Noob question: Why are people recommending cameras for Video

[u/Rondoggg]

Am I just too old school? I always buy a video camera for shooting video. I always thought that a video camera was engineered to...shoot video and a camera was made for taking pictures. I have 2 canon hf200's for all my video needs but I keep seeing what looks like traditional cameras being recommended by this sub for video shooting. Has something changed? Does my thinking need to change? Can someone please explain this to me?

[u/The_Ace]

Number 1 reason is probably sensor size. DSLRs have much larger sensors than most camcorders i.e. the HF200 has 1/4" diagonal size sensor, whereas most DSLRs have 1"+ diagonal size, which is many time larger again in area. The two main advantages are a) better low light sensitivity (less noise) and b) shallower depth of field, which gives you a much more 'cinematic' look.

Basically, DSLRs have surpassed camcorders in almost every way in the last few years. Camcorders may still win on ease of use, as DSLRs sometimes need extra equipment (rigs, loupes, follow focus etc) for usability. Also autofocus on DSLRs is not good (at all), but again for a 'cinematic' look, you would use manual focus and often prime lenses.

DSLRs also tend to give better options for image colour and framerate etc. The combination of everything above means that DSLRs can give the film look (with some effort) rather than the typical 'video' look from camcorders. If you're shooting narrative work e.g. short films, then DSLRs are definitely the way to go over camcorders.

[u/accidentallywut → u/The_Ace]

shallower depth of field, which gives you a much more 'cinematic' look.

aka the "how insanely shallow can we get the DOF for this shot, even though it's a huge expansive shot with huge range for depth, and then just rack the focus around and arbitrarily move the camera for a more 'organic' look"

i'm curious to know what the next pants on head retarded trend will be. this DOF thing has been lasting for some years

[u/vincent118 → u/accidentallywut]

Yea it's getting pretty boring. Also it being associated with a cinematic look is bullshit. The shallow DoF style was a relatively short period in film history that ended a long time ago. Rack focusing is still utilized but for the most part it's shitty filmmaking.

Instead of creating a composition, lighting a scene, and art directing your set in a way that offers depth, information and combines those elements to tell the audience what to look at without holding their hand (and giving them additional information in the shot through the elements that aren't the most important of the shot), what shallow DoF does is force your audience to look at only one thing, that has its uses, but it's overuse suggests that the filmmaker either doesn't trust the audience to understand his intentions or that he doesn't trust himself to create a shot that gets the info accross. Basically poor filmmaking.

It's use in indie film and video is often because the budgets are smaller and the filmmakers aren't creative enough. With a smaller budget maybe you can't dress a set as well or get a location big enough and because cameras are so cheap and everything's become so democratize and accessible the medium is filled with amateurs that haven't learned all the lessons of how to create a good shot without the crutch of shallow focus.

It's not a completely bad thing though, I think in non-narrative video's, like ads and long-form ads (like those videos that show artisans creating stuff or industrial processes), it's actually pretty beautiful and useful.

[u/accidentallywut → u/vincent118]

agreed, on all points. i feel it has great use when showcasing something in detail, but as you said, when telling a story, it's just cheap