Recording Video With a DSLR

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I've just done a few test video recordings with my Nikon D90, quite frankly I am disappointed. In a previous post I mentioned the inability to use a wired remote, now I've done a proper test I find that the auto focus is disabled when shooting video, trying to use the manual focus ring while keeping the camera steady is nigh impossible. The sound quality with wind noise & no means of muffling it other thatn switching it on or off, is another con. The video picture quality comes no where near still picture quality. Therefore I can't think of or find any pros.

I can see merit in adding the odd short video clip to a PTE production having seen Goddis, but I won't be trying to use my D90 to produce them.

Before anyone asks what previous cine/video experience I've had, I used 8mm film back in the early 60's, then super 8, then VHS & VHSc, I had one of the first Sony shoulder mount semi professional cameras in the early 70's. IMO it's horses for coarses.

Does anyone have any pros?

Yachtsman1.

[goddi]

I've just done a few test video recordings with my Nikon D90, quite frankly I am disappointed. In a previous post I mentioned the inability to use a wired remote, now I've done a proper test I find that the auto focus is disabled when shooting video, trying to use the manual focus ring while keeping the camera steady is nigh impossible. The sound quality with wind noise & no means of muffling it other thatn switching it on or off, is another con. The video picture quality comes no where near still picture quality. Therefore I can't think of or find any pros.

I can see merit in adding the odd short video clip to a PTE production having seen Goddis, but I won't be trying to use my D90 to produce them.

Before anyone asks what previous cine/video experience I've had, I used 8mm film back in the early 60's, then super 8, then VHS & VHSc, I had one of the first Sony shoulder mount semi professional cameras in the early 70's. IMO it's horses for coarses.

Does anyone have any pros?

Yachtsman1.

=======================

Eric,

I have a Nikon D7000. It is similar to the D90, in that the viewing screen does not flip out, as some do, I believe. I thought that was a good feature when I got my D7000, but now I see the problems. As you mentioned, it is difficult to view the screen AND make any adjustments like focus or zooming while taking the video. Since I wear bifocal glasses, I have to hold the camera in difficult positions to being able to watch the viewing screen AND fiddle with the controls. I am still learning how to set up the camera to take the video (but that's another story). It is really not straight forward as one might think. I have recently been taking video of myself playing racquetball (10mm lens) and it does work really well. But it is on a tripod and I don't have to worry about making any adjustments during the shoot.

When on a trip and I took videos with the camera, it was a real pain to have to hold the heavy camera up to my eye level and out far enough to be able to view the screen. This does not help in trying to get a steady shot. The video quality is really good but real difficult to handle the camera body to avoid the shakes. I guess practice is the only solution. And maybe using a light monopod to keep it a bit more steady. I used to use a short monopod and I would stick it in my waist to steady the shot as I walked around. I might revive that technique next time I try shooting hand-held video.

But I have found that I can get excellent quality video with my little Nikon AW100. It shoots HD1080p, 29 fps video and sound quality is really good, I'd say. And it is waterproof, with GPS and really too many neat functions I haven't even tried yet! When I went ziplining in Thailand, I used my D7000 with an 18-200 lens. I should have used the compact AW100. I learned my lesson.

Gary

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Following my steam let off, I checked a few dedicated camcorders out & for about £260ish I could buy a reasonably priced Sony HD camcorder, which is probably cheaper than a new lens for my DSLR. So my feelings at present are, forget the DSLR for video & use a dedicated camcorder such as http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sony-HDRCX115EB-Definition-Handycam-Camcorder/dp/B0031U1AJ6/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS?ie=UTF8&coliid=IKW0KHWYGHZH6&colid=227C4AY4BF4G6

Yachtsman1.

[Ken Cox]

Colin just recently bought a small camcorder - i seen a show he put up on youtube out of a window on a jet - not too shabby if i must say -

maybe he would offer the model

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

After posing the same question on Flickr I am convinced my D90 is not the camera for video. But as I'm not that interested I'm not really bothered, if my video interest increases I still think a dedicated video camera is the way to go.

