A Dozen Useful, Low-Budget Camera-Related Items

As you may have gathered from Ashley's recent post about art department lifesavers we have been doing some filming lately. After several days on set, I've come to deeply appreciate some small, even seemingly minor, accessories and pieces of camera-related equipment -- "kit" in industry parlance. I thought I'd discuss a few of these items, each of which is under $200. We're using a Sony FS100, a Red Rock Micro follow focus and low-rise baseplate, an assortment of Nikon lenses, and a Heliopan variable ND filter, but many of the items listed below would be at home on a DSLR-based shoot or a shoot with a more traditional video camera (Sony EX1, Panasonic HVX200, etc).

Zip tie lens gears. Lenses that were designed for stills, not cinema, lack a gear that allows them to be used with a follow focus. One solution would have been to use the gear rings that we had from Red Rock Micro. These are functional, but they have a number of disadvantages: they're large, they can be time consuming to put on/take off, and at $40 each, they're overpriced. Zip tie lens gears are inexpensive and easy-to-add to every lens you own. Once on your lens, you can forget about them. $40 for 3. 

Wet Erase Markers A good set of wet-erase markers will help you make marks on your follow focus ring. We like wet erase, not dry erase, markers because the dry erase ones will smear. $7.

Filter pouch. Our Heliopan Variable ND filter comes in a less-than-ideal case. It's a very tight fit, to the point of seeming like it could scratch or scuff the glass. We quickly bought a filter pouch to protect our investment. $9.

77mm step up rings and lens caps. We use a 77mm variable ND filter on set, which at that size has the ability to cover all of our lenses when using step-up rings. After a few days of filming with one step-up ring per size needed (e.g., a 52-to-77, a 62-to-77, etc.) we found that we were being slowed down by having to unscrew the step-up rings from lens to lens, particularly when so many of our most-used lenses (e.g., 28, 35, 50) all had a 52mm threading. So we splurged and purchased the necessary step up rings for all of our lenses. Now all of our lenses have a 77mm "face" (and accompanying lens cap). Though step up rings seem like an inexpensive piece of kit, read the reviews and buy a reputable brand like B+W, Heliopan, etc. Lesser step up rings can seize up, making that expensive variable ND filter a big headache! Step-up rings: $25 - $45.  Lens caps: $5.

Lens cleaning tools.  We switch lenses and filters often, which means more chance of dirtying them. We keep our glass clean with: Nikon Lens Pen. $7 Kimwipes. $5 Purosol Lens Cleaner. $8

Lilliput 7" 668GL On-camera HD Monitor In 2010 I read about Lilliput's small, inexpensive HD monitors. At the time, they only seemed to be sold on Ebay. I bought one off almost as a novelty, not expecting much from it since it was so much cheaper than other HD monitors on the market. While its picture is not as vivid or high resolution as that of other portable HD monitors I've used, it works, it's lightweight, and it's far more affordable. The one I bought over a year ago didn't have a battery pack like the new ones they make, so I had to buy an Ikan battery AC/DC adapter plate, which allows me to use Sony batteries with it. The new models, which you can purchase through Amazon, now come with their own battery solution and component inputs. As for its application, I tend not to use it if I'm operating camera myself, but when working with a DP or camera operator I use it as my "director's monitor." It's especially useful when filming in tight spaces (like a car -- see below) where using your camera's LCD monitor or viewfinder isn't an option.  $170.

HDMI Cables It's nice to have different lengths of HDMI cables to use with the Lilliput monitor. I've used these Insignia brand cables on set for a few weeks and haven't had any problems. One's a 9 footer, one's a 3 footer. $10.

FilmTools Gripper 116 XL car mount. Trying to shoot smooth car footage handheld , particularly with a CMOS sensor prone to "jell-o", can be a test of one's patience. This FilmTools car mount affixes to your car's windows or windshield with a large suction cup and will support cameras up to 9 pounds. $110.

Coleman LED Quad Lantern This ingenious LED lantern can be split into four smaller LED sections, which have a functionality similar to micro Litepanels at a fraction of the cost. We've used the "quads" for driving shots by hiding them on the ceiling, in the dashboard, and on the floor. Beyond driving, they're useful for any situation where you might not have access to power and don't need to light a large area. And if you need more light than one puts off, you can gaff tape them together. Though they're not necessarily color corrected like a those designed for video use, they work great if you throw a gel on them or dial in the appropriate color balance setting on your camera. Plus, when you're not filming, the lantern can be used for camping -- you can't say that about a micro Litepanel! $58.

