Help me chose a Camera - Strange T2I questions

Pedro Monteiro

Pedro Monteiro

Hello guys,

First and foremost, I am very grateful that I stumbled upon this website while trying to aborve as much information as I could about independent film making, more specifically the technical side of things.
I have a background in Web Development, which includes creation of Flash animations as well as some limited film editing. While I really enjoy my work, my passion has always resides somewhere else, in Film making. Story telling has always been something that I have been interested in, and this passion has been turning into quite an obsession as I get older.
So I decided to go for it, and create my first short film. I already have the story line in place, just need to turn it into a script and film it. The casting has already been done, and the film will consist in solely 2 actors that have already agreed to work with me pro bono.

I have zero experience with cameras, but since I have worked in production for so long, shound't be hard to pick up. (hopefully) Now, I have been reading a lot f topics on these forums, and it seems as if the Canon T2i is a very good choice for a low budget short film. I looked at various footage of the camera and it looks very good, but one thing that concerns me, and that might sound rather silly... is that the video camera looks like a digital still camera. I have never pictured a film being filmed with a device that looked so .. unimpressive. Now don't get me wrong, I know how bad this sounds, but isn't a camera supposed to be robust?

Also, is the quality difference between the T2i and cameras like the Canon XH A1S and the Panasonic AG-HVX200 very significant?

I am looking for that cinematic look of a 35mm lens, how much would this lens cost me for the T2i? And does the lens come with the camera or do I need to buy it as an accessory?

Final question about the T2y, the fact that its so small, doesn't it make is harder to hold while filming? I have seen one of those frameworks where you can attach the camera, but it will cost around 1000 usd, and I am wondering if its just not worth it going for a more expensive camera in the first place.
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Pedro Monteiro said:
one thing that concerns me, and that might sound rather silly... is that the video camera looks like a digital still camera. I have never pictured a film being filmed with a device that looked so .. unimpressive.
Click to expand...

You are right. That sounds very silly.




I am looking for that cinematic look of a 35mm lens, how much would this lens cost me for the T2i?
Click to expand...

You can buy cheap lenses, or expensive lenses. You have some window-shopping to do.


does the lens come with the camera or do I need to buy it as an accessory?
Click to expand...

You can either buy just the body, or the body with lenses.



the fact that its so small, doesn't it make is harder to hold while filming?
Click to expand...

There are certain shots which are not so simple, such as fast panning. (It causes Jello effect) It's also very light, so certain mounts balanced for traditional weights might feel awkward, but there are tonnes of DIY solutions out there.

You do need to read up a lot more, though.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Pedro Monteiro said:
Hello guys,

First and foremost, I am very grateful that I stumbled upon this website while trying to aborve as much information as I could about independent film making, more specifically the technical side of things.
I have a background in Web Development, which includes creation of Flash animations as well as some limited film editing. While I really enjoy my work, my passion has always resides somewhere else, in Film making. Story telling has always been something that I have been interested in, and this passion has been turning into quite an obsession as I get older.
So I decided to go for it, and create my first short film. I already have the story line in place, just need to turn it into a script and film it. The casting has already been done, and the film will consist in solely 2 actors that have already agreed to work with me pro bono.
Click to expand...

Good for you! Welcome to the thunderdome.

Pedro Monteiro said:
I have zero experience with cameras, but since I have worked in production for so long, shound't be hard to pick up. (hopefully) Now, I have been reading a lot f topics on these forums, and it seems as if the Canon T2i is a very good choice for a low budget short film. I looked at various footage of the camera and it looks very good, but one thing that concerns me, and that might sound rather silly... is that the video camera looks like a digital still camera. I have never pictured a film being filmed with a device that looked so .. unimpressive. Now don't get me wrong, I know how bad this sounds, but isn't a camera supposed to be robust?
Click to expand...

Nah. Not for these purposes. Just treat it gently. When filmmakers talk about run-and-gun filmmaking, it's a figure of speech. With our camera in hand, we like to move gingerly, and I personally see no reason for a giant beast, unless you're out shooting newscasts.

Pedro Monteiro said:
Also, is the quality difference between the T2i and cameras like the Canon XH A1S and the Panasonic AG-HVX200 very significant?
Click to expand...

To me, and other non-experts, full HD is full HD. Maybe, if shown side-by-side, I might be able to tell the difference if I knew what I was looking for. In another thread, the issue of compression has been brought up (DSLR footage undergoes it; HDV does not), but even the person who brought it up mentioned that there's not THAT big a difference between the two. While we're discussing quality of footage, only DSLR's give you the option to play with depth of field to any extent, and they allow you to shoot in really low light.

