DSLR Dynamics Video Visuals Tour from Barry Andersson on Vimeo.

When I started getting involved in video six years ago, the world was a bit different. There was very little YouTube/blog/forum content out there. I had to piece together scraps of education since I wasn’t able to go to school for it. I started out with a JVC miniDV camera I bought off of ebay for $26. As I started investing in more equipment, I bought an HV20/30 and a DOF adapter rig. At the time, there were no rigs designed for consumer level cameras. Everything I used was a modification from its original purpose. The rig was designed for larger pro cameras…the monitor was designed for car dashboards…the battery pack off-the-shelf for basic electronics.

Fast forward to the HDSLR Revolution and everything changed. Not having to combine a camera, DOF adapter, lenses and a giant rig of accessories made costs drop for new filmmakers. And when small-time manufacturers started seeing the surge of low-budget filmmakers purchasing HDSLRs, they started making gear aimed at those users.

One problem this created was a sense of “entitlement” among some novice, no-budget filmmakers. Everything should be cheap and anything that cost money was a “rip-off”. A $3000 jib? Rip-off. A $2000 monitor? Rip-off. A $800 light? Rip-off. And so it continued. In fact, when Canon was getting ready to announce their first professional, large-sensor video camera, there were a large number of people who expected the price to be under $4000. When the C300 was announced at several times that price point, some people were enraged thinking Canon had abandoned the low-budget filmmaker. That was of course never the target market with the C300 which has enjoyed positive reviews and sales since its release.

Even recently, with the 5D MkIII Magic Lantern hack to shoot RAW, those no-budget filmmakers can’t see the justification in spending extra for something better. The 5D MkIII hack is great, but what if you want to shoot higher frame rates? Or have a more reliable recording system? An example might be the FS700 and Odyssey 7Q combo which will probably go for over $15,000 when it’s all said and done. So even though a camera setup like the 5D MkIII & RAW hack might get you 70-80% there, that extra few percent is a major price jump.

So is it worth it? Are any professional tools worth the price of admission?

Pricing is all about recouping costs of research and development, supply and demand, and being competitive while still making a profit. No intelligent company can afford to overprice their product very long. But target markets vary dramatically in price points even though they often overlap in consumer bases. A 5D MkII while designed for photographers appeals to filmmakers. But who is the target market? This is the most important question any consumer should ask before they get their feathers in a ruffle about the financial decisions of a company. Ever notice how consumer products tend to have more “easy-to-use” features than professionals do? A $100 point-and-shoot camera can do color effects right in the camera while a $50,000 Hasselblad can’t. Why? Cause the target market for the PaS wants that and the target market for the Hasselblad would rather do it in post themselves.

Software is a huge gray area when it comes to this topic. With the ability to torrent a lot of the popular software out there, this entitlement mentality continues along at a frighting rate. In fact, I promise you there are people complaining about Adobe’s change to Creative Cloud that have never paid for a single copy of Adobe software ever. Others have purchased a cheap copy of CS4 on ebay and have used that for several years. If you asked a video game manufacturer if they consider used games buyers a customer, they would say no. Only the people who pay full price for a game off the shelf right when it is released is a true customer (and subsequently a target market) in their mind. The push is going further and further towards not being able to purchase used video games (i.e. digital licenses) and I’m sure many software manufacturers would prefer it if used software was not available to anyone (App Store anyone?). Adobe seems to be the first to make the move in a big way. We’ll have to see how their target market (the professional) adopts this format in the long run.

One comment on yesterday’s video really got me thinking. They wrote:

Just because we’re not pros doesn’t mean we don’t use what the “pro” versions of the software offer. What are you suggesting Tony? That the former Creative Suite was exclusively used by pros?

In a way, yes. Not that Adobe CS was used exclusively by pros but that it was targeted towards pros. The price and features demonstrated that. Just because some things are cheap doesn’t mean everything will be. And to be honest, the “no-budget” filmmaker is nobody’s target market, save a few small rig or camera accessory manufacturers. Everything is aimed at someone who has a budget…small or large. Filmmakers who want to have access to professional tools need to be willing to pay the price, otherwise they need to be willing to work with more budget friendly options. Whether it’s gear or software, the rule is the same.

