Digital Still Camera

[Stuart Brereton]

since all the EOS series have electronic aperture control it means to have to manually step down the lens after you focus, set up shot etc.

Perhaps this is ok for enthusiasts but not really an option when you have to work fast.... Also remembering to step the lens down is a hassle...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I started stills photography back in about 1986, before Auto Focus & Exposure lenses were widely available. I don't find manually setting a stop or finding focus that much of a hassle.

 

Timelapse on the EOS cameras can be done with the TC-80N3 remote timer. The LCD monitor can be set (on the 10D, at least) to display the shot until the shutter is pressed again.

[Robert Edge]

In case anyone is interested, the manual that describes the operation of Nikon Camera Control software is available on the Nikon site here: http://support.nikontech.com/cgi-bin/nikon...li=&p_topview=1

[Remi Adefarasin]

I?ve had a Canon EOS for years so it seemed natural to use a Canon to use the lenses

I already own. I have a 10D and very happy with it. There are good cheaper Canon SLR?s available. I find it very helpful to set at 1/50th second and use the same ISO & aperture setting as the film to get a rough pre-vis. I agree it?s not total film look but very close. I use the adjustable Kelvin settings (never auto).

 

I?ve never had the time on set to print out an adjusted print for the Lab so I?ve tended to Photoshop at home and e-mail. Yes I know its down & dirty but it?s a guide of intent.

 

Kodak?s KLMS is wonderful but not free which is a shame.

 

Another way of pre-vising is to roll your hand into a fist & looking through the hole. I use this every day.

 

I saw a still guy with a Hasselblad with digital back connected to his laptop for an instant image. This sounds like the Nikon software. I heard that it would be available for Canon cameras by June 05. I think it was called Phase One Capture-one. Load of $ probably but it looked very good. He could zoom in instantly to check focus etc. Designed for still guys really.

[Kim Sargenius]

Anyone had a chance to "kick the tyres" on the Fujifilm S3? Seems handy with that extra bit of dynamic range...

[K Borowski]

by the time you get your scans you might as well take a look at dailies.

 

Unless you are going to take pictures, then rush to a lab, return in half an hour, run home, scan the negatives and take a look, then rush back to work to shoot the scene.

 

It would perhapse make more sense if you brought a laptop and a film scanner, and sent an errand boy to develop your film and return in 30 minutes.

 

But still, you'd have to expose the entire roll for just the first setup before you start shooting.

 

It is supose to be a previsualisation method, and you have to wait for dailies too.

That would be funny, waiting for previsualisation dailies, then again waiting for actual footage dailies.

Many medium format photographers use polaroid (or digital back) for previsualisation of film photography. It would be funny if someone brought a MF camera, then used polaroid as a previsualisation of what your actual previsualisation is going to look like.

Easier to just start the camera, you can't miss it that much with negative anyway

 

Digital cameras is the only logical choice for prvisualisation

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Frankly, I'd still rather shoot the film, even though its more of a hastle. As a still photographer, I know that raw digital simply does not compare with skintones or color pallette. Polaroids are a great option in MF, but I recommended shooting straight 35mm because Polaroid backs in that format tend to cost more than the 35mm bodies themselves. Then again, a cheap 35mm and polaroid back will actually end up costing you *LESS* than the comparable digital camera. By comparable I mean a decent MP count, good features, high ISO capability, and professional features (not a digital rebel for instance). I don't know. It all depends on how you're "scouting". When I scout locations, I'll generally do it a day or two before I actually shoot there, so I'd have no trouble dropping the film off at the local pro lab and getting negatives only and then a scan or something like that to color correct on the computer and send along with the shot stock to give the lab an idea of the color balance I'd want on the dailies.

 

Regards.

~Karl Borowski

[Angeliki Makraki]

You want to be able to send the color-corrected digital photo with the unprocessed film to the lab so that the colorist doing the dailies transfer THE NEXT DAY can see a still photo. You can't turn around still film photos, get them processed, scanned, color-corrected, and sent to the colorist in time by the next afternoon, not if you are still working on the same movie the next day. Especially not on location.

