# How do people record real videos with Canon SLR?



## vd853 (May 12, 2011)

Hi, how do I record longer with my SLR. I know there's a 12min or 4gb limit on HD recording due to the file system, so how do some people professionally record long length videos with these cameras? I currently use a Canon 60D, and planning on upgrading to a class 10 memory card, but that wouldn't bypass this limitation.


----------



## Robin Usagani (May 12, 2011)

they sell 32GB and 64GB cards


----------



## bazooka (May 12, 2011)

I think it's just 4Gb per file for FAT32. I can't imagine anyone who is making professional video's would have shots that long, considering the Average Shot Length of a movie is about 10 seconds. 3 seconds on average for a news story.


----------



## Dao (May 12, 2011)

My friend who shoot wedding videos use multiple cameras to cover different angles as well as the 12 mins limit.


----------



## KmH (May 12, 2011)

vd853 said:


> How do people record real videos with Canon SLR?


They add several thousand $$$'s worth of accessories to the camera that are needed to shoot accurate video and record good sound.

Redrock for video DSLRs


----------



## camz (May 12, 2011)

Check this thread out that I posted of the videographer who covered a wedding with us.

They had 4 guys shooting and they came home with 25 hours worth of video from that day. 

Here's the link : http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/243244-behind-scenes.html


----------



## subscuck (May 12, 2011)

KmH said:


> vd853 said:
> 
> 
> > How do people record real videos with Canon SLR?
> ...


 
Which is why I have an slr for photos, and a video cam for video. :thumbup:


----------



## Ginu (May 12, 2011)

The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.

I posted an unedited vid of me biking down whistler mountain with an iPhone 3Gs which doesn't have the video quality of an iPhone4.


----------



## o hey tyler (May 12, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.
> 
> I posted an unedited vid of me biking down whistler mountain with an iPhone 3Gs which doesn't have the video quality of an iPhone4.



How do you figure that an iPhone 4 would have superior video quality to a DSLR? Maybe if you're not interested in quality, an iPhone 4 or Flip video camera would suffice. But if video is just a gimmick, why do companies like Redrock (as Keith pointed out) exist, why do camera manufacturers improve upon the video functionality with almost every release of a camera? 

I used to think it was gimmicky back when I had a T1i, but now with all the advancements that have been made (exposure and aperture control, 24p, etc) it's kind of hard to NOT take them seriously. They still have some flaws (not denying that), but I've seen a lot of great short films produced with DSLRs.


----------



## vd853 (May 12, 2011)

Ginu said:
			
		

> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.
> 
> I posted an unedited vid of me biking down whistler mountain with an iPhone 3Gs which doesn't have the video quality of an iPhone4.
> 
> YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyvLvewDXdc



I have an iPhone 4 and a canon hv10 camcorder, but under the right settings and lens, my canon 60d can do better than both of them.


----------



## Ginu (May 12, 2011)

o hey tyler said:


> How do you figure that an iPhone 4 would have superior video quality to a DSLR? Maybe if you're not interested in quality, an iPhone 4 or Flip video camera would suffice. But if video is just a gimmick, why do companies like Redrock (as Keith pointed out) exist, why do camera manufacturers improve upon the video functionality with almost every release of a camera?
> 
> I used to think it was gimmicky back when I had a T1i, but now with all the advancements that have been made (exposure and aperture control, 24p, etc) it's kind of hard to NOT take them seriously. They still have some flaws (not denying that), but I've seen a lot of great short films produced with DSLRs.



Its simple, DSLR's cant AF automatically, not to mention the camera is designed to take pictures not movie so the controls are not friendly in that aspect. 
I respect companies like Redrock but lets face it, are you going to drop a ton of cash on mods to modify a DSRL to take good video and sound? In my eyes spending the same cash if no less on a dedicated video-recorder will always give a better result in the end; not to mention the resale value of the device vs DSLR video mods... 
Just because a few companies provide gimmicks and upgrades to mod DSLR's doesn't necessarily mean much... after-all any company wants to make $ so obviously they will provide services to make the $ anyway they can. 

Another issue with DSLR's is the time which you can record which if I am not mistaken is limited to 5 minutes, something which will not happen with a designated proper cam.

I am aware technology is changing but this part is not quite there yet... at least in my eyes, and this comes from someone with an animation/film background (granted my education is over 10 years old).

I would really like to see someone who is willing to lug around a modded DSLR rig to take a couple of videos... Its not enough we need a few lens and camera bodies to cover proper focal lengths, lets lug around another pack of video-mods for the DSLR, when I can just instead pull out the smartphone or compact video camera and start shooting video.

Want to shoot video? my suggestion is to stick to a proper intended video rig and the results will be better.


----------



## SrBiscuit (May 12, 2011)

a single 12min take is lonnnnnnnnng.
cut it up and edit...that's why 5min of HD at a time is fine for me.

