Cinematography : DSRL Made for shooting moving images or still. by Patrick Hampton

Just saying if the first 5D was good enough for prime time tv. It's good enough for beginning filmmakers to use.

@Peter As a camcorder guy what do you focus on when choosing a camera to shoot on?

some other guy is a moron - DSLRs like the Canon 5D and 7D shoot better images than most domestic and industrial video cameras, but they have terrible ergonomics and the combination of shallow depth of field and very poor monitoring make then exceptionally difficult to use without a significant investment in add-ons... plus their audio record quality is deplorable. But if you know what you are doing they are very powerful tools in the right context.

I think the future is only brighter and as for myself we've been using canon 5D in and outside university to shoot video and like Chris said, with the required add-ons, it's really great to use these HDSLRs. i'm looking to buy one of my own canon 5D as i believe it is a great option to shoot quality video at comparably cheaper price!

Like everyone camera it has its quarks. The key is working around them. I love using the shallow DOF it gets me to focus on my characters more then the business of the background in certain scenes.

DSLR's are great for shooting movies, depending on what lenses you use you can achieve a very professional quality and cinematic feel. I chose to go DSLR with my filmmaking.

I'm shooting my videos for YouTube with my Canon 5D Mark II and 7D. I wouldn't shoot events with them because of the form factor, but for scripted productions, they are fantastic.

Arsen, I have now and I am impressed!

http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/23/canon-eos-m-mirrorless-camera/ I think this will answer the debate. Cannons new model that was announced! I want one!

They shot a whole episode of House M.D. on the 5D to show the power of the camera and giving a proof to this argument years ago.

First, it is important to remember that it is not the tools that make a film great; it is the vision and the realization of that vision through the labor of all behind the work that make a film great. With that said, if it makes some feel better about the use of DSLR cameras, filmmakers from David Fincher to Darren Aronofsky have used DSLR cameras in their works. Check out DP Matthew Libatique and crew use a DSLR camera (Canon) for Black Swan here http://blog.adoramarentals.com/2011/01/03/a-dance-of-light-black-swan-an... I am totally in for the use of these cameras, because, in the end, what you need is a vision and an understanding of your tools and your situation at hand.

A camera is a tool. You can use that tool to capture anything you want. You could shoot a film on a mobile phone if you wanted to.

@Peter surprising enough. All the issues you are talking about have been fixed. Even on the DSLR low end models. I just picked up the Nikon D3200. Lets just say I am impressed. Even thought I can't attach some of the gadgets I want because it is still considered a beginner DSLR. It has a 24MP CMOS sensor meant for post editing. It also takes SD with an amazing frame rate. The only issue is audio. Where you need to by an external so you don't get the camera noise from it. On the upside though I have control over my levels now on the unit. (Something that was only auto on past DSRL's). Tech has advanced so much in the last 3 years.

Its extremely comparable. You might need another light to fill in some spots but it shoots full 1080p HD so I am extremely happy with it.

I picked up a D3100 last yr, and I'd say the same as Patrick. The only thing is It's not good with Low Lit Sets. Mainly Live performances. But with Daytime Light, or Studio Light, It's Satisfactory!

@Chris Layhe Associates, Inc. I'm the other guy that you called a moron. Let's get the facts straight before calling people names. I said, "I would never use a DSLR for filmmaking"..... I never said it "can't" be done, or "hasn't" been done. "Red State" used several DSLR's, and I'm a huge Kevin Smith fan.... As well as "Act of Valor", and numerous "Prime time TV shows".... It's a matter of preference, plain and simple.... Kill me for not wanting to jump on the "DSLR Bandwagon"....

I just shot some footage today with it. Low natural light. We will see how it stands up. Also its always worth filming when someone hits a fire hydrant with their car!

