A couple of years ago there was a Dutch documentry called 'De Nieuwe Wildernis', which translated as 'The New Wilderness'. It was about a derelict piece of reclaimed land, which turned into a true nature reserve.
It was a beautiful documentry, with loads of great shots. A large part was filmed with the Canon EOS 5D II or III. But I thought the quality of the film was just not as good as a dedicated film camera.
Am I nitpicking or is the quality just not there yet?
Ind regards,
Reinier
Posts: 6,715
Threads: 236
Joined: Apr 2010
Reputation:
22
It depends on the skill of the videographers. And with movement, you of course get rolling shutter effects with cameras without glbal shutter.
Without seeing an example, I can't comment on what you saw quality wise. Some gorgeous stuff is being video-ed with digital stills cameras with video functionality though (like Canon DSLRs, Panasonic GH series and such).
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
BBC's Planet Earth II has parts shot with RED cameras and some parts shot with Canon 5D series camera. Can you tell which is which?
Posts: 228
Threads: 3
Joined: Jun 2015
Reputation:
0
Also when you say quality, what do you mean? there is so much to movies beyond image quality. Some things that spring to mind that make footage look film like includes:
large scale lighting
large sensor - DOF effect (difficult before DSLRs arrived except with film)
elaborate camera moves
complex focus pulls (combined with shallow dof)
sound track
video specific lenses (eg no focus breathing, good oof rendering etc)
quality of set, makeup, acting, direction etc
I suspect you got all those thing right, you could use a pretty rubbish camera and still have great looking footage, much like good photos from my old 300D are still good.
Considering the current crop of cameras shooting 4k (iphone included!!) really nobody can complain about not having access to a camera good enough to shoot top class footage. The rest of the setup is another matter though.
Hi Guys,
Thanks for your reply. It is hard to say which part of the film I meant, I don't have a copy of it.
There were just some shots, which looked odd. I don't know if that was due to the 5D II shots, but it was a general question if you could tell the difference between a fil shot with a Dslr or a dedicated film camera.
I thought about it some more, and maybe it was because this film was meant for a cinema. Maybe that's why it looked odd in some cases.
Is there a chance film and photo cameras will merge altogether in the near future?
Kind regards,
Reinier
Posts: 558
Threads: 4
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
6
They have already merged a lot and honestly, I don't think it's good for more dedicated photographers as this merging from the manufacturer's side comes with a lot of compromises here and there.