I know most of my readers don’t fall in this category but this was a rant that I needed to get out of my system. Thanks for your time.

So this brought on the re-educating of a generation of film novices to understand the necessity of lighting and how much of a difference it makes. You see, lighting and music are perhaps the two most important and nearly subliminal tools in film to tell the audience how to feel. But more than that, without proper lighting, a film wouldn’t look like a film.

Before we continue, it’s important to note that lighting in film serves three primary and equally necessary roles:

1. Create a proper exposure for the medium being used (film or digital sensors).
2. Create depth and the illusion of three dimensions in a two dimensional medium.
3. Create a tone and mood for the scene.

Too many people think of lighting as the first role and forget or don’t even realize numbers 2 and 3.

We’ve started reaching the limit of low-light sensitivity. Cameras will get better at shooting in the dark, but eventually they won’t have to. 4K and 8K are fast approaching and have created a standard for resolution. So it seams one of the last frontiers of camera development is dynamic range. 12bit or 16bit RAW cameras that can shoot at 12+ stops of latitude are slowly starting to flood the market. And with the Blackmagic Cinema Camera soon to be in the eager hands of filmmakers, it seems like we’re starting to go through another season of people thinking they don’t need to light. I mean, why would you need to light with a camera that has a dynamic range of 12+ stops? And if you’re shooting RAW, you can just push and pull the footage wherever you need it in post.

Well the reason you still need to light is because of numbers 2 and 3 above. You can push and pull your footage all you want in post, but if you haven’t lit it properly, you’ll never get the results you want. You will end up with a flat image no matter now much contrast you add. And you may not end up with the mood that was needed for the scene.

Most skilled cinematographers will light a scene within about 5 stops. This means anything important in the scene that is needed to be visible was within a +/- 2.5 stop range. Anything beyond that could go to pure black or white. If you get into the habit of shooting this way, when you get to post, you’ll be able to put the footage where you want it. If you shot for 10+ stops and tried to keep all 10+ stops of latitude in your final grade, your footage will look super flat. That’s fine if that’s the mood you want, but if you want a normal look or a “punchier” look, as soon as you start adding contrast you’ll lose detail.

And frankly, one way or another you’ll be spending time to get the image where you want it. If you have a blown out window that you want detail from, you may be able to pull the information back into the image if you shot it in RAW, but you also may spend countless hours creating power windows and multiple color grades to get the footage where you want it. On the other hand, if you added ND filter to the window or brought the ambient exposure of the room up to match the window, you may spend much less time in post.

Don’t get me wrong…RAW is a great tool and something I look forward to shooting with someday. But it is by no means a “magic bullet” that will automatically make your footage cinematic. When you get back to the grade, your footage may look just as boring and lacking of emotion as if it was shot on a Canon T2i. On the other hand, a camera like the T2i could be made to shine by a cinematographer who knows how to light within the range of the camera and the scene.

See our entire process in the video below along with the diagrams and final promo.

 

The Separate Ways Experience from Creative Edge Productions on Vimeo.

It was the spring of 2008 and I had been a video novice for close to a year now. I owned a Canon HV20 with a Cinevate Brevis35 DOF adapter. I barely knew anything about lenses, ISO, lighting ratios, blocking or dynamic range. All I knew was that I was eager to learn and get out there and start experimenting.

I started looking around for places that I could get involved with video. I was fortunate to have my name passed around to the video director at a local church and to receive a phone call asking if I’d be interested in volunteering. I jumped at the chance and soon was working on short promotional videos. After a month of working on several projects, I found out that they were planning on having a large men’s conference. I started coming up with ideas for promotional videos and one day (while in the shower) I had the idea for an opening video, similar to what you might see at the MTV or Academy award shows. Some sort of action parody that played before the conference opened up.