Hi Ray, sorry if you have been misquoted, but we can only react to that which is set before us "Some guy in another post said a DRSL are only ment for stills. But with Tech advances I would like to disagree. What do other people think?" But to tell the whole story we do have a 5D and 7D with a set of bronica primes and canon zoom lenses, as well as four GoPros and for the most part we use the Canons as we would a GoPro - for POV shots (and, of course, for stills, which is where the cameras excel without the need for compromise). Why? Because our main camera is a RED Epic with RED Pro Primes and Leica lenses. The reason we have used REDs for nearly four years now is that they are arguably as close to a digital super 35mm film camera as you can get, the availability of our own and other PL lenses gives the potential for great images, our crews all know the Arri control accessories, and the outfit is a tool which I can pretty much guarantee will provide a wonderful 5k image for us to grade and edit with on behalf of our clients. But I wouldn't use one for a fly on the wall documentary or a fast run'n'gun shooter because they are large, heavy and obtrusive.. so for shooting this work on a three month project set in a "real" night club we used the Canons because they work very well in extremely low light and people think you are taking stills and react accordingly. As a working professional my job is to always deliver the goods and use the most appropriate tool available to do that - which we have done for hundreds of clients over 28 years. But the nature of the project and style of shots always should dictate the tool, not the other way round... heck you put enough time and effort into scripting, casting, raising funds and everything else so why risk all of that by saving money with a d.i.y. solution on the shoot and edit!

I am jealous Chris. I keep on reading your equipment list and drool.

@Ian, finally... someone on here who makes some sense of this nonsense!!! LOL!

In Indonesia most of the moving image instry shoots on DSLR's. Almost all cinema movies, Music Clips, TV Commercials and a lot of documentary's are shot on 60d, 7d and 5d. Our company shoots 50% DSLR

We use Nikon D5100's only. Great cameras at a good price.

Fun fact: The TV show "Wilfred" is shot on a Canon 7D. Granted they have EVERY possible attachment to make it "movie" ready, but it's seems to be good enough for a TV station that broadcasts HD. I believe the camera you use should suit the needs of the film, artistically speaking.

CANON 5D.. IS THE STANDARD NOW..

Several tv shows have been shot on a DSLR... However; they also have a considerable sized budget to afford PROFESSIONAL DP's and Gaffer's... If you have that kind of budget, why not just shoot on a camera that was "designed" to shoot a moving image?

STILL THINK CANON 5D.. I THE BEST ON A SIMPLE..

The dslr's coming out shoot full HD. That means they updated the sensor for shooting film. With Len attachments the DSLR has become as effective as any other camera. The key is knowing your OWN equipment. There out benifits to both. But I will leave with this. When shooting something that has a max resolution of 1080p or 1080i it's a waste to use a camera that goes above that. So the 5D and the other DSRL's are prefect for anyone trying to shot on that format. It even works on big screens too. All I am saying is use your equipment smart and attack a budget properly. If you don't focus on what's the best and what you really need your project will come out 10 times better. And this is coming form a "kid" who has had his hands on all type of cameras.

@Ian the 5D's and the DSLR's are become standard in the Hollywood scene. Where are you shooting at? And same thing with the reds. Either people are going one way or the other.

@ian you are only looking at your camera specs not the specs on the monitor or the "thing" people are watching the footage on. . And please dont say misinformation. because I know it's hard to believe but I have more than an idea in what I am talking about. And also when you have all your film students and webisodes shooting things on the T3i or the 5D. Trust me it has already taken over. I don't know which crews you have been working with but with a few lens and a lighting kit the 5D shoots as good or better then a "video camera". It's not just the specs of your camera that makes an image. And trust me I understand color better the you think. We are trying to tell people what a solid piece of equipment to use is. Not what you like. So stop knocking the DSLR down because it's not your favorite.

