DSLR video on LCD only?

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Did you just make the following post ?

Did you not read it?

For WEB purposes. His phone videos were used for web marketing and such. 600px wide max. Phones are suitable for that. Same with most web-viewed videos. 600-800 px wide.

jogiba · 03-01-2014, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

Did you not read it?

For WEB purposes. His phone videos were used for web marketing and such. 600px wide max. Phones are suitable for that. Same with most web-viewed videos. 600-800 px wide.

But you posted the following:

Quote:

For WEB viewing. any phone isn't going to hold a candle to a real video system at anything wider than 800 px. Videos don't need the quality of photos, either. The NFL shoots everything on 16mm film (for longevity sake) but it still looks good on a big screen. Any 16mm still shot will look pretty crappy on a big screen.

Did you look at the 2560x1600 screen capture from the Samsung smartphone 4K video ?
http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/10430925685_1b664d433a_o.jpg

TaoMaas · 03-01-2014, 11:02 AM

Originally posted by kadajawi

Oh well. At least you'll be able to point a finger and say ha-ha when they fail.

Yeah, I know. Before they decided to make this purchase, the boss made them shoot with a Canon P&S camera they already had on hand. One of them was griping about it being a crap camera because it used AA batteries. I said, "You know...a lot of people prefer AA's because they're the most universal battery out there. Nikon used to make their cameras run on them because they never knew where someone might take their Nikon. It could be used to shoot monsoons in Indonesia or tribal wars in Africa....and if you got desperate for a battery, if you could find any place at all that sold them, chances are that they would have AA's. It's not a matter of being old-fashioned. It's an attempt to make it usable anywhere on the face of the earth." This person looked at me like I had two heads...paused for a moment...then said, "Well...lithiums are better." I said, "You're right...they are."

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 11:03 AM

I did. Again, doesn't hold a candle to real video systems, or DSLR video. It's not super sharp, there are digital artifacts, and the DR is terrible.

I stand by both comments. I didn't contradict myself. That would look great in an 800 px wide video, but it's not good as a still. Video doesn't have the same technical requirements as a still shot... you don't have enough time to really nitpick the details before seeing the next frame.

jogiba · 03-01-2014, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

I did. Again, doesn't hold a candle to real video systems, or DSLR video. It's not super sharp, there are digital artifacts, and the DR is terrible.

I stand by both comments. I didn't contradict myself. That would look great in an 800 px wide video, but it's not good as a still. Video doesn't have the same technical requirements as a still shot... you don't have enough time to really nitpick the details before seeing the next frame.

Show me a DSLR video straight out of the camera with better detail than the Samsung smartphone 4K video.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/10430925685_1b664d433a_o.jpg
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2829/11316166234_e059aaab37_o.jpg

You Tube

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 11:15 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

Show me a DSLR video straight out of the camera with better detail than the Samsung smartphone 4K video.

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/10430925685_1b664d433a_o.jpg

Don't have any examples off-hand, but that's really not that great of a capture... 16mm film on an arriflex trounces this, too, btw.

I don't really care what your opinions are about smartphones, as you seem to think they are god's gift to man, but I can't stand them. That's my opinion.

Let's agree on this, though:

Without good lighting, content, and composition, anyone can get terrible results on the best mediums. WITH good lighting, content, and composition, a smart and careful user can get superior results on even an outdated, inferior medium. Without the right elements, everything will suck. Fair enough?

jogiba · 03-01-2014, 11:26 AM

So you don't have any DSLR video captures or youtube videos to compare to the 4K smartphone videos ?
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/12819961023_3c56722bb1_o.png

You Tube

TaoMaas · 03-01-2014, 11:28 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

Without good lighting, content, and composition, anyone can get terrible results on the best mediums. WITH good lighting, content, and composition, a smart and careful user can get superior results on even an outdated, inferior medium. Without the right elements, everything will suck. Fair enough?

Wait...it's not the camera?

Okay...obviously you don't know anything. (j/k)

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by jogiba

So you don't have any DSLR video captures or youtube videos to compare to the 4K smartphone videos ?
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/12819961023_3c56722bb1_o.png

LG G Pro 2 2160p video sample - YouTube

No, because I personally don't do DSLR video. I have several cinematographer friends, and they still all prefer film for it's better colors, lack of digital artifacts, and infinitely better dynamic range. I've seen good results done on DSLRs that look better than that, but I don't have any handy.

jogiba · 03-01-2014, 11:34 AM

You Tube

---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 01:42 PM ----------

Originally posted by fretlessdavis

No, because I personally don't do DSLR video. I have several cinematographer friends, and they still all prefer film for it's better colors, lack of digital artifacts, and infinitely better dynamic range. I've seen good results done on DSLRs that look better than that, but I don't have any handy.

