Jump to content


Photo

Dressing up a Dslr to look like a proper movie camera lol


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Clive Alex

Clive Alex
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 45 posts
  • Director
  • Cumbria, England

Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:31 AM

Is it only me that finds it funny that people are dressing up Dslrs to look like 'proper' motion picture cameras? I've seen people buying regular Dslr's and then trying their very best to fit movie lenses on them when Dslrs have loads of lenses to choose from with their own dedicated mount, and then to top it off fitting a massive matte box on the front to make it look like a proper motion picture camera.
  • 0

#2 Adrian Sierkowski

Adrian Sierkowski
  • Sustaining Members
  • 7116 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles, Ca

Posted 01 February 2011 - 08:56 AM

Well.. the matte box is used for filters which people might own in a certain size, say 4x4 or 4.5x4.5 or even larger which they don't want to rebut, or ND Grads ect. Also Stills lenses are really improper to use when filming motion as mechanically they are crap compared to a cine lens which is generally geared and has a nice long throw on it meaning one can mount and use a follow focus more easily to keep things in focus. Just adding on cine-lenses and a mattebox isn't really "dressing up" to a large degree. If anything it's about a necessity when you start working in motion on these small cameras.
  • 0

#3 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 01 February 2011 - 10:11 AM

Fairly obvious concerns about mounting filters notwithstanding, this is something I've commented on in the past myself. The situation is probably fuelled by the desire of small engineering companies to sell things which are individually quite affordable but overall quickly add up to an overpriced agglomeration of barely-practical trinketry, which takes a small, light, cheap and unobtrusive DSLR and turn it into something that's none of those things.

It's a slippery slope in some respects; by the time you've realised you want follow focus, you then immediately need a set of rods and then perhaps add-ons for the lenses so that the gearing can engage with them; you then add a mattebox while you've got the rods, and maybe a handle, now you can't get your eye up to the viewfinder anymore so you add a magic arm and a monitor... and slowly it grows.

I've seen DSLRs that have more money on them in gadgets than they were individually worth, and while there's not necessarily anything wrong with that, especially at DSLR price points, I tend to agree with the sentiment of the original poster - some of it's practicality, some of it's fashion, and some of it is just that slightly nerdy need to accrue widgets.

P
  • 0

#4 K Borowski

K Borowski
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3905 posts
  • Camera Operator
  • I.A.T.S.E. Local # 600 Eastern Region

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:18 PM

Hmm, Phil, there's an interesting correlation between a "tricked-out DSLR" and, I wish I could take credit for this line but I can't, a $10,000 Honda Civic that someone puts almost $10,000 of parts into, that is worth: $10,000.

Hmm.


I have to disagree with you, unless I've misread you, that it is just companies trying to make money that results in the large size of a properly-rigged DSLR kit. Unless you come up with a robotic arm with a real-time interface that mimics the opposable-thumbed human hand, there is a very real reason, err, two of them actually, for the need for a certain size to produce truly professional results in difficult shooting situations.

Look at it in terms of another industry: Terrorism. Surely the best gun is the smallest calibre firearm, not some heavy, bulking monstrosity like an AK-47. Rocket launcher, mortar? Way too expensive. Even in terms of single shot, non-explosive, affordable rounds, why do snipers use silly rifles? Non-automatic firing? You could fire a dozen rounds in the time it takes a sniper to get off maybe two or three.





Now, to answer the original poster's question: My money is on a '50s or '60s Panavision blimp (basically for an, old noisy Mitchell camera). Only problem would be to generate some noise still eminating from the blimp and eliminating an echoey hollow sound. Lots of towels, a fan for the camera, and a noise generator of some sort and you're all set. Of course, then you need a fac,ade to put up at the top of the mag so no one is any the wiser while faking a reload. . .
  • 0

#5 Simon Wyss

Simon Wyss
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1404 posts
  • Other
  • Basel, Switzerland

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:24 PM

Aren’t we only waiting for some weights in the trade to justify the use of gear heads?
  • 0

#6 Stuart Brereton

Stuart Brereton
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3055 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 01 February 2011 - 03:30 PM

Is it only me that finds it funny that people are dressing up Dslrs to look like 'proper' motion picture cameras? I've seen people buying regular Dslr's and then trying their very best to fit movie lenses on them when Dslrs have loads of lenses to choose from with their own dedicated mount, and then to top it off fitting a massive matte box on the front to make it look like a proper motion picture camera.


