fall off' as you move the light further away from your subject. The diffused nature of any LED light shortens the throw of the light itself. With a shortened throw comes the need for even more power output. The rule of thumb here is that you need to literally double the light output when moving the light from a distance of 3 feet from your subject to 6 feet and quadruple the light output from 6 to 12 feet. Clearly, a small cam mounted LED like the Z96 will not have the power output to satisfy your lighting needs in this type of situation.
However, for run and gun filming, close up interviews and hidden fill light needs, I found the Z96 to be superior to other small LED lights I have used. You can use the Z96 almost all day without the batteries going dead on you, they run cool, maintain a consistent color and will deliver that softness to your subject's facial features that makes for a good interview. It's build quality feels sturdy to hold, the two diffusers are solid, and even the back power dimmer knob is built in to the rear side for easy adjustments. What's more is that the F&V Z96 is both compact and lightweight and won't take up too much room in your gear bag. There is no tool that will fit all needs, however, you will find that the Z96 LED light will fit many of them just as you hoped it would.
F & V has produced a light weight, camera mountable LED light in the Z96. The HDV-Z96 is fairly small at 5" x 1.77" x 3" and weighs only 6 ounces without the 5 AA regular or rechargeable batteries that power it. Without the white diffusion or red color filters that come with it the Z96 light produces a very clean and natural color at 5600k.
However, for run and gun filming, close up interviews and hidden fill light needs, I found the Z96 to be superior to other small LED lights I have used. You can use the Z96 almost all day without the batteries going dead on you, they run cool, maintain a consistent color and will deliver that softness to your subject's facial features that makes for a good interview. It's build quality feels sturdy to hold, the two diffusers are solid, and even the back power dimmer knob is built in to the rear side for easy adjustments. What's more is that the F&V Z96 is both compact and lightweight and won't take up too much room in your gear bag. There is no tool that will fit all needs, however, you will find that the Z96 LED light will fit many of them just as you hoped it would.
Thursday, March 24, 2011
DSLR vs. RED ONE.
We were in a conversation today about the diff between the RED ONE and the new DSLRs out there. I remember when years ago the rumors about the RED ONE was just an urban Legend. Finally after 8 years it came out. We were all very excited. It's been a great platform and is very very versatile.
Then Canon's 5D came out and every wanna-be out there suddenly became a filmmaker. So, it was hard to wade through all the crappy uses to find actual quality footage and images. The 7D allowed a production to have 2 or 3 additional cameras for the cost of one. It was just a matter of time before Nikon threw it's hat in the ring. They have the D7000. The D7000 comes with Nikon glass and a color sensor as opposed to the black and white sensor on the Canon 7d. The contrasts you get with the D7000 is truly amazing to see. You can see all the details in shadows.
Nikons D800 is been talked about coming out last fall. It's still not here. We are being told it'll be here in June. It is a full sensor (35mm film sensor) size. This will compete with the Canon5D. Obviously the D800 will be the best since it has Nikon glass.
We will be listed support rods and equipment that we are using in a coming blog.
Then Canon's 5D came out and every wanna-be out there suddenly became a filmmaker. So, it was hard to wade through all the crappy uses to find actual quality footage and images. The 7D allowed a production to have 2 or 3 additional cameras for the cost of one. It was just a matter of time before Nikon threw it's hat in the ring. They have the D7000. The D7000 comes with Nikon glass and a color sensor as opposed to the black and white sensor on the Canon 7d. The contrasts you get with the D7000 is truly amazing to see. You can see all the details in shadows.
Nikons D800 is been talked about coming out last fall. It's still not here. We are being told it'll be here in June. It is a full sensor (35mm film sensor) size. This will compete with the Canon5D. Obviously the D800 will be the best since it has Nikon glass.
- Brand new 24.6MP FX 35.9 x 24 mm CMOS sensor
- Full HD (1080p) movie recording @24fps
- Nikon Multi-CAM 3500FX AF of 51 points
We will be listed support rods and equipment that we are using in a coming blog.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Next project using the Canon 7d and the Nikon D7000.
We will be shooting 60-70+ hours in 7 days times with both. We will be using one lighting setup between them. Audio is only going to be a a reference for editing final project. We will be uploading footage and images from both cameras for everyone to compare. These will be used for the purpose of the project not just to prove the two are or are not compatible.
If anyone has already done this give us any settings you think we might need.
Check back soon.
Tuesday, March 07, 2006
Open letter to Hollywood. From Father Jonathan Morris
Dear Hollywood,
I’m writing on behalf of all Americans. It’s been a while since you’ve been in touch with us. You haven’t called, you haven’t written, but you keep sending films. Just thought I would drop you a line.