Two-Way Radios Or, as laymen call them, "walkie talkies." I'm usually not working on a set that's so large that we all need to be outfitted with professional two-way radios and headsets. That said, it's nice to have an inexpensive set on hand for those occasions when your cast and/or crew is in different areas. I find them essential when shooting exterior car scenes (i.e., those in which the camera's outside the car, filming actors driving). It's the easiest way I know to cue talent or ask for another take. Roughly $35-$75, depending on features.

Canare breakaway cable For the uninitiated, a breakaway cable consolidates multiple XLR and mini cables into one neat cable, which can be run from a location audio mixer to a camera (or audio recorder). Though it may seem overpriced for what is seemingly a bunch of XLR and mini plug cables wrapped together, if you're using a mixer and feeding that audio into your camera the simplicity, organization, and mobility that a breakaway cable provides is well worth the cost. In addition to feeding your camera two tracks of audio with one cable, a good breakaway cable also give the sound mixer a means to listen to the "return" audio instead of the audio from the sound mixer. This is the best way to monitor the audio being mixed, so for me it's worth the investment. $190.

How to Build a Lens Collection

Today I was reading a camera discussion forum in which someone asked how to build a lens collection on a budget. He was looking for Nikon lenses to use on a Sony NEX-FS100 camera. I could relate -- I was in his position in 2006 when I started to look for Nikon glass to be used on video cameras with a Letus, on the Red One, and so on. I hadn't purchased a lens since my senior year in high school (for my venerable Pentax K-1000), and I knew only the most basic things to look for. Since then I've built up a nice collection of Nikon lenses, which now work on a host of cameras. I love my Nikons and have no regrets!

So what follows are some very basic tips I've learned on how to build a lens collection. I make a few allusions to Nikons vis-a-vis the NEX-FS100 below, but my advice could just as easily be interpolated for someone buying Canon lenses for the Red Epic or a Panasonic AF-100.

1) Determine your needs. Obviously, you need to think about what kind of coverage you want. Even if you primarily shoot wide angle footage, you probably also want a normal and a telephoto lens in your bag. But only you know your tastes. Likewise, only you know your budget. You're going to be keeping this in mind as you build a list and prioritize your needs.

But beyond these things, there are other considerations:

What cameras now and in the future, might you use these lenses on? Do your lenses need to be full-frame to be future-proof? Must they have aperture rings? I prefer having aperture rings on my lenses because I sometimes have to use "dumb" adapters (i.e., those that can't control aperture).

Since I was working with a very limited budget, for me, the most important question when I began building my collection was whether to go for primes or zooms. I primarily would be using these lenses to shoot narrative work so I opted for primes; if I was shooting a documentary, I'd want a good zoom lens (if I was shooting with the NEX-FS100, would actually just get the Sony kit lens since autofocus is nice to have in a pinch).

The thing to remember about zooms intended for still lenses is that they are often not parfocal, which means that they don't hold focus across the zoom. (Some are. You have to test to find out.) To me, a non-parfocal zoom negates at least part of the purpose of having a zoom, so that's another reason I went with primes.

2) Familiarize yourself with the lenses that are out there. Researching Nikons, I visited sites like Photozone and those by Bjorn Rorslett (go to the LENSES page and then dig deep into his reviews, especially the "Best of" page) or Ken Rockwell. Different people trust different reviewers (some people HATE Ken Rockwell, for example). But the point is this: When all the websites praise a lens, that's a pretty good sign of a winner.

I'm obsessive, so I prefer to make lists and tables of all the lenses I'm considering. It helps me keep track of what I've looked at, the (dis)advantages of each, and the price.

3) Read reviews, but with a grain of salt. Remember that if you're only going to use lenses for video, you don't have to fret about their resolving power nearly as much. A lens intended for full frame negative film or a 16MP digital camera must resolve far more detail than you'll ever get out of HD or even 4K video. For example, many lens testers worry about blurring in the corners; you don't have to worry about this quite as much since using a full frame lens on a Super35 sensor means you're using the sweetest spot of the lens.

Having said all of this, I do think you should buy the best lenses you can afford. Like microphones, and unlike video cameras, they tend to hold their value for much longer. In 20 years we may be shooting with cameras that capture 8K footage… and it's possible I could still be using my Nikons.