Have any of you all seen cars driving around your town where the wheels and stereo system is worth more than the car??? All of the movies and tv shows mentioned above are a perfect example of this...... Cheap body, expensive lenses, lighting equipment, etc.... The lenses that were used probably cost 10 times the amount of the DSLR... In which case, why not just buy a Canon XF100 or XF300??????? (Or similar camera made for shooting moving images) Maybe I'm just not into jumping on bandwagons or doing what everyone else is doing.... How's that for individuality??????? LOL!

well, yea... get a RED if you want a good camera.. a low end one is good.. and american made..

@Robin if you have never dealt with the over heating of the red one. It's not a fun thing. @Ian sorry you feel that way. But the topic is about using a DSLR not reasons you wouldnt. But sir you know your shit. I am sincer is my apploigies. @Ray with a budget you can do anything you want any way you want it. To everyone I will be using everything from 3D Camera's, REDs, and DSLR's on my TV pilot. Why? Why not? The post is about how the DSLR's can be used in a professional sense. Let's keep it going. Webisode and thing for tv are as far as I would go with using a DSLR anything meant for the big screen I would shoot on a higher format camera.

Always upgrade when you have the chance. It's always easier to work with a better image. ;-)

IT IS TRUE IT WAS CANON 5D THAT WAS MADE FOR STILLS AND THE COULD GET LIKE 15 MIN OF VODEO AND MOVIE MAKERS DISCOVERED THE CAMERA COULD DO MORE AND EVEN CANON CHANGED THE DESIGN FOR FILM MAKERS TO 28 MIN CLIPS.. AND OTHER CHANGES..

Exactly Robin.

The quality is great- DSLR's shoot in full HD. However, they are not programmed for filming. One feature I absolutely hate on my Canon T2i is that fact that it stops recording after about 5 minutes. On a side note, does anyone know how to turn that function off so that I can record as long as I want? Otherwise, DSLR's are great starter cameras for those just getting into film making, like myself.

As a primary still photographer... I would completely disagree. Plus acronym is DSLR.

@Ian- thanks for the info. I thought it might be a file size issue. Guess I'll just have to live with it as long as I use a DSLR.

I was a crafty on the set of a feature eighteen months back. The whole thing was shot with DSLR's

I was DP on a film made by Tender Shoot Films in Tampa. We shot it on a couple of Canon 60D's. Here's the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZmia02wGpw

Recently purchase a Nikon D800. Nikon stands by the statement that they have solved the problem of having to stop shots at 12 minutes. That being said I haven't seen a scene in a film that took over twelve minutes consecutive shooting to capture. You may be on the set for hours however the shot is only minutes long. Yes the look you get with the DSLR is very good!

@Dave Munn- Thanks! You're right that 12 minute one shot takes are not typical. There is a lot I'd like to do with longer scenes, from speeding up the footage (driving through town for example) to cutting up a scene for stylistic reasons. Also, it would be nice to keep getting takes in one shot and then edit it down to the one that I like, which may take more than 12 minutes of shooting. I guess I'm just picky.

With the new Nikons you only need to trigger the camera back on record for it to start recording again. It's not an overheating problem for them but a processing issue. With a 12 minute continuous shoot speeded up 200 percent the clip would still be 3 minutes long. If time lapse is the effect desired there are much more effective ways to achieve this. I have shot some films and very much realize the cost ineffectiveness of tying up crew, cameras and time to shoot a shot which can be achieved in editing. To use the spaghetti cooking theory of film making (shoot,shoot,shoot and hope somethings good) was lost with invention of computer editing. Even with some of it's short comings DSLR shooting is here to stay and achieves a very film like look. As for DSLRs in other lines of filming, well that's another story (never saw a wedding ceremony which wasn't 12 minutes long)

@Dave Munn- Yes, I agree. And I do wedding videography as well, so being able to record more than 12 minutes is important to me.

Recently purchased a GH-2, wow I am so very impressed. When you consider the small amount of money required to have a fully functional interchangeable lens capable High Definition 24 fps 1080 camera it's just plain hard to beat. In situations where we choose to use the autofocus instead of manually pulling focus on our dslr rig the performance has been excellent. From what I have read it is unmatched by any other dslr available in full 1080 HD recording, please correct me if your experience suggests otherwise. The money I am saving in comparison to the more expensive dslr bodies from Canon, Nikon, or Sony I will invest in an additional prime lens set that compliments my shooting style. (Yes I need to add additional dollars) Because I edit primarily on Final Cut Pro I also added Baselight for Final Cut Pro from Filmlight for full color correction capability in post. I am very impressed by how well footage captured on the GH-2 improves when corrected by a software only full featured color correction system. Until the release of the GH-3 the GH-2 will be our mainstay for interchangeable lens HD shooting, then it will become our "B" camera. It is an affordable investment in an extremely versatile tool system for the acquisition of broadcast and theatrical quality HD images in my opinion. I for one am very pleased with the capability of dslr filmmaking with mirrorless cameras.

Its been a while but I am enjoying that this topic has not lost its steam. I read it all! Thanks again guys!

The DSLR's have definately come into their own for the use of cinematography tools. Look at the timeline of DSLR's. The Canon 5d MKII came out around 2009. Now look at the cinema primes that Zeiss has come out with for the Canon DSLR market. Lenses that before were just for film cameras now made for digital. Who would'a thunk it?

I'm hoping to purchase a 5D Mark III soon. Compared to the Mark II, is it really worth the upgrade when it comes to video? Thanks, if anyone cares to answer.

Everyone is going to have an emotional favorite however I found that an impartial professional evaluation was invaluable when I needed to make a purchasing decision. I think everyone considering which digital camera to use would be well served by watching all three (3) parts of this shootout. http://www.zacuto.com/shootout-revenge-2012/revenge-great-camera-shootou...

WAIT AN THERE WILL BE A NEW CAMERA SOON..

Maybe a better way to think about this is to consider what many people on Stage 32 are trying to achieve. That's to produce a distributable product on a budget. Now if you're not in that category don't jump all over me. The last feature we shot was done using The Red. If we could have forgone the camera rentals and just purchased several DSLRs we would have saved money and had camera's in the end. I love the images we're getting with the DSLR. They're much more film like. The size of the camera is also advantageous. On low budget shoots a lot gets done on location. Some of the bathroom scenes we shot would have been way easier with a DSLR.

I think you are correct Noel theses tools are made for different budget and physical challenges, the good news is that a wide array of cameras can now deliver marketable product. Yes your skills and creativity have to be pushed to get the most out of the lower cost cameras but from what i've seen skills and creativity are in no short supply around here. Camera budget is no longer an insurmountable obstacle. Interchangeable prime lenses can now be used and owned by filmmakers working with modest budgets. Check out the tools and use the ones that you can afford and will get the job done for you!

You can usually find a sound input slot on most DSLRs - I recommend using an Rode NTG1 or 2 with a boom pole - that's your cheapest (best) option.

The Nikon D600 just came out! I want it so bad! Yes a red is great to shoot on. It's a high speed camera for th eye to catch a moving image we just need to see 12-16 FPS. Seriously know your equipment but know the science behind it before making judgments. An episode of House was shot at the 5D Mach 1 no one could tell the difference.

Ian it all comes down to where is your work being shown and budget. By stating a DSLR aren't as good you are right the Red has better FPS and Resolution. Not all projects need that. Why waste money on equipment that you don't need if the showing format calls for it. If you have the budget great. But don't put down a great piece of equipment because of your personal opinion. I have worked with everything from the epic to the panosonic P1 and P2 all the way to go pros to flips to 5DM3 to even the Nikon series. A camera doesn't make a cinematographer. A cinematographer uses the camera to make art. That was the point of this post.