I went to the staff at the church with this idea, but to my dismay everyone, while liking the idea, was afraid that there wouldn’t be enough time to film it. Frustrated that I had this story in my head that would never see the light of day, I decided to grab a few of my friends and shoot a very rough version of the film. I grabbed my HV20 (no DOF rig), switched it to full auto and shot a quick concept over the course of 5 hours. I took the footage back home and edited it the next day.

I handed a DVD of the project to the staff at the church just two days after shooting it. I quickly went “viral” within the church and by the end of the week, I received a phone call from the video director that the pastor had changed his mind and was willing to shoot the video if I could do it in one afternoon.

The next week I arrived at the shoot and was handed a Canon XLH1, a much fancier camera than I had ever worked with before. One of the downfalls of using a camera you were unfamiliar with is overlooking important steps…like setting the proper audio level. I had an audio engineer with a boom mic running around with me but unfortunately I didn’t know to set the audio level manually on the camera. This resulted in some rather overdriven audio. …lesson learned I guess.

Despite the imperfect audio, the video was a hit and became the talk of the conference. We staged it so Pastor Mark ran down the center aisle immediately after the video to a cheering auditorium. Afterwards, Mark walked up to me and congratulated me on my work and followed that up with the statement:

“How’d you like to do this for a living?”

Heck yeah! Next thing I knew I was working in the video department at the church. I went from retail to banking and now doing something I loved! Unfortunately no job is perfect and I soon was stuck in the task of editing TV shows and working on video projects that didn’t exercise what I really enjoyed. Don’t get me wrong, I was learning lots and the job was way better than entering bank deposits, but the creative videos that I was initially hired for were few and far between.

The next year came and the next “Manly Man Conference” was nearing. I asked if we would do another intro video and everyone wanted to, but no one was willing to set aside the time to do it. When the conference was a week out and it was obviously too late to shoot anything, I was asked to do a motion graphic intro. I wasn’t happy with it and I think everyone afterwards really missed having the film intro.

When year three came, everyone was on board with doing a film. I came up with the idea of having Ross’ character brought back to life and brainwashed into killing Mark. I knew I wasn’t a good script writer so I found someone who had done script writing and directing before. I hadn’t worked with her before, but she had been volunteering in the video department so I thought I’d ask her to work on the film. I gave her the outline and asked her to flesh out the rest. I also asked her to direct so I could focus purely on my role as the director of photography. I received the script right before we were ready to start shooting. As I read it over, I saw some oddities in the script that I was concerned with. Some dialogue didn’t flow right and most of her comedy moments weren’t funny to me. I talked to the director and she defended her script. I didn’t have time for a rewrite and I figured I’d give her the benefit of the doubt.

This was the summer of 2010 and my HV20 rig was long gone. I had gone through a Canon XHA1 DOF rig and now owned a Canon 5D MkII. I was still new with DSLR video, but knew a little more about lighting and blocking. Still we were on a tight shoot schedule so I couldn’t work in all the dolly and jib shots I would like. As with the first film, this was all done with volunteers…no A-list Hollywood actors here.

As we shot each scene, I started to realize how Hollywood movies can get so disjointed and that no one really knows what the film will be like until the final edit. This was one of the first projects I shot non-chronologically. It’s really important to have a good script supervisor, continuity director and actors who can pick up where they left off days or weeks prior. We didn’t have any of that so we shot with fingers crossed.

During the shoot and the edit, the director and I butted heads quite a bit. There were things I wasn’t happy with in the film that she was insistent on. After that project, we decided not to work together anymore. Another lesson learned: pick people for your team that you have a similar creative vision with.

The church also launched a women’s conference and I produced films for both year one and year two.

By 2011 I had moved up to become the video director of the department. I did enjoy my job, but what I really enjoyed seemed to come once or twice a year. In August of 2011, three years after I had been hired, I was informed that they were downsizing the entire department and my position was being eliminated. They went from four full-time people down to one full-time and one part-time.

In 2009 I had launched Creative Edge Productions and did that part-time. This was the kick I needed to do video production full-time. It was time to either sink or swim.