4) Test. Try out the lenses you're considering, especially if they're pricey. Assuming you don't have a friend who happens to have all the Nikons ever made, your two best options for testing are a) visit a fantastic photo store in your area and try out the lenses or, if you don't have a great photo store (I don't), b) rent the lenses. I've saved a lot of money by spending a few bucks to rent a bunch of lenses and then buying the one that I actually like. (I have happily used and endorse LensRentals.com. I have received no promotional consideration for that endorsement.)

5) Buy used (if possible) and buy smartly (always).

Start by finding out the going price for a used lenses by visiting KEH and the going rate for a new version on B+H or Adorama.

If KEH has the lens, and you have the money, buy a lens from them -- they grade their lenses very fairly and have a great return policy. (Again, I've received nothing from them for this endorsement.)

If they don't have it, or it's too pricey, go for one on buy on Ebay, keeping the KEH prices in mind. If you're going for AI-S lenses you can get GREAT bargains on Ebay since many photographers, needing autofocus, consider these obsolete lenses. When buying on Ebay all the usual cautions apply. Make sure the seller has fantastic ratings and that the photos clearly show the quality of the lens. Only bid on the lenses that look pristine.

Whatever you do, don't overpay! If a lens on Ebay starts approaching anything close to its price on KEH, just get it on KEH and be done with it. The return policy will be far better than the risks you take with an Ebay seller. Or wait for another auction.

6) Watch for warning signs and, if necessary, seek help. I say this jokingly, but building a lens collection can be addictive fun -- and can distract you from the real purpose of building a collection, which is to go out and film! Don't say you weren't warned.

If you have other tips or disagree with any of the above, share in the comments below.

The Panasonic GH2: Some thoughts.

I have made no secret of my frustration with DSLRs for making motion pictures. I've wanted to love them, sure. In my quest to find a small camera I could love, I've bought and sold (or returned) a Canon 7D, Panasonic GH1, and a Nikon D7000. The Canon and Nikon were each impressive in their own ways, but I gave them both up because I could never fully trust the image that I saw in their LCDs. After being burned a few times by outrageous moire that only appeared once I could view footage on a real monitor, I gave up trying to shoot with those cameras. The GH1, which I tested last summer after my frustrations with the Canon cameras, was more promising, especially with the ballyhooed firmware hack that surfaced last year. That camera didn't have problems with moire or aliasing, and its mirrorless design (the GH1 is not, technically speaking a DSLR at all) opened up the opportunity for using several different types of lenses (PL-mount cine lenses, Nikons, Canons, and many more).

Unfortunately, the camera clearly felt like the product of a "consumer" division of a large electronics company. Parts of the camera felt shoddily put together, there were reports of design issues with the lugs that held the neck strap and, worst of all, the camera exhibited a nasty fixed pattern noise problem that made any dim area in a shot have strange vertical blue streaks. Hacked or not, the camera didn't seem ready for prime time. Hope springs eternal, though. I thought, Panasonic might be onto something if only they would fix some of these glaring problems.

In December, I managed to get my hands on the GH1's successor, the still-hard-to-find Panasonic GH2, shortly after they arrived in the US. A month or so later, here are my thoughts on the camera as a tool for filmmakers.

The GH2 is not a perfect camera -- no such thing exists -- but it does fix a lot of the GH1's problems. As such, I feel like I can finally endorse a DSLR for motion picture use. (And yes, I know, it's not a DSLR. But the term "hybrid camera" just sounds weird.) I think it's the best camera you can buy for under $1000. It might be the best camera you can by for three or four times that. Lest you think this is going to be a rave review, let me lay out my curmudgeonly gripes about this camera:

- Size and build. If you are used to the rugged build quality of a Nikon D7000 or Canon 7D this camera feels like a toy. It's a bit too small for my tastes and the buttons feel a little flimsy. I'd pay $500 more for it to be as rock solid as a Nikon or Canon. Furthermore, the lug nuts that hold the shoulder mount seem to follow the same design as the GH1. There may be improvements on the inside, but simply seeing the same parts and placement doesn't inspire confidence. If you insist on wearing a neck strap, I recommend purchasing a Black Rapid RS7 strap, which screws into the camera's base.

