Welcome to filmmaking.net, Nils.

Right now there are Digital Single Lens Reflex HD video
cameras available. They aren't called DSLR cameras but
they do the exact same thing.

A camera like the JVCHM700 has a lens mount that allows
a variety of lenses like the still cameras. Canon's XL H1S
does too. On the high end you have ENG cameras like
Panasonic's HPX50.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

Thanks for the quick response!

The question I was trying to get across was that whilst technologically, high end stills cameras can now take high quality video and vice-versa, the interface is still obviously designed for one of the tasks only.

I am wondering whether there may be a place for a hybrid product? A camera which not only has the technology to take good stills and high quality video, but with a modular or adaptive interface so that it could be uniquely suited to both tasks.

RED (www.red.com) has a product that is sort of along these lines, called the Epic.

Cheers,

Nils

Hi Nils, welcome!

I believe that the product you're describing already has a place in the market, and like certified instigator brought up there are numerous cameras that already do what you've described.

However, from my experience, consumer level (or prosumer level)hybrid cameras do not have the greatest of interfaces. While I personally don't think I would be interested in one, I'm willing to be most people who would benefit from having a still and video camera in one (eg. parents) would definitely be interested in a more intuitive interface; an interface that doesn't cut corners either way would be a wonderful thing indeed.

Take my words with a grain of salt however, as I'm basing this all off of personal experience. 😉

As Corax pointed out there are three different consumers of
cameras, the professional, the working amateur and the point
and shoot general public.

The general public doesn't need a top of the line lens. The
"prosumer" would sure like to use one if the price was right.
The professional already has that option.

And the "prosumer" and professional do not need a camera
that will take both still images and video. Thought there are
many mid range cameras on the market that do both.

I feel the reason that a camera like the EOS-1D is interesting
to movie makers is the lens mount - not because it also takes
stills. And very few of the photographers I work with use the
video feature. So that brings me back to my original point.
It's the interchangeable lens that is important to movie makers
. And right now, only the mid range video cameras - above
$5,000 (3,000) - offer that. Frankly, as a professional ENG
camera operator, I have no need at all to shoot stills. In fact,
they are very different skills.

I think the design of a standard video camera has been proven
to be what people want. But if you can improve on that design
that would be brilliant!

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nils

Hi all!

I am studying for a masters in Product Design Engineering and I'm currently looking for design challenges for my final year project.

I am interested in the fact that DSLR cameras can now take HD video and the possible impact this could have on filmmakers and photographers.

Being able to shoot high quality video using a stills camera is and interesting feature, but the problem as I see it is that SLR's are designed for taking stills, so they are not as easy to use when shooting video. Current SLRs that can record video have a fairly standard interface.

I was wondering if there would be interest amongst film makers for a new design of DSLR camera with HD video capability, that was designed to maximise ease of use for both of its functions?

Cheers,

Nils

---

I had numerous discussion with the creators of the RED when they pulled out the first proto-type for testing in real world situations.

The ultimate problem with new technology has little to do with what they CAN do in terms of image quality. The biggest issues have to do with "use-ability" and workflow.

The RED, for instance, makes great pictures, but the "box" that makes them wasn't necessarily designed to be used easily by Camera Assistants or Sound people on a working set. The same goes for the new generation of SLR's which CAN shoot HD quality video. They CAN shoot high quality images, but actually using the box isn't nearly as easy as using a traditional professional video camera like an F900 or a film camera like a Panaflex or ARRI.

Great pictures are one thing. Actually being able to use the "box" in the trenches when time and money are factors is another. The DALSA was reportedly a great box that made great pictures, but it was a step backwards in terms of use-ability in the real world.

The other factor is workflow. IF you control every aspect of production, then workflow shouldn't be much of an issue. But MOST studios and post-production facilities are setup for either film or tape-based post workflows as are on-set production protocols. Simply put, the film and/or tape handoff at the end of the day has been an easy and traditional way to handle production economically and logistically. But toss in "data" with image acquisition technology, and suddenly a new layer of "backups" and "get the media (cards, harddrives) back to the Camera Department" crops up. It sounds simple, but it isn't in the real world because costs and logistics are involved that weren't before.

Digital MAY make things easier in some respects, but it adds issues that didn't exist before. That makes change to new systems (camera and post) difficult technically and logistically and financially for everyone.

Most Cameramen who OWN gear have invested thousands of dollars into their gear. And most Vendors, Studios, and Post Production Houses have invested thousands (or MILLIONS) into their equipment. No matter how much "better" a new innovation might be, there will always be resistance to change because it means a loss in income from the previous investment.

I just got back from a set in Santa Fe where the Still's Photographer was ALSO shooting behind the scenes footage with a DSLR camera. While it was "ok," she even was trying to figure out how to "use" it more like the traditional cameras which are the workhorses in the industry. The Producer who took the hard drive with her footage files has to find a way to integrate those files with the real uncompressed footage that I shot on set too.

Being ABLE to do things technically is one thing. Integrating those abilities into the real world that has financial and logistical factors involved is another.

Brian Dzyak
Cameraman/Author
IATSE Local 600, SOC
http://www.whatireallywanttodo.com
http://www.realfilmcareer.com