Nikon D90 & 24fps
Posted 27 August 2008 - 02:24 AM
"If I were Nikon, I'd shoot any TV commercials advertising the D90 on the D90. Hand this to someone in the ASC and he'll get great results."
Click the link for more info. http://kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90.htm
Posted 27 August 2008 - 06:34 AM
Edited by Daniel Ashley-Smith, 27 August 2008 - 06:37 AM.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:15 AM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:38 AM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 02:44 PM
for a thousand, I'd have fun with that thing.
That's what I was thinking.
I shoot Canon for still stuff, mostly because of their lenses, I prefer Canon glass over Nikon. Although I'm considering switching over to the Nikon, the D700 is very tempting. Unless Canon updates its 5D, I'm going Nikon.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 02:58 PM
I just bought a D300 a month ago, very impressive & better DR than I expected. I think I will be getting a D90 as well, I would just like to test one first.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 03:54 PM
The example videos look quite good (I think).
Mr. Earl, I shoot video for a university in Florida for promotios and research and I must say that I agree with you. I'm an old schooler (I just recently got into HD) so the idea that those images came out of what is obstensivly a single frame machine is amazing.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 05:26 PM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 05:52 PM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 06:06 PM
It is cinematography.com
My opinion: Another silly discussion about using a still camera to do motion pictures as some have this belief that there is some sort of nirvana in picture quality that must be reached and that until it is uncovered they will search high and low to find it. It's amateur. A camera is such a small part of film making.
Alone pictures are nice, but good pictures never made anything worth while watching as a motion picture. How about an article on good scriptwriting, good acting, good editing and direction? That is nirvana in film making not giving someone with three initials next to his name a camera thinking he can do more with it than anyone else, or would care to for that matter. Simply amateur dribble. I'd love a great still camera... for stills, but to shoot a movie? We already have a dozen great cameras designed for motion picture that do that, let alone film, which no digital camera can equal. I can't even find a difference in any 4x5 digital back. All flat and lifeless. It's very interesting how this generation is so into the technical perfection of film making but have little interest in the emotional or truly aesthetic aspect. It reminds me of the period in the early to middle 70's when mucis took a turn. What became most important was the technical aspect of making music. 10cc for instance made a song called I'm not in love. While they could have used tape loops and equipment to make the chorus of voices, what was more important that it be real so they got 500 people to do the background. A lot of songs during this period were concerned with the sound quality, the equipment, the perfection of the sound. And what you had were some great songs but as the seventies go, this period was the most forgettable and least programmed today on radio station mixes. It was great music, but missed the aspect that made it memorable. Today amateur and low budget film making is driven by manufactures marketing that has convinced people that it's about cameras. It never was and it will never be. It might be for a period like it is now, but I'll bet it becomes one of the least memorable times in the history of film making.
Surely allowing a few basic filmmaking tools to the greater public can only be beneficial to the industry? I know very very many people who can't really afford that $5000 camera, let only the processing and the costs of telecine, etc.; but I do know many people who can afford a $1000 camera, and who already have a computer on which to process some footage on. Many people don't become interested in something by being plunged straight into it, like working on a film set, in this case. Any new product can only be beneficial.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 06:50 PM
My opinion: Another silly discussion about using a still camera to do motion pictures as some have this belief that there is some sort of nirvana in picture quality that must be reached and that until it is uncovered they will search high and low to find it. It's amateur.
budget film making is driven by manufactures marketing that has convinced people that it's about cameras. It never was and it will never be. It might be for a period like it is now, but I'll bet it becomes one of the least memorable times in the history of film making.
I think you took this way, way to seriously. I merely posted this to show something knew & the merging of ideas. First time I have seen a DSLR that can shoot video, be honest with yourself, its cool what they did. It's a great travel camera for the amateur photographer.
No one suggested the idea of shooting a motion picture with it, I wouldn't dream of doing that. If your referring to the Rockwell article, you take yourself then and everything you read to seriously. No one is searching for your so called Nirvana in picture making looking high & low, where this comes from I have no idea.
A camera is merely another tool, used to get the job done. Your right it's not about the Camera, I completely agree & I hope every one else on here does as well. But to say its one of the least memorable times in the history of film making, is foolish. Think about it, you have more choices today than before. More choices mean different looks and styles. I view the camera as an extension of the story, choose your format & now in this time your camera, in accordance to the story to achieve what you want.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:09 PM
Posted 27 August 2008 - 07:37 PM
And therein lies the problem, folks don't think it's possible to tell their story with a $1000 camera. It is, but they are too concerned with finding this mythical camera that will make them a film maker. No camera makes someone a film maker. They believe a $5000 camera must tell a better story. If that was the case then there would be a lot of film makers out there. There are not. There are a lot of people that believe if they did make a film, then their life would somehow be better. There are a lot of manufacturers that have convinced folks that making a film is always first and foremost about a camera. These newfangled 'film mkaers' need an outlet for expression and think film mkaing might be it. It might be, but not in conversation after conversation of the hammer as occurs on what start out as proffesional cinematogrhpy boards. New hammers are invented every year. Some with differnt grips, different weights, and differnt shapes. While some of these new fangled hammers help change the way we build, the principle of hammering hasn't changed. No carpenter thinks a hammer is going to make him a better carpenter, rather that it will simply make his style of hammering a bit more to his liking. No professional carpenter spends his days rehashing the hammers out there and what one could do with them. The 90% of peopel who converse on boards loike this that don't make a living doing cinematogropahy are into hammers. I know the best film makers I have worked with always did their best work with whatever tools they could get their hands on. That is what the 90% of people who want to be film makers here should strive for, use whatever you can find, and learn the art not spend countless hours discussing which brush is made of what, and what a brush could be.