 

If one could do all of this with a 35mm still camera, which have been around for decades, then why only now that we have digital still cameras has this become a practice for sending timed stills to colorists as a guide? Obviously the turnaround time for processing and scanning 35mm stills was a factor.

 

You send your footage to the lab before the cut-off point and it will be processed overnight and be at the telecine bay by the next day. Even if you could get 35mm stills also processed and scanned overnight, you'd be color-correcting the next day when you would normally be on set working.

 

It should tell you something that even KODAK has based their Look Management System around a digital still camera for previewing the image. If they could have done it with a 35mm still camera, they would have.

 

David, please tell me what these timed stills are ?

Who shoots them, the stills photographer or camera assistant ?

[Jim Feldspar]

I have a Canon 10D that I've used extensively for previz and location scouting. For me, it's nice to be able to show the director what I have in mind for composition, as well as helping to show less photographically-saavy directors how I want to expose the shot versus how it looks to his/her eye. I can snap a still and show the director right there what composition I think would work. I can also go home and mess with the image in photoshop and email or print it out to show the director what I have in mind for the look of that particular scene.

 

Once of the features I love about my 10D is the white balance settings and the selectable color temperature. I can adjust the Kelvin temperature anywhere from 2800-10,000 degrees and see how it will affect my image. I've used this feature a couple times when scouting locations with fluorescents. I was able to show the director what it would look like if we corrected for the fluorescent light, or if we just let it go green.

 

I went with Canon because I was more familiar with their selection of glass, but like others have said, I don't think you can really go wrong with either Nikon or Canon.

 

"For me, it's nice to be able to show the director what I have in mind for composition,"

 

Is there a way you can use a digital still camera to show your intended composition in

different aspect ratios or do you have to use the a.r. of the still camera (and what is that?)

[Evan Winter]

AAARRRGGGGHH!!!!!

 

I wrote a lenghty reply to this topic then accidentally hit some button and navigated away from the page and lost my post! :( :(

 

I'm going to try and recreate, in short form, what I lost. Here goes:

 

I direct music videos and so I'm in telecine every month. Not too long ago I purchased a Sony Alpha for previs and I'm very happy with it. It provides a very accurate representation of what the film sees and what the film looks like.

 

By the way my DSLR budget was $1000.00USD

 

The Sony Alpha was a good choice for me because:

 

a) In camera image stabilization - often overlooked and very very important - when trying to match your DSLR settings to your film settings you'll end up setting your shutter to 1/48th the majority of the time. This shutter speed is too slow for most DSLR and will result in unacceptable image blurriness. Most DSLRs provide lens stabilization systems (which means you have to buy specific lenses at a premium cost). The Alpha can shoot acceptable images (to my eye and with my degree of steadiness/shakiness) with shutters as slow as 1/30th (with image stabilization on of course).

 

b ) The Alpha takes all of Minolta's older Autofocus Film lenses (remember to multiply the lenses by 1.5, i.e. - a 28mm becomes a 42mm on the DSLR) and this was valuable to me because I already had Minolta lenses. Plus, it is easy to buy very good older Minolta lenses secondhand.

 

c) The Sony Alpha has a very large viewing screen (this is critical, after all we're talking about on set previs right?). I do believe that the comparable models in the Canon and the Nikon has similar screen sizes (bigger, in this case, is always better).

 

After much research I did determine that overall the best camera for previs would be the Nikon D80, however, it was slightly out of my budget, I didn't have any lenses for it and would have to purchase all new lenses, and it relies on lens based image stabilization.

 

The Nikon D80 did have one definite strength over other systems - it has a very robust range of ISOs. This is very important when trying to match up DSLR settings to film settings. Most DSLRs have a very limited range of ISOs and so, on set, one ends up constanstly compensating for using the DSLR's next best ISO - not so with the D80!

 

As a summary, I would say DSLR previs is a powerful and effective tool for motion picture DP'ing. I personally believe that for the money the best DSLR to get for this purpose is the Sony Alpha but in a 'money is practically no object' world I would definitely spring for the D80.

 

Finally, don't forget that the depth of field that you'll get with you standard DSLR will be less than that of 16mm but greater than that of 35mm.

 

Happy Shopping,

 

Evan

Edited January 24, 2007 by Evan Winter