Why DSLR cannot take movies
- Thread starter IIOII
- Start date
- Status
IIOII said:
That was not a smart move!
a DSLR is NOT a Digicam!
DSLR for Photos
Digicam for photos and movies
Videocamera for movies!
Just leave it at that, dont even bother getting technical!
Oh dont forget the trusty handphone camera and video!
DLSR started with no live preview in the earlier times. Now some already have live preview. Soon, DSLR will be able to take video too - estimate 2 years from now. ;p ;p ;p
fireframe said:
Yup, and when its up you cannot see anything, so you do not really know what you are going to record if this feature was available of course.
If I remember the fundamental concept of single-lens reflex correctly, you view through the same lens (via a mirror) as the film or the CCD/CMOS. Based on this concept, how can you view through the lens when mirror is lock up for video taking.
Maybe you can view from the LCD for DSLR. But then, can you still call it single-lens refex per se?
Maybe you can view from the LCD for DSLR. But then, can you still call it single-lens refex per se?
IIOII said:
You mean you actually see the real image from the lens and not reproduce on some LCD inside the viewfinder. Looking at the way electronics moving into cameras, it might be possible some day that the real image of single lens reflex is the only benefit left for DSLR, perhaps. But nothing can substitute the real image when you going for polarisation, 3D assessment, accurate contrast, exposure compensation etc. You think so?
ExplorerZ said:
the dslr images are already so pretty and nice already, so if they can record videos, their videos will also be dam pretty and nice...
if thats the case, ppl wont buy their video recorders anymore..those canon XL-1 etc..
they wont go and kick their own butts...at least at the moment now
single lens reflex is NOT an issue. Just follow olympus e330 and add one more mirror and every issue is solved.
Voila!
if thats the case, ppl wont buy their video recorders anymore..those canon XL-1 etc..
they wont go and kick their own butts...at least at the moment now
single lens reflex is NOT an issue. Just follow olympus e330 and add one more mirror and every issue is solved.
Voila!
wildstallion said:
not true. A DSLR can be made to record movies even for the fact that it have a reflex mirror.
What's stopping the mirror to stay up and have a "liveplay" + record function straight from the sensor.
Even a semi transparent mirror can be used the be above is bypassed.
The 2 main reason current DSLRs cannot record video is....1, the AF sensor is located below, thus once the mirroe flips up the AF can no longer function. 2. IIRC it requires sensors that are able to do "binning"... ie. to merge a few pixels into 1 output. (so far I tink only fevron can do that). And to Bin a 10MP sensor into something lesser that 1MP takes a lot of estate on the sensor.... wan a noisy 10MP DSLR or a DSLR that dun hav video function.
An innovative use of DSLR in filmmaking is a movie like Corpse Bride by Tim Burton. Nikon lenses mated to 24 Canon 1DmkII cameras were used to film the entire movie.
A guess. For movies, the sensor has to do inline frame transfer, maybe reading 1 row of image data at a time, but this requires additional electonics and use up some space on the sensor which could be used to gather light. Since DSLR is meant to produce the best possible image quality, it does away with the "unnecessary" electronics and cannot do inline frame transfer. Instead it does "full frame transfer" where all image data is read "at once". Maybe a DSLR that can take movies is possible if it has a frame rate of 30 frames/sec.
As for the mirror blocking.. probably the mirror (and the optical viewfinder) would be unnecessary if the sensor can take movies (meaning "live view" is possible) and AF can use image data from the image sensor itself instead if the mirror is not there to block it?
Just a guess.
As for the mirror blocking.. probably the mirror (and the optical viewfinder) would be unnecessary if the sensor can take movies (meaning "live view" is possible) and AF can use image data from the image sensor itself instead if the mirror is not there to block it?
Just a guess.
IIOII said:
CYRN said:
I know, I'm assuming he doesn't have a couple of hundred thousand dollars to spend on this number of bodies and lenses.
theRBK said:nothing is impossible...just that at the current state of technology and cost levels, the camera companies have decided not to do it...
How so? Please explain.
The reason i asked is you see all the consumers digi cam can record movies, yet the professional cams which cost much more does not, i think the pro cameras users is short change.
One thing i am dam sure, if they have movies functions on pro cameras, a lot of the pro camera users will become fantastic movie directors; if so many of you can take such beautiful pictures with the pro cams, imagine what you can do with a video camera!!!
There will be an explosion of short films with the best cinematic shots ever!!!
By the way, most pro cam users have the best lens for shooting movies than any video camera, and the sensor of most this camera is larger and better (resolution) than the old 8mm film or any other video format
One thing i am dam sure, if they have movies functions on pro cameras, a lot of the pro camera users will become fantastic movie directors; if so many of you can take such beautiful pictures with the pro cams, imagine what you can do with a video camera!!!
There will be an explosion of short films with the best cinematic shots ever!!!
By the way, most pro cam users have the best lens for shooting movies than any video camera, and the sensor of most this camera is larger and better (resolution) than the old 8mm film or any other video format
- Status
Similar threads