The link is to the Flickr replies I got if anyone is interested.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon_d90/discuss/72157629864523097/

Yachtsman1.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Tom

You may not remember but last year I changed my Nikon D5000 for a bridge camera, but I missed SLR functions & wen't back to a Canon, I didn't try the Canon's video function. I believe in Kiss pricipl using the Nikon for video isn't my idea of Kiss. Good luck with the new camera.

Regards Eric

BTW I asked what an Amazon card was but you didn't reply?

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Tom,

Actually, the "video" feature on the Canon which Eric had prior to going back to a dSLR is as good as the video on nearly any dSLR and more versatile than most dSLR's for video. He had a Canon S30IS which I also have, along with numerous dSLR's and other bridge cameras. The video on the S30 IS is outstanding. The issue is that video on today's dSLR's and bridge cameras doesn't exceed 1080p. In reality, as Igor has mentioned numerous times, there is little difference between 720p and 1080p in terms of what you actually "see" on your HD television.

The nice thing about a bridge camera such as the S30 IS the ability to zoom and I mean really "zoom" when doing video. The S30 IS has a 35x zoom range taking one optically from about 24mm to 840mm. The "very usable" digital zoom goes to 140X. I've actually shot "good" images hand-held at 140X which I could not have done with "any" of my other 40 odd dSLR's, bridge cameras or digicams. All this also works with video.

As for other options, my best "secondary" video comes from my very small and very portable Nikon 1V which is a 10 megapixel hybrid with a 2.7x crop sensor and removable lens system with excellent video. This little jewel shoots up to 60 frames per second at full 10 megapixel resolution for about 30 frames, will shoot with its mechanical shutter at 10 fps and also do 400 fps and 1200 fps in greatly reduced size video for slow motion. The camera has both an excellent "nearly a megapixel" LCD and a very good EVF. It's not inexpensive, but with an adapter will also take standard Nikon lenses. I use a 10-30mm (27-81mm equiv), a 30-110 mm (81-297mm equiv) and the Nikon adapter with a 55-300 VR (148 - 810mm equiv). Of all my dSLR's and bridge cameras with video capabilities, however, I believe that the little Canon S30IS is by far the most versatile for pure video.

Of course the video purists will argue that the ability to shoot with a full frame dSLR and a super fast lens for complete control of depth of field is unequaled and they would be correct. The real issue is, however, how many of us really care about commercial quality video captures? Probably very few. What most are interested in is stability, image quality, zoom capability, proper focus, etc., and for those who want to make a major motion picture, the super expensive full frame sensors and fast lenses are there to be had as long as you have a friendly banker or deep pockets. It's sort of like doing special effects and sophisticated things with PTE. How many of us can afford the $1000 to purchase Adobe AfterEffects? If I had endless resources I would buy it for the "warp" video stabilization alone. It's second to none. But, and I'm rambling here, I'll have to settle for Mercalli 2.0 and I have to change operating systems to get that to work! LOL.

Video can become much like a sailboat - a huge hole into which you throw money - LOL. I think you are on the right track. I've seen very little differences in video quality between most of the newer bridge cameras and expensive dSLR's. If it does 720p, has decent zoom, reasonable ISO and a stabilized lens or body, it should be quite satisfactory for our purposes.

Best regards,

LIn

Hi Eric,

I remember your bridge camera posts from last year. I thought you were leaving DSLRs but I guess the image quality was not satisfactory.

I did post a reply to the Amazon question. Not much detail but that's all I know about the point system.

http://www.picturest...dpost__p__95398

Tom

[RobertAlbright]

I agree with all you say, Lin, except the last two words - 'our purposes'.

The beauty of PTE quality images (and video) is that it can be upscaled from the computer monitor screens and flat screen TV's used exclusively by so many to full size cinema-style projection.

'Our purposes', meaning the people all round the world who use PTE to show their work in National and International festivals, is for image resolution that will stand up to scrutiny on a projection screen at least 10' wide and sometimes considerably bigger.

I did a show at Winchester Photo Club the other week where the 100+ audience sat in tiered seating running back to the top of the hall; and this was a photo club, not a big AV convention. I've just been booked for Exeter club next March with a similar number in their club. A six foot screen ain't any good if 100 people are trying to see the pictures.

