|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-SLR chat
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-13-2009 11:05 AM
quote: Julio Roberto
Just look at some of the movies that have been theatrically released, such as this in 2007 in 1,200 screens titled Sarah Landon and the paranormal hour, yet have been shot in $4000 domestic cameras, such as the panasonic HVX200, which is like 1/4 of the overall quality levels we are talking about here.
Julio, you're talking about low budget, indie stuff -much of which can't find a distributor, even for straight-to-video release. Those kinds of projects are often patched together and also often look like crap. I have a hard enough time looking at that stuff on channels like IFC much less shell out upwards of $10 to watch grungy video blown up on a big movie screen.
Professional broadcast work environments and bigger budget movie releases demand truly professional quality equipment be used. A D-SLR camera isn't going to work as a replacement for equipment that works much faster, more flexible and with better quality results. Even the Panasonic HVX200 isn't going to be acceptable in those regards either.
quote: Julio Roberto
Coraline used the D80 and its a professional product (and in 3D)... What more proof do you need that you can use a "domestic" camera to obtain similar quality levels as 2K DCI?
A stop-motion animated movie project is extremely different from regular movie production. Still cameras work in that regard because you're shooting only one frame of action at a time using a bunch of puppets and other inanimate objects.
A project like Coraline still costs a lot of money to execute for many other reasons. The still cameras used to photograph the movie are among the least costly elements of the process.
quote: Julio Roberto
So we don't explain technology to each other, let me tell you that I have worked in (major) TV postproduction for 15 years, so I already know.
I've also worked in broadcast television and have 20 years worth of computer graphics experience. I'm very familiar with the capabilities and limits of various kinds of computing hardware.
Cheap consumer level computer hardware isn't getting full 1080p HD done at 4:4:4 uncompressed levels. And it certainly is not going to work in the fast turnaround times demanded in professional broadcast and film production. Bleeding edge equipment is required for that.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-13-2009 09:16 PM
Mark,
By your own admission, your SSD drives are:
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
and write speed of 80-93 MBPS
which is about consistant with most cheap stuff in the market (but there's also plenty of cheap stuff that reaches 90-120)
And, by your own admission, you are comparing to your enterprise class 10k WD (you don't mention the specific model) drives.
This graph and article benchmark the a Western Digital Velociraptor 10k Sata drive.
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/storage/WD_Raptor_150GB_10K/images/fullsize/hdtune-raptor.jpg
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/storage/WD_Raptor_150GB_10K/
The short version:
-WD 10k drive 52min/83max (remember it's min we are concerned about for streaming capture)
-By your own admission of your SSD samsung drive: 80-93
Since we are interested in minimun sustained performance, it's 52 against 80 (your number). A 65% improvement. But remember I was thinking of regular 7.2K drives, not top of the line 10k/15k drives.
While there are SOME ssd models that came out with really poor sequential write numbers at the beginning of the solid state "rollout", that was but a forgotten memory like DCI 1.3K projectors ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Samsung new models boast a >160MB sustained sequential write speed (according to first benchmarks, close to 200MB/s!!!), twice the amount we are talking about here. It's out in mass production now, but only inside some laptops so far.
http://www.guru3d.com/news/samsung-breaks-transfer-speed-barrier-on-256gb-ssd/
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/05/25/samsung.256gb.ssd/
And Mark, I thought you didn't buy Korean stuff!!!!!
Don't worry. Intel or the japanese SSD's are almost just as fast and all of them over 120MB writes.
So there. And remember I was thinking about 7.2k drives when I made that statement.
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I have them in my laptops because of their ultra low power consumption.. I get over an extra hour on my XPS M-1210 laptop and I've even installed a PATA SSD in my older HP tablet
I'm surprised to hear. It contradicts my experience with mass storage in laptops and that of others:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-hdd-battery,1955.html
quote:
The SSD Power Consumption Hoax: Flash SSDs Don’t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime – they Reduce It
Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.
Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?
No, our results are definitely correct. We’ve looked at almost a dozen different flash SSDs from seven vendors over the last few months, and measured acceptable or sometimes even disappointing power requirements with most flash SSDs. In an effort to determine the actual impact on notebook systems, we took four SSDs that we had available in our test lab, and ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook. We found runtime differences of up to one hour (!) when using a flash SSD compared to a high-performance 7,200 RPM 2.5” notebook hard drive.
Laptop drives, as you know, are usually 4.5k or 5.4k (or 7.2k too, of course) and particularly low consumption.
Most SSD drives use quite a bit more power than 2.5" mechanical IN PRACTICE. That is a known fact and you certainly can't say that most SSD are lower consumption than most laptop drives. Some are, though, and more and more are coming out that match or beat average power use of 2.5" drives, but it's not the general rule today, so it's not something you can openly recommend to people. This will change soon in the future though, and indeed SSD should generally surpass most HD at some point in reduced power usage.
On the other side, it is true and recommendable that SSD drives are generally faster than most hard drives under most circunstances and in most tasks, with your usual particular exceptions.
Again, I retract my previous statement (which I only made for the sake of briefness) that SSD drives were "twice as fast as mechanical drives". I know claim that average SSD drives are 80% faster than average mechanical drives for most tasks, some are 120% faster, some only 60%. They may be much more or much less for specific tasks.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-13-2009 09:45 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Nope! I just won't buy Chineese
You are right, it was only Korean's car you didn't buy ![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f8/t005616/p5.html
[last post on that page]
Remember that conversation we had about polarizers? I got a quote from a Singapore (not chinese ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) manufacturer. Too low to even mention. I was surprised at the price of 3D glasses, and I don't usually get surprised by them, as a partner and I set up a small factory in the 80's to service the spanish market during the 3D craze and sold millions.