You see, I’m concerned about you, and about your future. We saw your Oscars show last night. Some things were just like we remember. Jon Stewart behaved himself quite nicely and, though very different from other emcees we knew and loved, I still think Bob Hope would have been proud. The red carpet, pretty dresses, all the glitter…I know it’s all a bit superficial, but it’s captured our heart just the same. It’s always exciting to see familiar faces and get a feel for what our favorite actors and actresses must be like in real life. Oh, and the drama of it all. Don’t change that!
But I do have one question. What’s your idea of “good film?”
These were your favorite films this year, along with their ranking in box-office ticket sales, and number of Oscar nominations:
• Brokeback Mountain: 27th place, 8 nominations
• Crash: 49th place, 6 nominations
• Good Night, and Good Luck: 90th place, 6 nominations
• Memoirs of a Geisha: 45th place, 6 nominations
I didn’t want to see any of them, and I haven’t seen any of them. And judging by the numbers, neither did anybody else. These “masterpieces” were playing to mostly empty theaters for most of their theater run.
"March of the Penguins," nominated in the Best Documentary category, actually grossed more money than any of the Best Picture nominees.
“Crash” took your high honors, but the theater owners don’t share your enthusiasm, because we the people don’t. You gave 8 nominations and 3 Oscars to Brokeback Mountain, which only came in 27th at the box office. Capote didn’t even make the top 100 at the box office, but you liked it a lot: 5 nominations (including Best Picture) and an Oscar.
Actually, America’s favorite film this year was "Star Wars III." We paid $380 million to go see it in theaters. You gave it a single nomination: for makeup. It proves the old Hollywood maxim: “People will flock to theaters in droves and stand in long lines to get in to see movies with good makeup.” Or did I just make that up?
That’s why I’m announcing today the first annual We the People awards. There’s only one criterion: whether audiences actually wanted to go see the movies. Revolutionary! Drum roll, please… the We the People (WTP) award winners for this year are:
• Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith: $380 million gross (1st place for the year), 1 nomination
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $288 million (2nd place for the year), 1 nomination
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: $288 million (3rd place for the year), 3 nominations
• War of the Worlds: $234 million (4th place for the year), 3 nominations
Oh, look, I think I see a pattern. None of these movies glorifies homosexuality ("Brokeback," "Capote"), squeezes in 182 expletives ("Crash"), bashes McCarthyism ("Good Night") and America in general ("Syriana" — 2 nominations) or features subject matter unmentionable in this column ("Geisha," "Transamerica" — 2 nominations). In a word, none of them is propaganda. Maybe that’s why we wanted to go see them.
So it’s agreed, then… you have your awards ceremony and we’ll have ours.
But let’s talk seriously for a moment. Remember what Samuel Goldwyn, one of MGM’s founding producers, used to say? “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Movies are just pure entertainment, right? Wrong. Very wrong.
Even Michael Moore and I will agree on this much: filmmaking is much more than entertainment. It’s psychology: a viewer watching a film moves in the actor’s world as though it were his own, and even, to some degree, lives in his place. The viewer begins to identify himself with the actor’s situation and values. That’s why we come away from movies feeling happier or sadder, quoting lines and humming tunes.
So movies can sweep us up to beauty and truth or degrade us, warping our fundamental attitudes about life and about each other. Michael Moore uses all kinds of powers of suggestion to get you to think a certain way about moral issues. So does Ang Lee. For that matter, so does Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Psychology is not bad, it’s what you do with it.
Here’s the principle: moviemakers have a responsibility to society. A movie that doesn’t respect the truth about who man and woman are is simply poison. Remember the line from "Spiderman 2," “With great power comes great responsibility?” A side point: "Spiderman 2" would have won a We The People award in 2004 for grossing $374 million to finish 2nd for the year. As a matter of fact, it just barely beat out "The Passion of the Christ," with $370 million, another WTP would-be winner (and the all-time gross money maker in the R-rated category).
Some will object: "Hollywood is just entertainment." I respond: "If that’s so, this year it entertained very few." Others will object: "Hollywood is just a business." I respond: "Not a good one, at least not this year." Still others will chime in: "We’re just reflecting what’s already out there." I respond: "You’re great people, but remember, you live in a subculture that has been sick for a very long time — lots of demons. Change the angles of your mirrors, and see new realities. Then let them shine."
Anyway, Hollywood, if you’re still reading, keep this in mind. Your overall box-office receipts have been falling steadily over the last three years, and two-thirds of all films still lose money. Something has to change. There are lots of ideas out there. Some make money. Some don’t. Leave Hollywood and Malibu for a while and get back in touch. Write to us. Call us. Visit us. Ask us what would be a reflection of what We The People really think and what we’ll pay to see.
God bless.
I’m writing on behalf of all Americans. It’s been a while since you’ve been in touch with us. You haven’t called, you haven’t written, but you keep sending films. Just thought I would drop you a line.