Of course DSLR is good for video. Some major motion pictures have used 5D II for some of the film including Act of Valor and Red Tails. I am sure there are some others too. People are making films with DSLR all over the place. Phillip Bloom loves DSLR. If I had the cash for a RED or something, that would be the next logical step but aside from dynamic range and a larger file, the 5D II is pretty comparable.

Well shane meadows uses 5d mk2's and a lot of house episodes were shot with the mk 2's too. the last action scene of the avengers with the action cams in weird places like in cars or amongst rubble, weere also mk 2's in hard cases with a filter over the front! Now theres the mk 2 rival, the nikon D800 which is fantastic! Broadcast quality filming and nikon are filming a short horror film with them at the moment too! I've been using nikon for my film stuff, and dslr's are light, a bit mroe flexible to some restraint with teh lenses, accessories, light, and the fact theyre small means you can get really god results in a small shooting space. plus the ISO performance on teh new D800 is staggering! the shop i part time in, its becoming king of the DSLR's and is out selling the mk 2 and under £2000 as of today! Apologies for the spelling and missing punctuation! my hand is frozen from working haha www.twistedtreemedia.com

Hello Patrick I would strongly suggest you go over Philip Blooms info on DLSRs and a view of his pics for Camcorders. http://philipbloom.net/2012/11/19/conundrum/ It really is all about being able to tell a story with what you have available. For example Philip uses the point and shoot Sony RX 100 and as you can see its brilliant. http://vimeo.com/46543444

Bruce amazing article! Thanks for sharing!!! Everyone read it!

Here is one thought. You are hiring transportation, lighting, props, wardrobe, you have makeup folks, all the people you are hiring in front of and behind the lens. Is the money saved on a slightly cheaper camera worth it. Even if everyone is a volunteer on your shoot, the cost of feeding this army alone makes the cost of the camera seem small. Don't you want to capture the best images you can afford. you have at least 30 people , probably many more working on your film, do you want to chance getting images that are not as good as can be because you used a photo camera instead of a proper camera? DSLR is awesome for Advertisement because the pace of editing It can be a great choice for Docu shooting and industrial shooting. ... but I have far too often seen lower budget fiction film that has suffered for being shot on a DSLR and I find that sad. Sure Hollywood directors can do great stuff on one , they have a full camera department and all the gear. Truly the camera , when you look at your whole budget sheet, is a minor cost and a great investment. Shoot on the best equipment you can afford. make cuts elsewhere ...

Look at it this way. Add up what you are spending on everything else in a movie. Actors , crew, creative talents in front of and behind the lens. The painstaking work from the first moment the scriptwriter put pen to paper to the last output from the editing station... all the effort and talent and money invested in the film. The camera is just a small part. And if you get anything that you are unhappy with because you used a photography camera instead of the best video camera and glass you could afford, how can you justify that to the army of folks that gave everything to you. Compared to the cost of even say the meal service for your people, the camera becomes a small cost. DSLR have their uses. Advertisements - PERFECT, but the pace of cutting makes it easy. It is hard to use a DSLR for filmic movements. Documentary and Industrial shooting -- DSLR can be the ideal solution But you point to TV and Hollywood successes with DSLR.. sure they still have a full crew with a full camera department well-trained in all the ins and outs and limitations and strengths. Sure maybe your crew can do fine , but do you want to risk letting the army down and being stuck with some less than perfect footage in the project you worked so hard on because you saved some (but very little ) cash on the camera? I have seen far too many low budget films that clearly chose a DSLR and it harmed the quality. I have seen a few productions abandoned because the director or producer was so unhappy with the results. you have so many people putting so much into your movie -- all with the point of getting it on film. With all of that , why skimp on the camera and glass? But the biggest rule is know your equipment, master it , respect its limits, and know how to get it to perform at 100% .

oops appears I posted twice because my comment did not seem to post immediately , sorry for being redundant

DSLR with the right glass - audio recorder - and if you plan to broadcast or VOD then an external video recorder and you are set. If you can afford a bigger better camera then by all means do so. But I have seen so many films done with a DSLR that look better than some recent big budget productions. Just need the right camera settings. Be better than good at pulling focus manually. And take your time in post. But for any film it takes more than just a camera to make a good film. Doesn't matter if the camera cost 90k or 3k if you don't know how to use it properly then your film will look like shit!

