BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Questions

Photography Question 
W. 
 

dSLR's making movies ought to be possible


Currently you can't make movies with a dSLR. Afaik, that is because the mirror needs to be in the up position so you don't have a view of what you are filming.

In that case a simple, cheap, little accessory viewfinder that you slip into the hotshoe ought to be able to take care of that, don't you think? Then only the dSLR's firmware need to be upgraded.

When will the cam manufacturers catch on?


To love this question, log in above
11/26/2006 5:53:51 AM

 
Stan Lubach
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/1/2005
  I'm not sure, but I believe that most DSLR sensors don't have the circuitry to capture live video.

I had seen an interesting redesign idea in another forum from one the the EVIL ( Electronic Viewfinder - Interchangeable Lenses ) camera proponents. Replace the pentaprism ( or top mirror ) with another, smaller, sensor. This sensor could provide live preview to the LCD as well as record movies, since you don't need the full res of a DSLR sensor for video.

I, for one, like my optical viewfinder just the way it is. As for movies, I have a pocketable digital camcorder that I'm quite happy with. To each his own, as they say.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 7:28:13 AM

 
Bob Fately   In fact, the reason DSLRs don't do movies is because the CCDs used in them are specifically designed to capture still shots - this is why there is no discernable shutter lag as there is on point & shot or ZSLR cameras. The latter use chips originally designed for movie cameras, and a moment is needed for the electronics to "set up" to capture a still from these chips.

The mirror has nothing to do with it.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 8:31:59 AM

 
W.    "The mirror has nothing to do with it."

It doesn't?
With the mirror down, how would you film - capture a stream of images - with a mirror in the way then?
And if the mirror is up, how would you view the scene while filming then?

"The mirror has nothing to do with it"...?


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 9:14:48 AM

 
Bob Fately   W, try not to be an argumentative yutz.

The mirror has nothing to do with it because that's not the reason the camera cannot take movies. If it were, then the new Olympus DSLRs with full-time preview (using a half-mirror assembly) should be abe to take movies.

My point was it has to do with the design of the CCD, not the reflecive mirror-box setup.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 9:41:22 AM

 
W.    The design of the CCD can be changed, Adapted. 'Developed'. In fact it does that all the time. One time soon, if we want it, video will be integrated in its functions too.

But the mirror will still be in the way...


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 4:23:22 PM

 
Bob Fately   Indeed - the mirror wil still be in the way.

Except that the half-silvered mirror designs, like Olympus has in the eVolt cameras, eliminate that obstacle as well.

Actually, I imagine that when LCD resolution becomes high enough to really focus with one, the entire mirror-box situation will be eliminated altogether, replaced by a digital viewer with which the user can focus as well as compose. Once this happens, there will be no reason to have the viewfinder optically connected to the lens at all, so you could have the lens portaion of the camera in the palm of your hand while a headband-mounted eyepiece allows you to focus, etc.

But for now, the reason I stated is the reason you can't do this.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 4:40:41 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  An idea who's time has come. Or is it already come, hence video cameras.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 10:24:42 PM

 
Bob Fately   Well, Greg, keeper of the ever-changing icon, video cameras are not the answer as they a) are not designed to capture clean still shots - a little blur doesn't matter when the images is shanged every 1/30th of a second) and b) don't use CCDs large enough to make decent enlargements (since any digital video presentation medium has a relatively low resolution).

Even so, I have yet to see any movie camera with a similarly separated viewfinder - though there are of course units sold to the pro market that allow for the operator to view remotely if the camera is on a boom or something. Still, those LCD panels are not very useful for focusing purposes (another thing less critical in movie cameras since their smaller CCDs lead to greater DOF anyway) so for "2 piece" still shot cameras we'll have to wait.


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 10:58:49 PM

 
Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member Since: 11/11/2003
gregorylagrange.org
  If the icon changes, do I keep them? I change? my socks regularly, but they're always mine. The receipt is! proof of? that offer, till I'm outside the store.
Sunday Night Football, a camera or two. View as you're filming? Video-ing?
Make a very fast car that gets 50mph so we can drive fast for a long time. Wasn't really feasible? Oh well, give an obtuse? answer anyway.


Sam-isms!


To love this comment, log in above
11/26/2006 11:48:02 PM

 
Jagadeesh Andrew Owens   Somebody already has a dSLR with live view/movie capability. It's one of the smaller makers - something like Pentax or Samsung or one of those. It was reviewed in Pop Photography a couple of issues ago. It also has a new LCD technology - something called OLED. I'll have to dig up my copy and see who it was, as I can't find it on Pop Photo's website....


To love this comment, log in above
11/27/2006 8:32:16 AM

 
Bob Fately   Greg, I think maybe you ought to reduce your dosage...


To love this comment, log in above
11/27/2006 8:35:56 AM

 
Log in to respond or ask your own question.