You see, I’m concerned about you, and about your future. We saw your Oscars show last night. Some things were just like we remember. Jon Stewart behaved himself quite nicely and, though very different from other emcees we knew and loved, I still think Bob Hope would have been proud. The red carpet, pretty dresses, all the glitter…I know it’s all a bit superficial, but it’s captured our heart just the same. It’s always exciting to see familiar faces and get a feel for what our favorite actors and actresses must be like in real life. Oh, and the drama of it all. Don’t change that!
But I do have one question. What’s your idea of “good film?”
These were your favorite films this year, along with their ranking in box-office ticket sales, and number of Oscar nominations:
• Brokeback Mountain: 27th place, 8 nominations
• Crash: 49th place, 6 nominations
• Good Night, and Good Luck: 90th place, 6 nominations
• Memoirs of a Geisha: 45th place, 6 nominations
I didn’t want to see any of them, and I haven’t seen any of them. And judging by the numbers, neither did anybody else. These “masterpieces” were playing to mostly empty theaters for most of their theater run.
"March of the Penguins," nominated in the Best Documentary category, actually grossed more money than any of the Best Picture nominees.
“Crash” took your high honors, but the theater owners don’t share your enthusiasm, because we the people don’t. You gave 8 nominations and 3 Oscars to Brokeback Mountain, which only came in 27th at the box office. Capote didn’t even make the top 100 at the box office, but you liked it a lot: 5 nominations (including Best Picture) and an Oscar.
Actually, America’s favorite film this year was "Star Wars III." We paid $380 million to go see it in theaters. You gave it a single nomination: for makeup. It proves the old Hollywood maxim: “People will flock to theaters in droves and stand in long lines to get in to see movies with good makeup.” Or did I just make that up?
That’s why I’m announcing today the first annual We the People awards. There’s only one criterion: whether audiences actually wanted to go see the movies. Revolutionary! Drum roll, please… the We the People (WTP) award winners for this year are:
• Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith: $380 million gross (1st place for the year), 1 nomination
• Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire: $288 million (2nd place for the year), 1 nomination
• The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe: $288 million (3rd place for the year), 3 nominations
• War of the Worlds: $234 million (4th place for the year), 3 nominations
Oh, look, I think I see a pattern. None of these movies glorifies homosexuality ("Brokeback," "Capote"), squeezes in 182 expletives ("Crash"), bashes McCarthyism ("Good Night") and America in general ("Syriana" — 2 nominations) or features subject matter unmentionable in this column ("Geisha," "Transamerica" — 2 nominations). In a word, none of them is propaganda. Maybe that’s why we wanted to go see them.
So it’s agreed, then… you have your awards ceremony and we’ll have ours.
But let’s talk seriously for a moment. Remember what Samuel Goldwyn, one of MGM’s founding producers, used to say? “If you want to send a message, use Western Union.” Movies are just pure entertainment, right? Wrong. Very wrong.
Even Michael Moore and I will agree on this much: filmmaking is much more than entertainment. It’s psychology: a viewer watching a film moves in the actor’s world as though it were his own, and even, to some degree, lives in his place. The viewer begins to identify himself with the actor’s situation and values. That’s why we come away from movies feeling happier or sadder, quoting lines and humming tunes.
So movies can sweep us up to beauty and truth or degrade us, warping our fundamental attitudes about life and about each other. Michael Moore uses all kinds of powers of suggestion to get you to think a certain way about moral issues. So does Ang Lee. For that matter, so does Michelangelo in the Sistine Chapel. Psychology is not bad, it’s what you do with it.
Here’s the principle: moviemakers have a responsibility to society. A movie that doesn’t respect the truth about who man and woman are is simply poison. Remember the line from "Spiderman 2," “With great power comes great responsibility?” A side point: "Spiderman 2" would have won a We The People award in 2004 for grossing $374 million to finish 2nd for the year. As a matter of fact, it just barely beat out "The Passion of the Christ," with $370 million, another WTP would-be winner (and the all-time gross money maker in the R-rated category).
Some will object: "Hollywood is just entertainment." I respond: "If that’s so, this year it entertained very few." Others will object: "Hollywood is just a business." I respond: "Not a good one, at least not this year." Still others will chime in: "We’re just reflecting what’s already out there." I respond: "You’re great people, but remember, you live in a subculture that has been sick for a very long time — lots of demons. Change the angles of your mirrors, and see new realities. Then let them shine."
Anyway, Hollywood, if you’re still reading, keep this in mind. Your overall box-office receipts have been falling steadily over the last three years, and two-thirds of all films still lose money. Something has to change. There are lots of ideas out there. Some make money. Some don’t. Leave Hollywood and Malibu for a while and get back in touch. Write to us. Call us. Visit us. Ask us what would be a reflection of what We The People really think and what we’ll pay to see.
God bless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Social Media
|
|
|
|