Today digital cinema cameras beat film cinema cameras .

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 11:42 AM

I don't care about all your smartphone postings. I get it. You think they're the best. I'm not going to watch them. DR still suffers massively. Again, I don't care. Use what you have and get your damn composition, lighting, and content down. THEN worry about what gives the highest resolution, if you really want resolution. Resolution is even less of a big deal in cinema than photography, anyway.

---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 11:44 AM ----------

Originally posted by jogiba

Flightpath: 4K Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - YouTube

---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 01:42 PM ----------

Today digital cinema cameras beat film cinema cameras .

Depends on how you define 'beats'

Gathering from all your posts on this thread and others, all you really care about is resolution. Fine. Digital beats film, photo and video, in resolution when comparing similar formats. There's so much more than just resolution. I don't care about resolution for the most part, as any modern system will deliver enough resolution.

jogiba · 03-01-2014, 11:50 AM

I am still waiting for your samples .

**fretlessdavis** · 03-01-2014, 11:54 AM

I'm not giving you any samples. Not wasting my bandwidth. Again, resolution isn't everything. Show me any digital camera system, still or cinema, that can match the DR of Vision/Portra color films.

Obviously you have your own opinions, and I have mine. I don't care what medium you use, if it's not quality content, don't even bother, End of story. You can get good results regardless of medium, just like you can get shitty results on the best $50k camera.

jogiba · 03-03-2014, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Show me any digital camera system, still or cinema, that can match the DR of Vision/Portra color films.

RED Epic Dragon review: First camera to break the 100-point DxOMark sensor score barrier! - DxOMark

Quote:

Red Dragon now has the best highlight fall off I have ever seen from any digital camera. Beating film! Big call I know, but after shooting film and pushing it around in telecine chains for more than a decade, I can categorically say that this new sensor has a better range than film ever had.

03-03-2014, 01:05 PM	#29
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Quote: Show me any digital camera system, still or cinema, that can match the DR of Vision/Portra color films. RED Epic Dragon review: First camera to break the 100-point DxOMark sensor score barrier! - DxOMark Quote: Red Dragon now has the best highlight fall off I have ever seen from any digital camera. Beating film! Big call I know, but after shooting film and pushing it around in telecine chains for more than a decade, I can categorically say that this new sensor has a better range than film ever had. Last edited by jogiba; 03-04-2014 at 01:55 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
This might seem like a dumb question...	dansamy	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	22	12-19-2013 02:27 PM
Possible Dumb Question	photographyguy74	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	6	12-10-2013 06:00 AM
Dumb Question......	Mallee Boy	Pentax Medium Format	5	11-18-2012 04:59 PM
Dumb Filter Question	northmole	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	5	10-12-2012 04:38 AM
Dumb question about flash unit compatibility	GibbyTheMole	Flashes, Lighting, and Studio	10	10-04-2012 03:59 PM

03-01-2014, 10:48 AM	#16
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Originally posted by jogiba Did you just make the following post ? Did you not read it? For WEB purposes. His phone videos were used for web marketing and such. 600px wide max. Phones are suitable for that. Same with most web-viewed videos. 600-800 px wide.

03-01-2014, 10:59 AM	#17
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	Originally posted by fretlessdavis Did you not read it? For WEB purposes. His phone videos were used for web marketing and such. 600px wide max. Phones are suitable for that. Same with most web-viewed videos. 600-800 px wide. But you posted the following: Quote: For WEB viewing. any phone isn't going to hold a candle to a real video system at anything wider than 800 px. Videos don't need the quality of photos, either. The NFL shoots everything on 16mm film (for longevity sake) but it still looks good on a big screen. Any 16mm still shot will look pretty crappy on a big screen. Did you look at the 2560x1600 screen capture from the Samsung smartphone 4K video ? http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/10430925685_1b664d433a_o.jpg

