If it looks like a camera and moves like a camera…
Still picture cameras (including film and digital) are basically boxes that let in light through a lens and take pictures. One at a time.
Moving picture cameras (including film and digital) are basically boxes that let in light through a lens to take pictures continuously.
Sorry to be so childishly pedantic with the descriptions but with the convergence of these devices and their technology, there’s becoming fewer actual differences between the functions and operations of the two kinds of camera. Since there’s so much time honoured process, legacy, tradition and history, how one perceives one kind of camera versus the other is quite different.
Soon enough, that’s all that that will be left: our perceptions of what these tools are and how they should be used.
But before I get all wistful, there’s a very exciting world emerging that even one as “Gizmodo RSS feed breathing” as I am, I was surprised to see how fast its developing.
From what’s I can tell, the Nikon D90 was the first digital SLR to allow for recording at a HD resolution (”720p24″ which means, 1280 x 720 pixels per second at 24 frames a second). The Canon 5D Mark II, is the second digital SLR to allow HD resolution but it one-ups the D90 with a higher HD spec (1080p30 which means, 1920×1080 pixels per second at 30 frames a second). Both are aimed at two very different buyers at two very different price points (D90 street price is $1300, 5DMkII at $2700) both are clearly capable of recording video at a rate that challenges a lot of preconceived notions about what a still camera can do. It makes a lot of people nervous about their industry and more importantly, their learnings and experience with that field.
One could say that this is as worrying to film photographers when digital photography was reshaping the industry. “What about all the years I spent learning how to use all this stuff? What about all the times I screwed up and learnt from those mistakes? Do I have to go through all that again”
And now similar to the ‘invasion’ of digital photography unto film photography’s turf, digital SLRs becoming movie making tools, traditional movie making folk are starting to worry that still photographers are going to be taking over.
Ok, I don’t know if anyone is all that worried since it still takes a lot of work to make a still image to come to life. And you could argue it takes even more to make a whole series of images in a sequence (like a movie) to look great too.
Vincent Lafloret is an awarding winning photographer who shoots for the NY Times amongst others, made a video, Reverie, with pre-production the Canon 5D Mark II over 72 hrs period, single-handedly created a marketing campaign for Canon overnight. The excitement and inspiration brought about Mr. Lafloret gave this camera all the credibility it needed. But outside of the hands of a very talented and experienced photographer (and video editor) who really understands how to lighting sets mood through images (moving or not), the few early examples I’ve seen have been not so good.
Sure, the camera’s low light capability is astounding and the depth of field is now back to what’s film makers were looking for. But after all the slow focus pulls and the well framed shots of people walking through an urban scene set to ambient music… isn’t it just a bit boring to look at?
Its no coincidence that the person behind the camera on a movie set is called the Director of Photography. The DOP really is an expert in taking photographs (usually at a rate of 24 a second). All the visual interest is created using all the sames techniques photographers use and understand every day. Thankfully, in Mr. Lafloret’s case he finally found a tool that suited him and his vast understanding of the principles of visual storytelling. In an interview with him he mentions that he tried to make videos before using the current best video cameras around, but found it to be a less than pleasurable experience. But since this is an SLR and uses all the same lenses that he’s worked with for years, he was immediately at home with it.
The amazing thing is that in a fairly short amount of time an industry is emerging. New films makers (good and bad) are using these new tools in new ways. These guys make rigs for aspiring movie makers using this very same gear we’re talking about. There’s even a forum for the movie making functions the Canon 5D Mark II alone!
Happening alongside this, is the movement of converting relatively low cost video cameras (under $6k) into more movie-like cameras with all sorts of knobs for smooth manual focus on adapated Nikon lens. These rigs by Redrock Micro look the coolest IMHO. And yes, they’re all over the DSLR buzz too.
And before I’m finished, I can’t talk about the convergence of these tools without mentioning Red. Founded by the camera obsessed Jim Jannard (founder of Oakley who sold it to Luxottica for a boat load of cash) he created a movement of his own by making a digital movie making camera from scratch. The Red One camera (and the Scarlet and the Epic to come) are built for recording full cinema-ready resolution images at a cinema-ready rate. Nothing comes close to that much data throughput.
These babies are pumping out full RAW images off their digital sensors at anywhere from 1-100 frames a second (for super smooth slow motion recordings). Not all of them are the same exact dimensions of film (24x36mm) but are close giving movie makers that sexy ‘film’ like depth of field. The Canon 5D MkII for comparison does have a full 24x36mm sensor but it’s video is compressed using Quicktime H264 at a fixed 30 frames a second. Remember, movies recorded to play at a cinema is massively more demanding than movies recorded to be played back on a TV, even one that’s High Definition.
It’s unfair to really compare them both as the difference in financial and training investment between Red One (and their brethren) and the 5D MII is huge. A commonly quote Red One setup is around $25-40k. Which it’s still a bargain compared to a rental of a Panavision setup which I can only guess is about $5k a day.
So where does that leave the lowly, amateur photographer? The guy that likes shoot when he can? I’m considering a new camera body right now and with all the buzz around video capable SLRs, am I interested in taking part in this new movement?
I don’t really know.
For someone that’s on a cleansing kick where clutter and gear are the opposites of what I want in my life, then no, I can’t see where integrating video into a digital camera helps me. “No good can come from this” is an overly dramatic phrase I’ve been kicking around lately (I like to point a shaky finger in the air when I do) and with the 5D MkII making everyone pre-order like crazy, I say to myself, “No good can come of this”.
The uneasy feeling that I get when reading about the Canon’s video capability (and for the D90’s for that matter) is that it’s a hack. It just feels kludgy. Canon and have essentially pressed ‘record’ while the camera is set to ‘Live view’ which is itself a natural extension of the digital sensor technology these companies have implemented on their consumer pocket point and shoots. Even those little cameras have a working AF! Here’s a list of the known issues and workarounds for making video with the 5D MkII. There’s even a problem in the there’s a 12 minute limit to the amount of data that can be recorded at a time, due to the limits of a FAT32 file structure of most memory cards. Perhaps this could be remedied with some form of continuous recording to a hard drive but the FAT 32 issue may well come up again.
But the most worrying part about how the Live View has been shoe horned into a HD resolution camera, there’s been a lot of discussion over how the exposure control has been handled. Normally, for a still image to be made, there’s several factors that give a photographer control over the exposure; aperture, shutter speed and ISO. But due to how Canon has implemented this well touted video capability it’s been crippled by this kludgy implementation. There’s already been a lot of confusion over just how much control is being offered by the 5D MkII. Perhaps all this lack of control is solvable through later firmware releases, but I think it’s odd that this camera offers so much with one hand, then takes away with the other. There’s even talk of using F-Mount to EF adapters just to give you these would-be cinematographers the control they’re seeking.
The 5D Mark II might be the most exciting implementation of high resolution video in a camera so far with its attention grabbing low light capability, but I can’t help but feel that this is no where near as good as it can get. It needs to be simpler, with less caveats and fewer gotchas. I feel that for me to make best use of it I’d have to invest in even more gear and therefore create even more barriers to just simply going out and shooting photos or video. I’ll need more hard drive space, better processors, a new Mac, more lens, more lights, more sound recording gear, more tripods, more training… ugh.
I’m sorry to say it, but I just want it to be simpler.
I want less stuff.
There. I said it.
I want less stuff and adding video to a digital SLR can only mean one thing. More stuff.
Dammit. I was really looking forward to all that new gear too 