I used windows7 (clean install) on one home machine for about two weeks. Had to revert it back to xp. It crashed too much. Pbbly from some blackmagic cards or some other hardware inside, but it didn't feel solid. I also run into the win7 hdmi installation bug, and had to use the analog video monitor to complete the installation.
So no win7 beta for me yet. Too much trouble until they clean it up a bit more. Besides, a lot of the stuff here is Linux anyway.
I only use 1 single SSD (Mitron) as scratch disk for home stuff. That one is under XP, but since the OS basically doesn't touch it (much) as it's only for some applications scratch. I find the SSD too expensive and a small raid can do the same for far less and far more capacity. But now, if you ask me how many hard drives I have, I honestly don't know, but at least 10 or 12 500GB and at least 6 or 7 1TB and a couple of 1.5TB and pbbl some dozen or so old ones offline with some footage inside at 300/250GB each. At work (recently retired) we used to put all the stuff on exabytes, but also left plenty of stuff in HD's as backups. Hundreds and hundreds. No SSD's except in some special projects (i.e. a Museumm a/v show).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-08-2009 12:43 PM
If you already have some Nikon glass, then obviously Nikon would be the way to go. The D90 is popular, but if you could afford spending extra I'd rather have the D700 for its 35mm full frame sized sensor. The D90 does shoot 720p HD video though. The D90 shoots 12.9 megapixel images, while the D700 shoots 12.1 megapixel photos. However, the pixel size on the D700 is quite a bit larger, which can make a noticeable difference on image quality. Plus the D700 will see the full view of 35mm SLR lenses, not a cropped view like most DSLR cameras. Nikon's new D5000 camera seems to me like a watered down version of the D90.
I'm a little surprised Nikon hasn't beefed up the pixel counts on some of their less expensive camera bodies. To get over the 20 million pixel level you have to spend nearly $8000 on a D3x body.
Canon has a few new camera bodies for difference price ranges. The Digital Rebel T1i/500D obviously is an entry level DSLR. The EOS 50D is a significantly better camera. The T1i has a 12.2 megapixel sensor. The 50D has a 15.1 megapixel sensor.
I bought a EOS 5D Mark II a couple months ago and am very happy with it. It has a 21 megapixel full frame sensor, but even with that resolution the pixels on its sensor are still larger than the pixels on my old Digital Rebel XTi. That results in pictures that are sharper and more colorful. The camera body is kind of expensive though, $2700 for the body alone or $3500 for a "kit" that includes the 24-105mm f/4L image stabilized lens.
Canon has also just released the EOS 7D. Despite the single digit numbering, this is not a full frame sensor camera. It has a 1.6 crop factor just like the less expensive Canon models. However, it one ups the EOS 50D in a number of areas. It has a 18 megapixel sensor and adds more auto focus points.
The 7D can shoot HD video just like the 5D can, but adds more choices. You can shoot in 1080p in 24 or 30 fps rates and apparently can even shoot 720p in 25 and 50 fps modes. Canon also adjusted the frame rates so they correspond with frame rates of other video cameras (30 fps at 29.98 fps instead of dead on 30fps seen from the 5D).
Image quality wise, the 5D Mark II still handily beats the 7D due to its larger sensor and much larger pixel size. But the 7D costs $1000 less.
Regarding lenses, I think you just have to buy according to what system you adopt. I can't imagine buying anything other than Nikon glass if I owned a Nikon body. The same holds true for Canon. Their L-series lenses are better than just about anything made with an EOS EF-mount.
If I wasn't about to shell out a serious amount of money for a new tripod, ball head, L-plate and some other stuff, I'd be considering adding another L-series lens or two to my collection. Canon has a new 100mm macro with a new image stabilization system. I've always wanted a copy of their acclaimed, razor sharp 135mm f/2.0L lens. I'm not so sure about the 100-400mm L-series zoom. It's aperture goes from f/4.5 to 5.6 which is fairly slow. I've seen a good number of complaints about its friction ring and dust getting into the lens possibly due to its push pull design. At 400mm, I'm a little more inclined to get a prime lens. I just wish I could afford the 400mm f/2.8L.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 10-08-2009 02:14 PM
Thanks for the info Bobby...you definitely seem to prefer Canon. To be honest, Canon has never wronged me...I even won a photo contest with my AE-1 once upon a time...however I've personally always preferred my Nikon over it in just about all respects (image quality, build quality, lens quality...)...mind you this is based on '70s equipment which probably has no resemblance to today's equipment at all.
While I do have Nikkor lenses (both taking and dark room), I'm not sure that should be the reason for the D-SLR camera...will I really use my 50mm f/1.4 lens on a D-SLR body? Or my 28mm f/2.8 or the 135 f/2.8. I really love all of those lenses and have used them a lot over the years on film. However, I would presume that the newer lenses bring a lot to the table and hopefully are of equal or higher quality...though do note a lack of speed in most of the modern lenses (you'll note that none of my "F" lenses are the slowest in their categories. Then again, once upon a time ASA speed was a challenge. Much of my photography has been done at ASA-400 for B&W and 64 up to 400 for color. Faster lenses have been key for me in the past to work with the, then, available films as well as any filtering I may have applied to the lens itself (typically a yellow on B&W or an 85 if shooting on tungsten slide, outdoors).
I'm thinking that it may be between the D90 and the D700. I'm wondering what the D700 will bring to ME over the D90. I'm not shooting like I used to but definitely want to capture family photos better than a point-n-shoot but also take some high-end pictures when the need presents itself.
Steve
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
.
Printer-friendly view of this topic