*edited to add...*

this is currently one of my favorite amateur vids shot with a d90


----------



## enzodm (May 12, 2011)

I suppose a good reason for doing video with a dSLR is shallow DoF. Recorders (and their lenses) able to do the same are much more expensive.


----------



## Ginu (May 12, 2011)

vd853 said:


> I have an iPhone 4 and a canon hv10 camcorder, *but under the right settings and lens*, my canon 60d can do better than both of them.



I think there are a few more factors which will not give you the best picture/sound quality in a DSLR besides the lens and settings... keep in mind audio capabilities of a DSLR, screen limitations (cant view through viewfinder and lcd), vibration devices which are not as efficient as video camera stabilizers, codecs, real time output, proper powerzooms, ND filters... list can go on and on.
The only one feature which is achieved with a DSLR while shooting video is the nice shallow DOF which makes the shoot very unique.


In a few more years I will most likely look at the video capabilities of a DSRL more seriously, but for now I will resort to a dedicated device for this type of task.

I am not by any means saying don't take videos with a DSLR, but dont sell your video equipment thinking that a DSLR will do it all. Technology is not quite there yet. If the shooter is into a lot of editing and wants something unique, then taking videos with a DSLR is the answer.


----------



## Ginu (May 12, 2011)

enzodm said:


> I suppose a good reason for doing video with a dSLR is shallow DoF. Recorders (and their lenses) able to do the same are much more expensive.


 

Bingo!!!


----------



## FranDaMan (May 12, 2011)

DSLR's are for videographers and are definately not for filming the simple shots of the kids.
I have a videocam and a DSLR, but my DSLR beats my videocam in imagequality and image stabilizing.


----------



## dpalasini (May 12, 2011)

The benefits of shooting video on a DSLR are not really for people looking to shoot long continuous videos. They are, however a fantastic tool for cinematography applications. The DOF, ability to change lenses, and the size of the sensor make them superior in most ways to any consumer level videocamera as far as image quality. The sensors in these cameras are many times the size of every camcorder in their pricerange, usually offering superior low-light capabilities. No they dont have autofocus, but any cinematographer who would use AF is an amateur. A good follow-focus rig is what you need. Plan your shots. And power zoom? No way. Most DSLR shooters rely on prime lenses or set their zooms to one focal length per shot. The codecs most use is AVCHD, which is MPEG 4 H.264 and can be transcoded into anything else quite well. As far as audio, nobody in their right mind would use on camera audio for a professional project, even with the most expensive of cameras, unless they were doing interviews or something, in which case, plugging a reciever into a DSLR is not a problem. As with most video cameras, the onboard mic sucks. but they arent audio recorders, they are video recorders, so get something separate and sync later. 
Check out some of the films made on cameras like the 5d, 7d, t2i, etc and realize these are extremely capale of beautiful cinematic imagery.


----------



## KmH (May 12, 2011)

enzodm said:


> I suppose a good reason for doing video with a dSLR is shallow DoF. Recorders (and their lenses) able to do the same are much more expensive.


How much shallow DOF do you see being used on TV and in feature films, beyond transition effects?


----------



## FranDaMan (May 12, 2011)

quite a lot actually. The standard shots with 2 people talking to eachother. One in front speaks and is in focus. The one that listens is out of focus. As soon as the listener responds....follow focus and voila !


----------



## enzodm (May 12, 2011)

KmH said:


> How much shallow DOF do you see being used on TV and in feature films, beyond transition effects?


 
since I started shooting with dSLR I started also to notice DoF management in movies and TV (not always, of course; not in cheap TV films). 
By the wayI have a friend that directs some short movie, all in digital, and he adapted a Canon FD lens to camcorder to have shallow DoF, not being able to buy expensive equipment (there are adapters for this too).


----------



## JClishe (May 13, 2011)

vd853 said:


> Hi, how do I record longer with my SLR. I know there's a 12min or 4gb limit on HD recording due to the file system,


 
There is no technical limitation to video length or file size on Canon dSLR's. There's a taxation issue with how the EU classifies devices that can record video clips longer than 12 minutes, so manufacturers simply impose a 12 min limit to avoid it. And obviously they don't want to make different versions with different capabilities for different locales, so the rest of the world is stuck with the 12 minute limit thanks to the EU.

And as has been noted by others, 12 minutes is an eternity for a single video clip.


----------



## Jarmo (May 13, 2011)

Only real problem I see with the video features in the DSLRs today is the swaying of the image when you pan the camera quickly. The lack of auto focus isn't a problem.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.
> 
> I posted an unedited vid of me biking down whistler mountain with an iPhone 3Gs which doesn't have the video quality of an iPhone4.


 
You sir, have no idea.