Well, seeing as people are trying to use these cameras in ways that 'proper' motion picture cameras are used, it stands to reason that they would want to use PL mounted lenses and movie accessories with them. DSLRs do have many dedicated lenses to choose from, but all of them are designed for stills photography, and not for the video work.
  • 0

#7 Anton Papich

Anton Papich
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 33 posts
  • Other
  • Vinkovci, Croatia, Europe

Posted 01 February 2011 - 05:35 PM

DSLRs do have many dedicated lenses to choose from, but all of them are designed for stills photography, and not for the video work.


Not all of them. Lumix GH2 isn't. Well, on the other hand, that one isn't DSLR.
  • 0

#8 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 03 February 2011 - 11:48 AM

Where are the range on Canon L series lenses used for video work? I've seen 16mm motion pictures listed with them.
  • 0

#9 Deniz Coker

Deniz Coker
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 42 posts
  • Producer
  • NYC/Long Island

Posted 03 February 2011 - 02:25 PM

I had this sentiment for a while. I took me a bit to come to terms with it but I might finally bite the DSLR bullet in a few days as a supplemental cam to my real one. I guess I mostly never took them seriously not because of the cameras but the people I saw using them. It's become very trendy to carry a "cool" looking big DSLR camera. I see too many people who would be better served by a point and shoot, carrying DSLRs around and perhaps it's a hobby, but I have known people who did it for the form factor. Having said that, I've also realized that the technology is getting smaller and I should realize that such a tiny camera can produce beautiful looking video. I'm very used to the weight and form of a traditional camera and it is a huge adjustment. A film school student can now buy one of these and shoot some pretty decent video on it. It is interesting when a 2,000.00 camera has 10,000.00 worth gear on it but to me it comes down to control and if that mattebox and filters help you get the shot you need, then that's all that matters. I personally hope to keep large purchases like a mattebox/follow focus/rod system as interchangeable amongst my cameras as possible so I in the very least get some mileage out of the investment. I had a B cam which was a 7D and the shooter had a completely rigged up system and my crew thought it was amazing but again, it can be. I think as long as you understand the limitations it can produce wonders. I plan on keeping it as a specialty/insert cam. There's a lot to be said about scouting and even some location work where you can have such a compact kit. But still deep down inside I guess I smile a little when I see someone with a tiny little DSLR and massive cages and such attached. As long as it works!

Edited by Deniz Coker, 03 February 2011 - 02:26 PM.

  • 0

#10 Marcus Joseph

Marcus Joseph
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 404 posts
  • Other
  • Sydney, Australia

Posted 05 February 2011 - 05:51 AM

Probably the biggest flaw that we all complain about is the crappy compression, if Canon can finally get something better on board, then maybe these cameras will start to be a serious threat in the video world. Then these accessories costing more than the camera itself could be of more use, but most preferably (and most of the shooting scenarios) I'd rather spend the money on more camera bodies and higher quality lenses. Or perhaps just gear to accelerate the camera movement.

As far as I'm concerned they're fantastic stills cameras, Canon are top of the game with stills, it's why I find shooting timelapses such a joy (and so very useful).
  • 0


Abel Cine

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Paralinx LLC

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Visual Products

CineLab

Aerial Filmworks

The Slider

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Opal

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

Paralinx LLC

Aerial Filmworks

Metropolis Post

Abel Cine

Tai Audio

rebotnix Technologies

The Slider

CineTape

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Visual Products

Willys Widgets

Opal

Ritter Battery

Glidecam

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC