Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-17-2013, 09:08 PM   #31
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Manila
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,185
Original Poster
True. Canon has continually developed their video feature in DSLR package for quite some time now, even mentioning somewhere before (I read it in DPR, I think it was something about photojournalism) that video is the way of the future for that particular field (or was it some respected journalist?).

02-18-2013, 07:19 PM   #32
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Alizarine Quote
And with good marketing moves, Pentax could actually snatch a good portion of that market.
Because we all know how good Pentax is at marketing.
02-18-2013, 07:23 PM   #33
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,795
QuoteOriginally posted by fuent104 Quote
Shallow depth of field and 24fps progressive video were traditionally two more aspects of cinema that were unavailable to most consumers. Both of those have been addressed by dslr video, and they are two of the only things a consumer can do in-camera, without any additional equipment or knowledge, to create a "cinematic" look. As a result, I think people have gone nuts with it.
No doubt.

I must be odd, because I reserve awe for directors like Welles and Murnau who could create apparently infinite depth of field within the frame.

I am not a cinematographer. But my next video might well be a sort of meta-comment on the whole thin DOF fetish. Was hashing out some of the ideas in a meeting today, so we will see.
02-19-2013, 12:04 PM   #34
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 188
how important is 24p as a feature?

02-19-2013, 12:34 PM   #35
Junior Member




Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Liège
Posts: 27
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
I would personally love to the the K-0x line turn into a dedicated and awesome video lineup. The form factor is perfect really. Look at where everyone is going, the FS-100/700, the RED Epic/Scarlet, the Black Magic Cinema Camera; it's all about a box with a brain and a sensor in it. Form factor doesn't matter, peripherals are better added on specific to what you need at the time.

As far as I can tell, the K-01 hasn't hit on big with the photo community, and I remember the filmmakers around here being pretty exited that it would be our answer to filmmaking, but it wasn't. It's does well, but it's not amazing. It has manual controls and a few other things, but the image from the K-5 still looks much better IMHO, and it's still missing quite a few features that would make it the bomb.

But I totally think that if they abandoned it as photo camera, put a native resolution 2K sensor in it and packed it ful of video related features, that it would be quite the popular piece of gear.
+1 I've just bought the K-01 especially for its manual video features that i can use natively with my k-mount lenses. It is very close to be an awesome video camera. Just lacking a tilt screen, a lcd-viewfinder attachment and full HD monitoring in HDMI out. I really hope too the K-xx line will improve their filmmaking capabilities.
02-19-2013, 03:19 PM   #36
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perrineville, NJ
Posts: 1,375
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
No doubt.

I must be odd, because I reserve awe for directors like Welles and Murnau who could create apparently infinite depth of field within the frame.

I am not a cinematographer. But my next video might well be a sort of meta-comment on the whole thin DOF fetish. Was hashing out some of the ideas in a meeting today, so we will see.
I will take it a step further and suggest that shallow DOF is often overused as a crutch for making amateur video look artistic. I'll put it another way: I can picture in my mind how some video productions seem to be filled with distractingly shallow DOF, as if the videographer is forcing upon the viewer, "look at this -- but wait, you must stop looking at that, and now you shall instead look at this".

I can't remember the last time I was forced to do this when looking at a real Hollywood production. Make no doubt about it, in a good film, the director does control the viewer, but the trick is not making it so obvious.

I think there is a time and place for a well-timed rack focus, but I think this has run amock ... just because we can.

I will also suggest that shallow DOF has far less importance in motion pictures than in still pictures, by the very nature of such media. But I don't have any real basis for this claim.
02-19-2013, 03:58 PM   #37
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by paranoia23 Quote
how important is 24p as a feature?
I'm assuming this is a serious question. And I don't mean that to be insulting, because I too once didn't see what the big deal was. Before I started filmmaking in earnest, I thought 25p, 24p, 1fps difference, what's it matter? But the answer is, massively important.

The thing with filmmaking is, there are standards. There are ways that things are just done, and for the large part, they don't change. The big thing that struck me as different with video production versus photography is that you are very often working with multiple people, the way you do things matters very much, and you all need to be doing things the same way.

For example, if you are covering an event as a photographer, it's quite likely you are working by yourself, and you can just do everything however you want, as long as it comes out good. Even if you are working with someone else, what does it matter if you are shooting at 1/200th and he is shooting at 1/30 for a slow shutter speed effect. People are used to seing different looking types of images coming from one event and even being present together.

But with filmmaking, that doesn't fly. If all you ever want to do is shoot video by yourself, and not work for other people or with other people, then it doesn't matter. But video production is almost always a group effort, with multiple cameras, and multiple shooters. It's a pain in the ass to mix framerates, and much much more than photography, when you cut together things with different looks, it just doesn't look right.

Since just about the dawn of cinema, 24fps has been the standard, and virtually all things have been shot that way. And while the winds of change are stirring in the filmmaking community, it will likely remain the standard for quite some time. Simple put, to not have the ability to shoot 24p is to not have the ability to be a part of any serious filmmaking.