Show me a dedicated video camera that can shoot at 1080p, swap lenses, and have the quality of an HDSLR for under $5,000. If you knew the first thing about professional video, you would know that most movies, shows, videos, etc... are made up of clips edited into coherent scenes. These are clips that are well under 12 minutes in length. Tell me, can your iPhone shoot at 1080p at 60FPS so that the clips can be reduced to 30fps or 24fps for a smooth slow motion effect. Wait, can your iPhone even select which FPS it shoots at. Do you even know what FPS your iPhone shoots at? Ever hear of a follow focus? If not, that makes generally everything that comes out of your mouth in this thread completely irrelevant.

And what are you talking about for resale? All of the mods to make a HDSLR more viable as a proper tool for video are bolt on.

The HDSLR has changed the game in the world of video. This is not something a "gimmick" would do. It's opened avenues for many independent film makers to have a camera that shoots at a quality that cameras costing over 10 times the amount of a DSLR rig can shoot at. Who's going to lug around an HDSLR rig? Well, real videographers. Apparantly you're not one of them.

www.cinema5d.com - Just an example of _professionals_ using a "gimmick" to make music videos, commercials, and other video productions.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2011)

Jarmo said:


> Only real problem I see with the video features in the DSLRs today is the swaying of the image when you pan the camera quickly. The lack of auto focus isn't a problem.



Which there are actions in post that can be done to correct this.


----------



## Stradawhovious (May 13, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws.


 
Someone better tell this to the folks that are in the "Biz" before they go and do something silly like film the season finale of a hugely successful television series on a DSLR....... Oops.... Too late.

Canon 5D Mark II used to shoot entire House season finale, director says it's 'the future' -- Engadget


----------



## Ginu (May 13, 2011)

Stradawhovious said:


> Ginu said:
> 
> 
> > The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws.
> ...


 

The huge successful TV show House has a slightly different budget than the OP using a Canon 60D....


----------



## Ginu (May 13, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Ginu said:
> 
> 
> > The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.
> ...




Perhaps you missed the OP... Let me quote his question for you in bold:



vd853 said:


> Hi, how do I record longer with my SLR. *I know  there's a 12min or 4gb limit on HD recording due to the file system, so  how do some people professionally record long length videos with these  cameras?* I currently use a Canon 60D, and planning on upgrading to a  class 10 memory card, but that wouldn't bypass this limitation.



And your answer is:



Village Idiot said:


> You sir, have no idea.
> 
> Show me a dedicated video camera that can shoot at 1080p, swap lenses,  and have the quality of an HDSLR for under $5,000. If you knew the first  thing about professional video, you would know that most movies, shows,  videos, etc... are made up of clips edited into coherent scenes. *These  are clips that are well under 12 minutes in length*. Tell me, can your  iPhone shoot at 1080p at 60FPS so that the clips can be reduced to 30fps  or 24fps for a smooth slow motion effect. Wait, can your iPhone even  select which FPS it shoots at. Do you even know what FPS your iPhone  shoots at? Ever hear of a follow focus? If not, that makes generally  everything that comes out of your mouth in this thread completely  irrelevant.
> 
> ...



I would like to point out the OP is using a 60D and did not specify anything about 1080p or 60fps from the high end DSLR's.... and quite frankly it doesn't even sound like the OP has access to video editing programs hence why he would want to shoot longer than 12 min per session... For someone with some editing experience and equipment, a ton of short clips are way better than one long one over 12 min as you mentioned above.

The iPhone or the generic HD cam will do quite well for the OP.

For the average user, the video mode of DSLR's is just another sales pitch or a gimmick for now... in time this technology will catch up like it always does, but for now this is still new technology hence just another gimmick.

Now to answer your question, my iPhone takes HD videos quite nicely at 720p and 30fps if I am not mistaken, which happens to be more than enough for the average user.


I hope you realize this thread is about the same as the average Joe asking how to become a pro photographer with a 1000$ budget...


----------



## Village Idiot (May 13, 2011)

Ginu said:


> Village Idiot said:
> 
> 
> > Ginu said:
> ...


 
I realize what the OP posted. _You_ posted that video in a DSLR was a gimmick.


----------



## Dao (May 13, 2011)

Maybe you should take a look at some video forum such as Canon HV20, HV30 & HV40 User Forum.   There are people switching their gears to DSLR (i.e. T2i/T3i) from Video cam.

Before the DSLR with video feature, those guys were buying adapter to mount a DSLR lens to their video cam.   

So if someone is not so serious about video and need to record clips that longer than 12 mins (heat is another issue), a video cam is a better.   If someone with a lower budget and want to take their video to another level, DSLR with video feature just make sense.    Of course, once you pimp the camera up, it will do the job.