- Lens selection. The Micro 4/3 format lacks the robust catalog of lenses that one finds with APS-C and full frame sensor cameras from Nikon and Canon. As most readers probably know, the M4/3 system effectively renders lenses with a 2x crop factor when compared with 35mm still photography. (M43 is much closer to the size of 35mm motion picture film.) Since a 20mm lens on a GH2 has the field of view of a 40mm lens on something like the Canon 5D Mk II, the question of how wide one can go with the M43 format is a legitimate question. Compounding this issue is the fact that Panasonic's "pro" M43 zooms (14-140 and the 7-14mm) are slow. Olympus makes a great couple of fast zooms (f/2.0!), but they require a 4/3-to-Micro4/3 adapter. Probably the sexiest native lens for the camera is Voigtlander's super fast 25mm f/0.95. Regardless of which of these you choose, you're spending from anywhere near $1000 to $2500 for a lens that won't work on either of the other major camera systems (e.g., Nikon or Canon). If the next great camera that comes down the road isn't a Micro 4/3 system camera, but something with a larger sensor (and this is considerably likely) an investment in M43 glass may not repay long term dividends. That said, there is a solid work-around solution. More on this later...

- Programmability. The programmable function buttons on the GH2 can only be set to engage functions that are fairly useless for filmmakers. The ability to customize the camera's buttons falls far, far short of something like the 7D.

- Power. The battery does not last long, especially if you are using a native M43 lens like the Panasonic 14-140 that ships with some kits. That lens has image stabilization and it drains the battery fast. Even with lenses that don't pull power you'll need to buy at least a couple more batteries. And you'll probably also want a AC/DC power adapter. Panasonic doesn't seem to be making or selling those yet, so chalk that up as yet another (hopefully temporary) frustration associated with the camera.

- Documentation. The acronym RTFM takes on new meaning here, as the manual included is one of the most poorly written technical documents I've ever read. I hope the authors never try their hand at writing the instructions for heart defibrillators or how to perform CPR. Compounding this fact, the American edition is not available as a PDF. I resorted to essentially writing my own translated version of the manual for the camera and threw out the "official" one Panasonic.

- Gamma Shift. The camera has a strange bug in which the gamma shifts after you press the record button. Will this be fixed by a firmware update? Who knows. If it came from Panasonic's pro electronics division, I would expect one. Coming from the consumer division I have less confidence, particularly since releasing firmware could open the camera to another firmware hack. (Don't get me started about the idea that a company wouldn't want its users to tinker with, and better, its products.)

- Recording Media. I'm not crazy about using SD cards. CF cards (like those used by the Canon 7D and 5D Mark II) are are more rugged and they're harder to lose. But the D7000, as well as the Canon 60D, T2i, and even the Panasonic AF-100 use SD cards, so I guess I need to get over this. SD cards are less expensive, I'll give them that.

- Recording standard. Though it may not affect us Yanks, there is no 25P mode for PAL users. I can't understand why Panasonic would be so short sighted as to ignore this feature.

- So-so stills. As a stills camera, the GH2 isn't going to compete with something like a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 7D or 5D Mark II. But this fact doesn't bother me so much. My photography is mainly limited to location scouting, holiday snapshots, and photos around my home, documenting the change of seasons and the comings and goings of friends, family, and animals. The GH2 is enough for me, but if you want a camera for serious, professional photography, you will probably look elsewhere. Personally, if I needed something heftier, a Nikon D7000 or a Canon 7D would suit me fine. Though they are more expensive cameras, they're not that much pricier, and you get what you pay for.

Yet, most these complaints have work arounds, particularly when you consider what the GH2 has going for it over other DSLRs:

+ No more rainbows. Far less -- and far, far less offensive -- moire. It's simply not an issue. I don't worry about it. At all. I actually feel like I can trust the image I see in the LCD or viewfinder. What a concept!

+ Less aliasing. 'Nuff said.

+ No overheating. The camera acts as if it actually wants to stay on and let you continue filming as long as you want.

+ Sharper. I've not shot any charts, but to my eyes the image looks sharper than that of the Canons and Nikon, particularly on wide shots.

+ Adjustable LCD. Like the GH1 before it (and like the Canon 60D), an adjustable LCD means you can put your camera in tight spaces and continue to watch the footage. Plus, you can see your footage in bright daylight; there is no need to purchase a Z-finder (or similar).