Pedro Monteiro said:
I am looking for that cinematic look of a 35mm lens, how much would this lens cost me for the T2i? And does the lens come with the camera or do I need to buy it as an accessory?
Click to expand...

I'm broke, so I'm still working with the kit lense, but another dude on this forum has mentioned a particular 50mm prime that goes for $100. I think that's my next purchase. A lot of people spend WAY more on lenses than they do on the camera, so your choices are personal.

Pedro Monteiro said:
Final question about the T2y, the fact that its so small, doesn't it make is harder to hold while filming? I have seen one of those frameworks where you can attach the camera, but it will cost around 1000 usd, and I am wondering if its just not worth it going for a more expensive camera in the first place.
Click to expand...

I used to do a lot of handheld with my Sony VX2100 (roughly the same size as those Canon and Panasonic HDV cameras you're considering). I've got a buddy who just shot a 15-minute short almost entirely with his weighted shoulder-mount he built for his 7D. And then, a couple days ago, I shot an extended handheld shot, in which I'm walking backwards, following someone as he walked down a street. To be honest, the amount of shake was quite minimal in all three different kinds of handheld footage I've been experienced with. Those other cameras you're considering aren't very heavy either, so with either them, or the T2i, you would probably benefit from keeping handhelds rare, and/or practicing with a homemade steadicam.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
To me, and other non-experts, full HD is full HD. Maybe, if shown side-by-side, I might be able to tell the difference if I knew what I was looking for. In another thread, the issue of compression has been brought up (DSLR footage undergoes it; HDV does not), but even the person who brought it up mentioned that there's not THAT big a difference between the two. While we're discussing quality of footage, only DSLR's give you the option to play with depth of field to any extent, and they allow you to shoot in really low light.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I really have to correct this - HDV is another very compressed format. Uncompressed 1080p24 would run well over 300 GB an hour, whereas an hour of HDV footage is around 13 GB.

On paper at least, the Canon DSLRs produce higher quality footage (compression-wise) than HDV cameras - HDV is an MPEG2 stream at 25 Mbps, whereas the 7D, for example, records an H.264 stream at 45 Mbps. While MPEG2 is a much more mature codec and the DSLRs' compression does have its shortcomings, H.264 is generally a far more efficient codec, so it should theoretically produce more than comparable picture quality. Of course, for all practical purposes, YMMV.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
chilipie said:
Sorry, but I really have to correct this - HDV is another very compressed format. Uncompressed 1080p24 would run well over 300 GB an hour, whereas an hour of HDV footage is around 13 GB.

On paper at least, the Canon DSLRs produce better footage (compression-wise) than HDV cameras - HDV is an MPEG2 stream at 25 Mbps, whereas the 7D, for example, records an H.264 stream at 45 Mbps. While MPEG2 is a much more mature codec and the DSLRs' compression does have its shortcomings, H.264 is generally a much more efficient codec, so it should theoretically produce more than comparable picture quality. Of course, for all practical purposes, YMMV.
Click to expand...

Well, I did mention that I'm a non-expert on this, so your correction is indeed wanted.

I was basing what I said on what I've read in this forum --

http://www.indietalk.com/showthread.php?t=23804

But I just went back and re-read it, and saw that sonnyboo was talking about the Red. So, chilipie, would you say that DSLR's are getting better footage than all their HDV counterparts (issues like jello aside)?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Cracker Funk said:
But I just went back and re-read it, and saw that sonnyboo was talking about the Red. So, chilipie, would you say that DSLR's are getting better footage than all their HDV counterparts (issues like jello aside)?
Click to expand...

It's really very hard to say. Some people have pointed out that the DSLRs seem to be capturing a video at a lower resolution than 1920*1080 because of how the line-skipping works, but then 1080 footage on HDV cameras is actually 1440*1080, because of the use of non-square pixels, effectively making it lower resolution than the final image too. I haven't spent enough time in post with footage from a DSLR to pass judgment on how well it stands up to heavy colour grading, but many people think the compression artefacts can become very pronounced. The moiré effect in footage from the DSLRs is another problem, but can sometimes be avoided by throwing that area out of focus.

Technicalities aside for a moment, I will say this: I've never seen more visually appealing cinematic-looking footage from any traditional video cameras at that price-point. As film geeks it's very easy to get swept up into a technological arms race, but come the premiere, your footage has to speak for itself.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top