I know 'these purposes' are rather under-represented on the PTE Forum but I hope they won't be ignored. It is why PTE needs to produce Rolls Royce quality even though 90% of the customers are happy with a Ford saloon.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Robert,

LOL - I wasn't clear enough. What I was referring to as "our purposes" was my purposes and Tom's purposes. Actually, on my 40" HD Samsung LED television, I see no relevant differences between 720p and 1080p video from my S30 IS and my very best dSLR HD Video. They are both superb. The "only" differences are that with my full frame dSLR I can use fast lenses and do cinematic shallow depth of field frames. Qualitatively, there are no perceptible differences. Two megapixel resolution doesn't challenge either a good bridge camera or a dSLR. Of course the dSLR "generally" does better at high ISO, but "most" videographer specialists have little desire to shoot video in poor lighting and try to make it noise free for production purposes.

Of course if you absolutely need 1080p video, then many of the bridge cameras are not the right tool. On the other hand, if you need great zoom range then there are only a few lenses such as the Sigma 50-500 OS which will allow decent zoom flexibility for those special needs for the dSLR. With a Canon, Nikon, Sony or other "full frame" model dSLR you get exactly 50-500 mm. With a so called "crop factor" Canon (1.6x) you get 80-800 mm. With a Nikon (1.5x) you get 75-750mm - likewise with Sony and the Sigma SD1. With other Sigma models (SD9, SD10, SD14, SD15) which are 1.7x you get 85-850 mm. So the range with a dSLR "can" be extensive for video, but this is a very large and heavy lens and has some vignetting with wide angle and full frame dSLR's.

The beauty of the little bridge camera is that you can easily hand hold and correct for the minimal shake in software. You have a one button push with your thumb while you are shooting stills to "instantly" begin shooting video and the ability to press the shutter release at any time to capture a full resolution still frame while you are shooting video. Then there is that fantastic "up to 140x digital zoom" which really works! It's not a gimmick.

There is absolutely no question that PTE needs to support the highest available video resolution. In the next year or so, we will begin to see four megapixel video hit the market. There is already at least one dSLR supporting this - so it's definitely coming. Now how that might translate to a projection screen is still problematic because at least for now, I don't believe there are too many projectors available which support this resolution - I'm not absolutely certain of this, but I've not run across many yet. They are available - just really expensive and not in common use, at least not where I live.

Best regards,

Lin

[RobertAlbright]

Hi Tom and Lin

No problem, I agree it's horses for courses. It's just that I don't want our thoroughbred eliminated from the race before it starts.

Regarding projectors, 1920x1080px (or 1920x1200px) are common and inexpensive but not the higher resolution ones you indicate are coming down the road. Many UK camera clubs have gone the extremely expensive route of Canon 4/3 projectors because they don't want to crop their images to 16/9, the main format for cinematic presentation.

Robert

[Lin Evans]

Hi Robert,

It's really too bad that there is this rift between the aspect ratios of cameras and that chosen by the video entertainment and display manufacturers. The wide format has not been completely accepted by the movie industry. At least here in the U.S., IMAX still generally uses the old aspect ratio pretty much corresponding to the 3:2 of the camera industry for their super resolution 3D output. On the other hand, general cinema productions use the 16:9 or 16:10 (I'm not certain which) ratio commonly seen on home DVD and BluRay movies. It's a difficult thing for the AV enthusiast, because it requires the photographer to either purchase a camera which "allows" shooting by using only a part of the sensor to get the wide angle, or shooting wide all the time so one can "crop" to suit the new format. The video modes automatically "crop" to the 16:9 mode for compliance with the HD 720 or HD 1080 interlaced or progressive protocols. It then sort of forces the AV enthusiast to avoid video in the production, crop the rest to match the video or crop the video to match the stills. Fortunately, we can do it all with PTE because by using the provided features we can effectively crop the video non destructively to match 3:2 or 4:3, etc. We just need to be careful when shooting to again, either shoot wide with stills or constrain the important parts of our video to a reduced width so we can display them to match. It would be so nice if these disparate industries could get in sync....

Best regards,

Lin