+ ETC mode. The camera's 2X crop "ETC mode" gives you, in effect, two lenses for every one you own. I find it only somewhat usable because of the increased noise, but no other camera (that I'm aware of) even has such a feature and it's far better than any digital zoom.

+ 24p filming. This is an improvement on the GH1, in that cinema mode filming isn't contained in an interlaced wrapper. It's true progressive.

+ No fixed pattern noise. This is the GH2's biggest improvement over the GH1. There's no need to try to use voodoo on your camera to make the noise go away.

Also, for those that want it, the GH2 has autofocus in video mode when using native M43 lenses. I don't care about AF and I've found it to be slower than advertised. But it does work.

As I see it, these are all very big gains over most other DSLRs.

Finally, let me address two issues others have raised about the Micro 4/3 format:

One complaint is that the sensor is too small to get shallow depth of field. Eh, this is not much of an issue to me. First, you can get shallow DoF with the camera. It's far more than you're used to with any 1/3" or 2/3" video camera. Can you get razor thin DoF like on the Canon 5D Mk II? No. That's a VistaVision sized sensor, there's no comparison. But having your subject in focus is, these days, a somewhat underrated concept. Micro4/3 strikes a nice balance between allowing you to render backgrounds out of focus and allowing your performers room to move.

As for the complaint about lenses -- which I myself made above -- so far I have found that the best price/performance option is to purchase manual focus Nikon glass (say, a 20mm, 28mm, 50mm, 85mm, and a 105mm) along with a Nikon-to-Micro4/3 adapter. You can even get an adapter for Nikon G-series lenses (i.e., lenses without an aperture ring), which would be most useful with something like a Tokina 11-16 f/2.8 lens. Users of Canon glass are limited to something like a Kipon adapter, which fakes an aperture, only somewhat successfully. The great thing about Nikon glass is that it's usable on Canon cameras, too, as well as, of course, Nikons. Should either of those manufacturers step up and invent the next great HDSLR, you won't miss a beat.

In the end, I would say the GH2 is a step forward for DSLR filmmaking. Even if I can't help but feeling at times like it succeeds in spite of itself (or, more accurately, in spite of its manufacturer) I like the camera and the image it produces. But, it's just a camera. If you've been making films with the 7D or the T2i -- or whatever camera -- and you love it, well, use that. There is no need to switch if something is working for you. If, however, you're a filmmaker that, like me, has longed to work with DSLRs because of their small form factor, but you've been put off by their frustrations, the GH2 is worth a look.

DSLRs, "Democratic Technology" and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 2

This is the second of two posts considering the rewards and challenges of using DSLRs for cinema work. If you've not read the first post, start there. At the end of the last post we had assembled a Canon 7D camera, a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 lens with Image Stabilizer, a Zoom H4N audio recorder, and PluralEyes software to help us sync the picture and sound in Final Cut Pro. The cost: $3230. I hesitate to call this a "bare bones" package since it doesn't even include a tripod or microphones. It does, however, get you picture and sound.

But you get picture and sound with a pixelvision camera. My intention with these posts is to compare DSLRs to a more traditional prosumer camcorder. And we still have a ways to go before it's a fair comparison. So let's continue...

For starters, the Sony and Panasonic cameras have ND filters built into their cameras. And while there may be some optional kit with the Canon DSLR rigs, ND is not one of them. Not, at least, if you want that creamy shallow DoF cinema look, which is probably the reason you bought the Canon in the first place.

Some people, including Philip Bloom, swear by the FaderND, which cuts out between 2 and 8 stops of light. If you find it on Ebay you'll pay around $125. Very cool!

Others, though, argue that the FaderND can make color correction a problem later on. Indeed, the quality of your lens is reduced if you put inexpensive glass in front of it. (Or, as Shane Hurlbut warns, "beware the reaper of cheap glass"!) So if you do want to be careful, you would need to budget between $275 and $450 for a set of high quality Tiffen "Water White" IR ND filters.

If you've got multiple lenses with different filter ring sizes you'll need to purchase step-down rings. But for now, we're assuming we only have one lens.

Let's throw caution to the wind and go with the Fader ND. That puts us at $3355.

We also need to power the camera and record to something. So we need some CF cards and we need some batteries.