03-01-2014, 11:02 AM	#18
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574 Original Poster	Originally posted by kadajawi Oh well. At least you'll be able to point a finger and say ha-ha when they fail. Yeah, I know. Before they decided to make this purchase, the boss made them shoot with a Canon P&S camera they already had on hand. One of them was griping about it being a crap camera because it used AA batteries. I said, "You know...a lot of people prefer AA's because they're the most universal battery out there. Nikon used to make their cameras run on them because they never knew where someone might take their Nikon. It could be used to shoot monsoons in Indonesia or tribal wars in Africa....and if you got desperate for a battery, if you could find any place at all that sold them, chances are that they would have AA's. It's not a matter of being old-fashioned. It's an attempt to make it usable anywhere on the face of the earth." This person looked at me like I had two heads...paused for a moment...then said, "Well...lithiums are better." I said, "You're right...they are."

03-01-2014, 11:03 AM	#19
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	I did. Again, doesn't hold a candle to real video systems, or DSLR video. It's not super sharp, there are digital artifacts, and the DR is terrible. I stand by both comments. I didn't contradict myself. That would look great in an 800 px wide video, but it's not good as a still. Video doesn't have the same technical requirements as a still shot... you don't have enough time to really nitpick the details before seeing the next frame.

03-01-2014, 11:15 AM	#21
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Originally posted by jogiba Show me a DSLR video straight out of the camera with better detail than the Samsung smartphone 4K video. http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7428/10430925685_1b664d433a_o.jpg Don't have any examples off-hand, but that's really not that great of a capture... 16mm film on an arriflex trounces this, too, btw. I don't really care what your opinions are about smartphones, as you seem to think they are god's gift to man, but I can't stand them. That's my opinion. Let's agree on this, though: Without good lighting, content, and composition, anyone can get terrible results on the best mediums. WITH good lighting, content, and composition, a smart and careful user can get superior results on even an outdated, inferior medium. Without the right elements, everything will suck. Fair enough?

03-01-2014, 11:28 AM - 1 Like	#23
TaoMaas Pentaxian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Oklahoma City Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,574 Original Poster	Originally posted by fretlessdavis Without good lighting, content, and composition, anyone can get terrible results on the best mediums. WITH good lighting, content, and composition, a smart and careful user can get superior results on even an outdated, inferior medium. Without the right elements, everything will suck. Fair enough? Wait...it's not the camera? Okay...obviously you don't know anything. (j/k)

03-01-2014, 11:29 AM	#24
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	Originally posted by jogiba So you don't have any DSLR video captures or youtube videos to compare to the 4K smartphone videos ? http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3677/12819961023_3c56722bb1_o.png LG G Pro 2 2160p video sample - YouTube No, because I personally don't do DSLR video. I have several cinematographer friends, and they still all prefer film for it's better colors, lack of digital artifacts, and infinitely better dynamic range. I've seen good results done on DSLRs that look better than that, but I don't have any handy.

03-01-2014, 11:42 AM	#26
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	I don't care about all your smartphone postings. I get it. You think they're the best. I'm not going to watch them. DR still suffers massively. Again, I don't care. Use what you have and get your damn composition, lighting, and content down. THEN worry about what gives the highest resolution, if you really want resolution. Resolution is even less of a big deal in cinema than photography, anyway. ---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 11:44 AM ---------- Originally posted by jogiba Flightpath: 4K Samsung Galaxy Note 3 - YouTube ---------- Post added 03-01-14 at 01:42 PM ---------- Today digital cinema cameras beat film cinema cameras . Depends on how you define 'beats' Gathering from all your posts on this thread and others, all you really care about is resolution. Fine. Digital beats film, photo and video, in resolution when comparing similar formats. There's so much more than just resolution. I don't care about resolution for the most part, as any modern system will deliver enough resolution.

03-01-2014, 11:50 AM	#27
jogiba Banned Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Millstone,NJ Posts: 6,491	I am still waiting for your samples .

03-01-2014, 11:54 AM	#28
fretlessdavis Site Supporter Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Port Angeles, WA Photos: Gallery Posts: 505	I'm not giving you any samples. Not wasting my bandwidth. Again, resolution isn't everything. Show me any digital camera system, still or cinema, that can match the DR of Vision/Portra color films. Obviously you have your own opinions, and I have mine. I don't care what medium you use, if it's not quality content, don't even bother, End of story. You can get good results regardless of medium, just like you can get shitty results on the best $50k camera.