Fortunately, things have since been going very well for us. I have two partners that have joined full time and in March of 2012 we moved into our first studio space. Creative Edge has taken us all around the country for productions with the US Dept. or Homeland Security, ABC World News, Good Morning America and dozens of other businesses.

A few months ago, I was contacted by Ross at the church asking if we’d be interested in doing another film for the fourth Manly Man Conference. I was informed that the theme of this conference was “The Matrix” and they had a very small budget. I talked to my team and we decided to take the small budget and run with it. We used volunteer actors again but this time we were able to plan things out a bit more. We location scouted and found some great places. I came up with the story outline and had one of my team write the script, but this time I knew I would be directing as well as lighting and camera. I asked the script writer to AD (assistant director) which freed me up to focus on the camera while we were shooting. For being his first script, it wasn’t bad, though there were a few week points. Acting is always tough with volunteers, though they did a pretty decent job.

Luckily my new Sony FS700 arrived a few days before the shoot which provided us a new style for shooting as well as the ability to accomplish some special slow-motion shots. I now owned a Kessler Crane Pocket Jib and Pocket Dolly and for this film, I took the time to plan out each shot as best as I could. I focused on making each camera move and angle motivated. I spent a lot more time lighting the scenes and making sure the lighting was motivated as well. When it came to post, Sean did a fantastic job. He and I think a lot alike so I know the edit would flow very well with what I had in mind. I sat with him through much of the edit and the visual effects. Fortunately as my skills have improved as a cinematographer, so have Sean’s in post. The VFX, while perhaps not movie quality certainly fit well with this film.

This was some of our best work to date. We ended up putting in a lot more work than the client paid for but we knew that the film had the potential to be something special and we wanted to see it through. Sure there are plenty of places to nitpick…the acting could be better, the script has some week points, continuity isn’t perfect…but in the end, I’m really excited about what we were able to accomplish with so many limitations.

I know as a filmmaker, director and cinematographer I’ve got a long way to go. What is encouraging to me is to look back at each of these films made two years apart from each other and see growth and improvement.

…and that is really the point of this article. I have no formal education; I’m all self taught. Six years ago I knew jack about film or video. Today I own a production company and have the privilege and enjoyment of working on projects from every walk of life. I wanted to show that it doesn’t happen overnight, but with some hard work and determination, anyone can get there.

This I agree with 100%. However, I think people confuse two different forms of professionals. I want to separate them and challenge you to consider where you stand.

The “Professional” Artist

This is someone who is experienced in every facet of their art form. In video, they are skilled at lighting, composition, storytelling, etc. They could make an iPhone shine. They are not limited by the the camera they choose. In fact some enjoy the challenge of producing content on a “less pro” medium.

The “Professional” Business(person)

This is someone who not only enjoys the art of their craft, but also chooses to do it for a living. They have clients that they work with to produce content for. They have income and expenses, marketing and competition, due dates and revisions, etc. For the businessperson, their art form is what they sell and the quality of their equipment simply backs that up.

I’ve always said there are three things that make up a “professional” shooter:

• The ability to see a shot.
• The ability to own (or have access to) the gear.
• The ability to use the gear to get the shot.

I’ve seen a lot of people with fancy gear and crappy video. On the other hand, I’ve seen really talented people who have been limited by the gear at their disposal.

The other half of the equation I touched on in a previous article, Camera Gear: DIY vs. Buy. In this article I discussed the advantages of building DIY gear versus the advantages of owning professional gear designed to do the job right. This point can be made for the cameras as well. A paying client shouldn’t have to deal with the limitations of your gear. If they do, don’t expect to charge top dollar.

There are TV ads being shown in your town that ranged in budget from $100 to $1 million+. What made the difference? The skill of the the shooter/agency, the quality of the message, the talent in front of the camera, the expenses in props, locations, etc. and finally the equipment used. I promise you most $500,000 TV ads were not shot on a Handycam and most $100 ads were not shot on a Red Epic.