We would obviously need batteries if were were going with a more all-in-one solution (i.e., an actual video camera) like Sony or Panasonic. But in my experience the batteries supplied by these manufacturers last about 2x as long as those supplied by Canon, in part because the Canons weren't really built for, you know, constant video footage. And, a manufacturer like Sony or Panasonic supplies an AC adapter so you can run your camera off wall power. Canon does no such thing. So to be fair, we'll add the cost of two batteries ($156), even though you'll actually need four or five to shoot a day's worth of footage.

As far as CF cards are concerned, for a starter package, we'll figure you need 32GB of CF memory. That's about $77. Hurlbut makes a compelling argument that you should use lots of 8GB cards instead, but we'll stick with one card, which gives you about the same recording time as the 16GB SxS card that comes supplied with the Sony Ex1R (roughly an 1 hour).

What are we up to now? $3588.

Finally, in my experience, I've found you need some sort of way to monitor your footage. The on camera LCD focusing system is not large enough to accurately focus on the fly. And it is often impossible to use in broad daylight.

The focusing issue is, for some, a real deal breaker, and for good reason: Everyone I know that has used this camera has shot footage that appeared to be in focus but, upon later inspection on an actual monitor, learned that the take was a bust. You have to be very careful about monitoring your footage, and you need to check every shot on a large monitor (Hurlbut recommends a 24" LCD) before you move on to the next setup.

I'm not going to include the cost of the 24" LCD. We're going bare bones here. So we're going to use a Zacuto Z-Finder ($395), which magnifies the camera's LCD viewfinder.

Another option is to use an external monitor while shooting. The advantage is, obviously, a larger viewing area to judge focus. The disadvantage is that once you add an external monitor (with battery pack, HDMI cable, and hardware) you lose the small, stealthy DSLR form-factor. Good monitors are expensive, too, often averaging around $800-$1000. The cheapest possible monitor option, however, gives the Zacuto Z-finder a run for its money. That monitor is the Lilliput 669GL.

The Lilliput is only $220, but you'll need a battery solution. I recommend the Ikan 107S or P ($68) depending on whether you already might have some Sony or Panasonic batteries. And you'll need a special MiniHDMI-to-HDMI cable ($12). And you'll need an arm (Ikan's MA206 is the cheapest somewhat decent solution at $70) to mount the monitor to your camera.

The total cost of the Lilliput option as I've described it is around $350. If you need Sony or Panasonic batteries to power it (and a charger to charge the batteries) then your total will exceed that of the Z-finder. So let's just add $395 for the Z-finder and be done with it.

By the way, I've not been tallying shipping costs on these items, but lots of places like Amazon, B+H, and Adorama offer free shipping on certain items, so you might get lucky.

I think this does it for a bare bones kit. Remember, my estimates do not include the things you'll need to actually shoot for an entire day -- things like extra batteries, multiple CF cards, a camera bag or case(s), a shoulder mount, or a tripod. Nor does it include things like quick release plates for your tripod and shoulder mount. Nor does it include any sort of rod system or a follow focus, which you may want since the whole purpose behind using these cameras is to have that all-important shallow depth of field.

The final total? $3983.

That's twelve dollars cheaper than Panasonic's HPX-170.

So the question is, which do you want?

Traditional low-level professional camcorder: - not a stills camera - less cinematic depth of field - fixed lens - somewhat video-ish handling of light + actual HD resolution + accurate focusing + less pronounced jell-o problems + single-system sound with XLR inputs +/- all in one build (pros: it's meant to be used this way; cons: looks like a video camera) + solid HD codec + stability/durability as a camera intended for video

Canon DSLR: + great stills camera + cinematic shallow depth of field + option of interchangeable lenses + beautiful handling of light - difficult-to-edit codec with "reversal film" (i.e., limited) flexibility - less-than-HD resolution - issues obtaining accurate focus - aliasing and moiré problems - jell-o problems - double system sound with separate sound recorder +/- modular build (pros: pick what you need; cons: you're only a strong as your weakest link) - some overheating problems*

* Did I mention that there have been some issues with overheating since video on these DSLR's is so demanding? If the camera overheats, it may not work for a while. One solution is to have another camera body on hand (+ $1700).

***

Look, I'm not advocating one camera over another. And I am not trying to diss on the DSLR revolution. I'm just trying to cut through the hype to talk realistically about the choices that exist for a low-budget filmmaker.

Cameras -- like life, art, and love -- are full of compromises. The question is, what are the compromises you can deal with, and what are the deal breakers?