Samuel Laseke. I do not deny that you can get good results , but I have watched several projects fall apart or miss their mark by their (mis)use of DSLR. Obviously EVERYTHING is a tradeoff in film making ., I thank you for taking my point to a ridiculous conclusion. My point is that a DSLR is not always going to be a good answer and if you choose that route , you need to assure the DOP can get 100% out of the equipment.. But for every one of those great results you can point to for DSLR professional results, I have seen a whole stack of dreck filled with the clear signs of DSLR limitations. Know your equipment and hire the right people... still , the cost of a camera is so small compared to even the craft services costs.

Samuel, If DSLR fits your budget and you have the people in place to push the limits of the equipment, then by all means , you can do great things with it. Just know the equipment. I have seen directors and producers that were very disappointed by their results due more to their lack of that understanding. DSLR offer strong capabilities but DO have certain limitations.

In my recent short film Analysis www.obscure-productions.com/analysis I chose RED for the production since I knew I had a DOP Jeffrey Chu that intimately knows the RED and could provide great results with that medium. I was also part of a production shot on RED because a director demanded that his masterpiece demanded RED. His DOP was not fully skilled in the RED, and the results were less pleasing than some films shot on a SONY EX-1.

I think these posts hit their mark when they became just about statistics and technology vs spreading knowledge about how creative we as filmmakers can get with the tools at our disposal.

So true Edwin. Creativity isn't limited by technology. Understand the craft and the basics before reaching for the tools. It surprises the best of us. The choice of a camera should be a creative choice as film is an art.

More and more people - mostly semi-pros - are trying to use DSLR´s many times by mistake! The reason why manufacturer developed this type of Camera was to use the 35mm chip also for filming. This is okay as long as a cinematographer knows about several appearing problems like focusing. The larger the chip, the shorter the depths of field. Therefore you will need a focus-puller in order to handle the most situations. In most cases you have to add lots of technical periphery around the camera to actually meet certain skills. Last but not least you have to use cinema lenses because photo lenses are changing their focus length while focusing. If you add all the technical devices, the price for a DSLR becomes pretty high and you could almost purchase a RED for the same money. During my daily work as a cinematographer I prefer to use a DSLR only for Steadicam operations on light gears or on light jibs where I have to take care about the camera´s weight.

I agree, Patrick. Also, understanding the craft means comprehending the heart of filmmaking, which is to engage the audience. A Red One can do that and so can a DSLR. This means the focus is not on the equipment but the story and experience it brings out of the viewer.

It is a great opportunity for really low budget filming. But the unintended out of focus moments in cinematic movement with a DSLR are telling and so often the glass is not high enough quality and a zoom lens rather than a good set of primes.

Good point Edwin, but I was responding to the technical question. If we are going to that point , then I would take something shot on a iPhone and decent sound design and ADR over a nicely shot film with bad sound. (like so many student and amateur efforts have) And with a good script and artful design and great acting , you can do something good on an iPhone.. but you are not likely to do so. You want to chose a camera that is practical within your budget and I advise to know go too cheap on the camera department or you might waste all the rest of the efforts in your well-designed and well-executed production.

Well, gee, I dunno. I know of at least five TV Series that are shot on DSLR's (particularly the 7D), and many an Indie Movie is shot on them. They're easier to handle and easier to Post with. I'm planning on shooting my Indie projects with one. Only the Big Features still shoot celluloid.

but as you say Simon, the cost difference of 15,000 USD or so is not a risk you might be willing to take in a feature budgeted at a few million USD. But it is dreadfully critical to the semi-pro. Depends upon the production and the intended distribution.