IF you are a professional, IF you are charging your clients money and IF you plan on doing video as some sort of business into the near future, I would suggest that your gear reflects your rate. If you’re charging your clients pennies to shoot something, then by all means, a DSLR may be more than sufficient. But if you want to step into the realm of high-end clients and larger rates, then it’s time to up your game.

Consider the following good advice to keep in mind: If you want to compete with other video professionals in your area, the DSLR will not cut it in the near future. Technology evolves and you have to stay with it. Those who don’t are left in the dust. Just drive down your street and look at all the vacant office buildings from companies who couldn’t maintain a profit in today’s market.

All that said, an artist is free to paint with whatever brush they want. Keep experimenting and growing in your craft. It is incredibly exciting to see what people are doing with the limitations they are presented with.

Today it’s a lot harder to choose which camera to purchase simply because there are so many to choose from. Only a few years ago this wasn’t the case. In 2008, if you wanted the “large sensor” look for your video you pretty much had two options: get a 35mm “Depth of Field (DOF)” adapter or rent a Red One. Then one day a DSLR came to market with a little feature added in for photo journalists. Something they could take short web videos with so they didn’t have to carry an extra video camera with them on location. But when the indie film market saw the images that these DSLRs were producing, they quickly adopted them as a new form of acquisition. The problem was we were all using a fluke for our video work and not a professional tool.

Still from 2009 through early 2011, every cinematographer I knew had a DSLR in their camera bag and was shooting on it almost primarily. Of course camera manufacturers couldn’t ignore this for long and at the beginning of 2011 Panasonic released the first “large sensor” true video camera. The AF100 was an exciting breakthrough for filmmakers, though the micro four-thirds sensor was a turn off for many. Not to be outdone, Sony plopped the FS100 and F3 in the laps of eager professionals, giving them the choice between affordability or broadcast ready. Many were eager to see if Canon would finally cram a large sensor into a professional body and before 2011 was out, they announced their C300. Perhaps the most disappointing announcement as the price was aimed purely at the pro shooter leaving enthusiasts to keep tinkering with their DSLRs. And of course, after years of empty promises and missed dates, Red finally gave us the Scarlet. This has paved the way for second generation cameras coming less than a year after their counterparts; namely the Canon C500 and Sony FS700.

Today, those cinematographers I mentioned earlier who shot solely on DSLR each have a camera that fits their needs best. In fact I know five different video professionals that have an AF100, FS100, C300, F3 and Scarlet respectively. Goes to show you how diverse the market truly is. I myself just purchased Sony’s new FS700 which would make six of us with six different cameras. Now I will point out that we all still carry around our DSLR as the perfect B-cam and I don’t think I will ever be without one. That said, I can’t imagine shooting my professional work on anything less than a professional camera today.

I did shoot on my 5D MkII for two and a half years before upgrading to my FS700. With my DSLR I produced many commercials, corporate videos and short films which still hold up today. But after shooting on cameras like the C300, FS100, FS700, F3, etc. I can say that the day of the video DSLR being king has ended. Large sensor video cameras are optimized for video production and make life a lot easier. Most of them will produce an image that is vastly superior to DSLR. Whether it shows up in your final edit is affected by many factors, including color grade, resolution output and bitrate. But I can honestly say that looking at my 5D footage at 100% next to my FS700 footage at 100%, hands down the FS700 wins in every category.

So to answer the question in the title of the post, I would say that if you consider yourself a professional and you are charging clients for a video service, I think it’s time to upgrade from your DSLR. Large sensor video cameras are available at any price point and offer vastly improved image quality as well as features and ergonomics. I challenge you to rent a FS100 for a day or two and see how you like it. After dealing with all the work-arounds, hacks and compromises necessary for DSLR video, it will be hard to go back once you’ve tasted a true video camera.

If you are just a hobbyist, that extra investment may not be necessary for you. The great thing about DSLR video is that it is so cheap to get into; a lot cheaper than it was when I was starting off with a Canon HV20 and a DOF adapter rig. For half of my initial investment in that rig and a fraction of the size, I could get a used T2i and start learning video. Then when you are ready to move up, there are cameras at every level waiting to meet your needs.