Just how badly do you want that bokeh?

Are you willing to sacrifice reliability?

Are you willing to risk losing half a day's worth of work?

Are you willing to endure slow-downs because you have to re-shoot footage?

If so, how much?

I don't have the answers. At the beginning of this series I said I was ambivalent. And I meant it. I haven't made up my mind about these cameras. I doubt I will. It will be a case-by-case, project-by-project thing.

I think there will be some times where these cameras are appropriate for me to use. They're great for clandestine filming. I like them for filming in/with/around cars. I like the way they handle close-ups. If I was single-handedly making a shot-for-shot remake of The Passion of Joan of Arc, this would be my camera. (Hmm…)

But if I had to choose only one camera to own, a DSLR would probably not be it. I won't even consider it for documentary, or documentary style, filming because of the shallow focus and overheating issues, never mind the moire and jello.

Do I think DSLRs are game-changing technology? Only sorta. These cameras have been handicapped by the corporation that produces them. Whether intentionally or not, it doesn't matter. Either way, it's the same old corporate routine. Call it the corporate camera cha-cha: One step forward, one step back. What has people intrigued about DSLRs is that the steps forward and back are not the ones we're used to.

With time maybe I'll come around to love these cameras whole-heartedly, but even if that happens I will not argue that DSLRs have "democratized" filmmaking in any meaningful way:

First, as I think I've demonstrated, at their current price point these cameras aren't that much cheaper than other things on the market. When we talk about "democratized technology" we must be talking, on one level, about cost. And on this score, they do not pass the test. (The T2i makes a somewhat better case, but it's also the most handicapped of the bunch.)

Secondly, DSLRs -- as they are currently designed -- actually require more know-how to use effectively than other cameras that can be used for filmmaking. In this sense, DSLRs are actually less "democratic" than other existing movie-making technologies.

Finally, even if -- especially if -- I allow that these DSLRs are getting more people to make movies, let me address a bigger point:

"Democratized" technology serves little purpose if it isn't being used in the service of stories that otherwise couldn't be told. Otherwise, what's the point of democratizing it?

Put another way, if you have the means to make a movie, and you only use that technology (not to mention your time and talent) to make another frigging zombie movie, well, pardon me for not caring. If the storytelling is out of focus, who cares how beautiful the bokeh is?

DSLRs, Democratic Technology and The Cost of Bokeh: Part 1

DSLR filmmaking has been much ballyhooed in the last year or so. Cameras like the Canon 5D Mark II and Canon 7D have been hailed as the lastest in a long line of "democratizing" motion picture technology -- inexpensive cameras that produce cinematic, shallow depth of field images that seem to rival the look produced by cameras costing many times more. There were two reasons I was didn't jump on the DSLR filmmaking bandwagon from the start. For one thing, in the last year I have been working on a lot of other projects, none of which involved needing to worry about how to use a new camera (finishing up a documentary and two DVD releases, raising money for a feature, and writing a script). Another reason was, frankly, I was skeptical. I saw photos of filmmakers dressing the cameras like this:

If that's what you had to do to get it to work, I wasn't interested.

As I mentioned in my previous post, though, I did recently decide to experiment with these cameras. And my uninformed skepticism has developed into experience-grounded ambivalence.

After a few months of wrestling with the cameras (especially the Canon 7D), I find them as frustrating as they are inspiring. Yes, I love the way they handle light. I love the lens interchangeability. I love their form factor, (at least initially).

But, as has been well documented elsewhere, these cameras have serious issues. Focus can be a challenge with their small LCDs. They're prone to the "jello" effect. They shoot on a codec that is a challenge to edit and even more challenging to color grade. And, most frustratingly, they have major issues with aliasing, particularly moire, which is often not even observable while shooting.

Sure, I've had busted takes with other cameras -- under-exposed shots on film that didn't come out, shots that were a little soft in HD, or whatever. But DSLRs are built (or not built) for movie-making in such a way that you can very conceivably shoot for a significant period of time only to later discover that all of your footage is unusable. Not "disappointing" -- unusable. Or perhaps you find something like this acceptable. (Note: I did not shoot this.)

To put it bluntly, these cameras have more red flags than a month's worth of World Cup games. They carry a lot of risk for any serious project.