A camera is an intricate part of film making but historically it is not near the top five of what makes a film successful based on hundreds of conversations I've had with other working cinematographers. It is the least appreciated, and most utilitarian of tools in the art as I have used it and others I know. It truly is a hammer. It's not that it's not important, just not what the under 30's who want to find a place in this business think it is. No one ever built a house and had anyone who ever asked any questions about it's construction ever say what hammer did you use to make this. For one hundred years the same was true with film. Today the new generation of amatuer/no budget film maker looks at something and see something he likes due to a good story, good lighting, good acting, good editing, and/or good direction and rather asks the naive question; "what camera did you use". Somehow everyone today thinks it's because of a camera.
To me there is something fundamentally wrong with that notion and as a result the direction these new film makers will take as a result. And as a result the hundreds of posts constantly putting the camera on the pedestal of film making as THE most important part of what is film making, will produce a lot of lousy stories, lit poorly, and put together poorly because the important factors are outside of the main question they constantly ask, what camera should I use? I know. I watch lots of the links here and other places and see lots of mimicking but little artistry. 'If you saw what was used to shoot the majority of what the AFI considers the top 100 films of all time, the false notion that the camera was the most intricate part of that films success would become real to you.
Christopher, you took my post personal. I care less that you posted it. My response was not about you. Only making a point once again about how these boards are too centric around tools and less concerned with the art of cinematography. Yes this is cinematography.com. The definition of cinematography is the act of making a film. That involves about 30 more things, than a camera. None more important than the other, all intricate parts of the whole just as a pizza is about more than the cheese. Sure disccusions about cameras are part of it and should certainly go on, but it seems to me thats all young foilks want to talk about and after a while you have to tell them it's about so much more.
Perhaps what you dont't see that I see in my seminars is how the beginning always starts out with equipment centric questions and anticipations which are soon lost once you show folks that all those notions about equiptment that they thought were so important, aren't. The art overtakes the crutch of equipment. In the end they usually walk away with completely different attitudes about their future and what role equipment really plays.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 08:27 PM
I didn't take it personally. I just don't think you understand why I posted it. I agree with you 100% on what you wrote.
Normally I wouldn't assume, but in this case I will make an exception & assume that your post particularly the end was directed at the large and not myself, since what you wrote is something that I already know, have known & agree with.
I will leave it at that.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 08:38 PM
"Cinematography" comes from the Greek word meaning motion and the Greek word for writing, or painting. It literally means painting or writing with the motion [of light] (as it really is a contraction of cinematophotography).
Notice that the Greek word for box or lens or chip is absent. So is the word for film. The "writing" part of it all happens in front of the camera. That is the important part. Lighting and composition, and to a lesser extent, what you do to manipulate or process whatever you are using in your camera all play into the look.
But Walter's right. And that goes for film shooters too! My passion for 16mm had and has hampered my actual filmmaking. A 16mm camera doesn't make you a filmmaker! The craft to put something interesting in front of that 16mm camera is! I've had the drive to follow up on the business end of the camera, but not the organization or the persistance to actually have anything to show for it.
You know what bothers me more with modern technology? People go out and use it as if they invented it. People used to invent their *own* cameras, their *own* films, their *own* lenses, printing equipment, filters etc.
Who does any of that now? So few people technically or artistically innovate anymore, because they're contented being fed with what they are sold. There's nothign wrong with inventing your own stuff, but using an off-brand application of a device as if you invented yourself is the hind-end of innovation.
Some of you guys need to get off the internet and venture out of your parents' dark basement if you really want to accomplish. Sadly, dreaming is enough for some people. The angst that we experience from not having accomplished our dreams doesn't come to them, and they continue living in a fantasy world, dreaming about things that they will never have, working dead-end, worthless jobs, and living the same life cycle of an animal. Be born, grow up, reproduce, hopefully provide, and die. . . What a waste of potential.
Edited by Karl Borowski, 27 August 2008 - 08:42 PM.
Posted 27 August 2008 - 09:32 PM
I'll take it!
Posted 28 August 2008 - 05:51 AM
I'd love a great still camera... for stills, but to shoot a movie? We already have a dozen great cameras designed for motion picture that do that, let alone film, which no digital camera can equal.
Why not use a still camera to shoot a movie? Some of the best filmmakers have done their best work on whatever tools they could get their hands on.
This looks like an interesting camera and I'm sure we'll see at least a few shorts and music videos shot using it - depsite any limitations it may have being a digital stills camera.
Edited by Will Earl, 28 August 2008 - 05:54 AM.