02-19-2013, 06:02 PM   #38
Banned




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Millstone,NJ
Posts: 6,491
QuoteOriginally posted by Tanzer Quote
I will take it a step further and suggest that shallow DOF is often overused as a crutch for making amateur video look artistic. I'll put it another way: I can picture in my mind how some video productions seem to be filled with distractingly shallow DOF, as if the videographer is forcing upon the viewer, "look at this -- but wait, you must stop looking at that, and now you shall instead look at this".

I can't remember the last time I was forced to do this when looking at a real Hollywood production. Make no doubt about it, in a good film, the director does control the viewer, but the trick is not making it so obvious.

I think there is a time and place for a well-timed rack focus, but I think this has run amock ... just because we can.

I will also suggest that shallow DOF has far less importance in motion pictures than in still pictures, by the very nature of such media. But I don't have any real basis for this claim.
vs comparison shot by same person at trade shows.
02-19-2013, 09:23 PM   #39
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Perrineville, NJ
Posts: 1,375
Thanks for posting that. I think this demonstrates my thoughts. The shallow DOF is almost a must in this case because 1) being at NAB (or any other convention) one has no control over the surrounding environment, so just blur it all out, and 2) there isn't any story line, just some candids strung together, so let's just rack the focus to make shots of things (cameras, what else) look interesting, and uh, kinda blurry most of the time.

I'm know Phil Bloom is considered to be a very creative guy, so not faulting him or anyone for just having some fun at NAB.
02-20-2013, 04:16 AM   #40
Senior Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Albums
Posts: 188
QuoteOriginally posted by FullertonImages Quote
Since just about the dawn of cinema, 24fps has been the standard, and virtually all things have been shot that way. And while the winds of change are stirring in the filmmaking community, it will likely remain the standard for quite some time. Simple put, to not have the ability to shoot 24p is to not have the ability to be a part of any serious filmmaking.

thanks for taking it serious but a got me a little wrong .. i know about the history and technical aspects ... i got myself a few years ago a panasonic beamer with 24p support and dont wanna miss it anymore

but my question was more of a aesthetically nature.. or let me put it this way ... if i record the same scene in the same moment with 24p and 25p .. who can stand the double blind test?
i didnt do anything in this direction and dont have an optionen ... thats why i am asking. i own only a k-x which shoots 24p only.

i watched the mini-series "The Take" with tom hardy lately which was (as a tv series) in 25p.. but when i download a simpsons episode its 24p.
does 24p bring any aesthetically advantage like the urban myth is telling?

that, i would like to know!
02-20-2013, 07:38 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Boulder, CO
Posts: 883
QuoteOriginally posted by paranoia23 Quote
thanks for taking it serious but a got me a little wrong .. i know about the history and technical aspects ... i got myself a few years ago a panasonic beamer with 24p support and dont wanna miss it anymore

but my question was more of a aesthetically nature.. or let me put it this way ... if i record the same scene in the same moment with 24p and 25p .. who can stand the double blind test?
i didnt do anything in this direction and dont have an optionen ... thats why i am asking. i own only a k-x which shoots 24p only.

i watched the mini-series "The Take" with tom hardy lately which was (as a tv series) in 25p.. but when i download a simpsons episode its 24p.
does 24p bring any aesthetically advantage like the urban myth is telling?

that, i would like to know!
I would say in that respect, as I mentioned, it's only a 4% different in in framerate. While I'm open to the possibility that thre are people out there wiht a sharp enough eye who could tell you the different, I doubt I could. And I doubt the average person could.

But the rest of my post still stands in that, aesthetic aside, if you want to be a part of any serious or professional filmmaking and it's community, it's pretty important. In a way, it's like the whole Full-Frame equals "pro" camera thing. Regardless of how true it is, most people have it in their head that 24p equals "pro" video, and Pentax is never going to win those people over without it. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had, telling people about how awesome the K-5 is, and their interest just dies completely when I say it can only shoot 1080p/25.
02-20-2013, 02:03 PM   #42
Veteran Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: California
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,356
QuoteOriginally posted by rparmar Quote
I must be odd, because I reserve awe for directors like Welles and Murnau who could create apparently infinite depth of field within the frame. I am not a cinematographer. But my next video might well be a sort of meta-comment on the whole thin DOF fetish. Was hashing out some of the ideas in a meeting today, so we will see.

When I was first learning about film, the guys who shot with a lot of depth of field were extremely highly regarded. The people you mentioned, of course, had access to great lighting, production design, actors, etc.

As far as "directors" creating depth of field...that was almost certainly the work of the cinemtographers, most of the time. Gear and technique are much more a part of our jobs than they are the directors'.

I looking forward to you your next video. Do you regularly produce videos?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
hdslr, line, pentax, video
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What true zoom for Pentax video? eurostar Video Recording and Processing 22 10-27-2013 07:23 AM
Sooooo....what IF Pentax doesn't release a FF Tonto Photographic Industry and Professionals 18 09-15-2012 12:54 AM
What does Pentax have in store for video shooters? pundit Video Recording and Processing 3 04-30-2012 05:24 PM
K-x Vs dedicated video camera yusuf Video Recording and Processing 28 04-30-2010 05:52 PM
What if 645D will shoot HD video? i83N Pentax Medium Format 12 12-11-2009 02:35 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:35 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top