Because there are some undeniably awesome uses for these cameras, though, I have educated myself -- by reading, by watching, by shooting -- to find ways of working around their many, many problems. And I've learned to produce some nice footage.

But many of the techniques I've used to mitigate the problems involve spending more money, making the cameras bigger, and so on.

Fixing the problems often means taking away the very properties that make these DSLR cameras so seductive for filmmaking in the first place.

So in this post and the next I want to deal honestly with the basic costs of DSLR filmmaking and to consider whether these costs are worth the benefits.

It's possible some DSLR acolytes will disagree with, or even have their feathers ruffled, by my writings about this technology.

That's fine. These are my opinions alone and no camera is right for every person, at every time, for every project. But I think that by now this blog has established my credentials as a champion of smaller, less expensive, and simpler technology for movie-making. If I'm being critical, it's probably for good reason.

So, today's post will begin to consider the "cost of bokeh", since their shallow depth of field is often touted as the leading reason for using these cameras.

My next post will finish pricing out the camera and accessories. I'll also offer some thoughts on the notion of this technology as a "democratizing" force.

But enough prelude. What do we need to shoot motion pictures effectively with a DSLR?

Let's start by going with a Canon 7D since it sits in the middle of Canon's DSLR line, with the T2i at the bottom and the 5D Mark II and 1D Mark IV at the top. The 7D averages around $1700. That sounds like a bargain when you put it next to a traditional prosumer camcorder like the Sony EX-1R ($6300) or the Panasonic HPX170 ($3995).

(By the way, if you want to consider the costs with a 5D Mark II, which has an even larger sensor, add about $800 to our totals.)

Then you need a lens. If you want to want to get that shallow DoF then you need a lens that opens wide. And since many people have had good experiences using Canon's Image Stabilized lenses, which seem to reduce some of the jello effect, we'll go with Canon’s 17-55 IS f/2.8 lens. It's been well reviewed and costs about $1100.

Since we're trying to do this inexpensively, we're only going to use one lens. If you want to take advantage of the Canon's interchangeability (with, say, a cool Tokina 11-16MM), those are additional costs.

Some DIY filmmakers looking to get by on the cheap blanch at paying $1100 for a lens, but that's nothing compared to a cine lens. In fact, just because you spent $1100 on that 17-55 f/2.8 doesn't mean it'll necessarily look sharp on the big screen. Shane Hurlbut, ASC argues that the only lenses Canon makes that are sharp enough for big screen work are their L-series primes. (Expect to pay $1300 or so for each prime and only the longer range lenses have Image Stabilization.) But we're going to trust others' reviews of the 17-55, which say it's one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes.

(As a side note, you could go with Nikon AI-series still lenses. They're both cheaper and are said to be sharper. But in my experience, you'll need to buy a good Fotodiox Pro adapter [$70 each] to use them effectively. Plus, when you want to use your Canon DSLR as a stills camera, you'll have no autofocus or auto exposure control, so I'm leaving them out of the conversation for now.)

We're doing good so far, but sound, as they say, is half the picture.

While, technically speaking, one may record sound with the Canon, its sound capabilities are far from what you'd get with a prosumer camcorder (e.g., no XLR inputs, no level control, etc.). There is lots of work on Vimeo featuring beautiful shallow-focus images of flowers and so on, much of it set to cool music. But if you want to make movies, you know, where people talk and stuff, you've got to upgrade your sound.

I'm not going to count the cost of XLR cables, microphones, etc. since you would need that stuff with a traditional camcorder. Instead, we'll just look at adding an adequate sound recording device. A lot of people using the Canon for DSLR cinema use the Zoom H4n recorder. It's about $280. (If I were buying, I'd spend the extra $250 and get the Marantz PMD661 because it's easier to use. But that's just me.) An alternative is to use something like a Beachtek or JuicedLink adapter, but I don't like the idea of all my location sound hinging on a single mini plug going into something that was primarily designed as a stills camera.

With the Zoom recorder (or similar) remember, you're shooting double system. As such, you'll need to slate your shots and spend lots of time in post syncing up your slates. (Or, if you don't, reading peoples' lips.) A time-saving solution is PluralEyes, which syncs your double system footage for you. Your time is worth something; PluralEyes has valued it at $150.

What's the tally so far? $3230.

Oh. But we're ready to make movies, right?

Yes and no. We may have picture and sound, but it may not be useable yet. But we'll save that discussion for the next post.