----------



## reedshots (May 13, 2011)

The DSLR video function works very well for the person who knows how to use it, the length of video is based off of the memory care size.  You should be able to record about 30 min with a 64 gig card.  The 2010 season finale of House was recorded using the 5DM2. 
1.   *House season finale* shot entirely with Canon 5DmkII | Philip Bloom
Apr 10, 2010 *...* The *season finale* of the popular TV show *House*, which will air on May 17th, *.....* May 2, *2010* at 09:53. That's sick  *House* on *5Dm2* !  *...*
philipbloom.net/*2010*/.../*house*-*season*-*finale*-shot-entirely-with-canon- 5dmkii/ -


----------



## Dao (May 13, 2011)

From what I read, I think you can only record 12 mins per clip.


----------



## Stradawhovious (May 13, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The huge successful TV show House has a slightly different budget than the OP using a Canon 60D....




But this doesn't change the fact that you referred to the DSLR video capability as a gimmick.  So which is it?


----------



## Ginu (May 14, 2011)

Stradawhovious said:


> Ginu said:
> 
> 
> > The huge successful TV show House has a slightly different budget than the OP using a Canon 60D....
> ...



For the average user walking in a camera store and looking to buy a DSLR, the video mode of the body is a gimmick(or a sales pitch) and for the pro videographer with the right knowledge, tools, accessories lighting and so on, a pro DSLR opens up the world of videography. Again there is a very distinct thick line between the average user and a videographer.... this thread is posted in the "Beginners photography forum" so the chance of a of videographer looking for answers here is quite small if not non existent.


----------



## Ginu (May 14, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> I realize what the OP posted. _You_ posted that video in a DSLR was a gimmick.


 

As I mentioned above, for the average user, the video is a gimmick in a entry/amateur level DSLR vs the pro videographer with all the required tools and cash to back it all up.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 14, 2011)

Canon's first camera with video was the 5d mkii. It's one of their highest models. It is not a gimmick. 

Your very first post said that video on dslrs is a gimmick. You didn't say that was in context to who was purchasing. It's not a gimmick. You're obviously ignorant as to what video on a dslr can do and to how the "gimmick" has totally changed the videography game. It's a pretty damn good "gimmick" when people are honestly comparing quality to camera systems like red that can cost over 10 times of what an hdslr setup would cost. 

So if it's such a big gimmick why are people using hdslrs to do professional video? You can backpedal all you want, but you obviously don't know the potential of an hdslr and you don't mind trying to spread that ignorance on to others.


----------



## Trai Guzie (Jun 1, 2011)

I have created what I can a 98% solution to the Canon 12 Minute Limit. It involves hooking up a laptop, using the EOS utility, and an automatic clicker. It's not pretty or perfect, but allows me to have an unmanned DSLR wide shot as my 4th camera.

Workaround for Canon DSLR 12 Minute (4gb) Limit. | Cold Feet Films


----------



## amband (Jul 23, 2011)

Ginu said:


> Stradawhovious said:
> 
> 
> > Ginu said:
> ...



The whole point of the DSLR in film making on a budget


----------



## Gaerek (Jul 23, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick...



Maybe for the average consumer, but it is far from a gimmick. Look at what professional HD vid cameras cost to use/rent. Compare that to the cost of say, a 5d mkii plus a complete red rock rig. It's comparable to some of the less expensive rigs out there and far cheaper than the more expensive ones. Plus, the lenses are the 5d are far cheaper for the same/better quality. Several feature length films have been shot, at least partially, on a DSLR. Most notably, at this point, was Black Swan, you know, that little film that was nominated for 5 Academy Awards, including best cinematography. If you watch that movie, all of the subway shots were taken on a DSLR. There were no rigs being used on the camera either, just a handheld DSLR. Here's a quote from the Director of Photography for Black Swan.



> We used a Canon 7D or 1D Mark IV for all the subway scenes; I could just  carry a 7D and shoot on the subway all day with a very small crew. I  did some tests with my wife beforehand to figure out my ASA, my stop,  and how I was going to deal with the focus. I didnt use any rigs with  it because I wasnt trying to shoot in the traditional way. I tested a  bunch of different exposures and then brought the footage to Charlie  Hertzfeld at Technicolor, who put it in the system so I could look at  the highlights, the moiré and the resolution. Then I went back to the  drawing board to do more tests. The 7D has more depth of field than the  5D, but I needed that because I didnt have a follow-focus unit and  needed to work really fast. I shot everything documentary-style. I did  all the focus pulls by hand, and wed just look at it on the cameras  monitor. I ended up shooting on a Canon 24mm lens at 1,600 ASA to get as  much depth of field as possible at a stop of T81&#8260;2.



If I'm not mistaken, and entire episode of House was filmed with a 5d mkii as well. I'm sure there's plenty of others, but to call the video function of a DSLR a gimmick is really not true. It might not be practical for the average user. But to the type of user, especially the pro level bodies, the cameras are geared for, it's an extremely usable feature.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Jul 23, 2011)

camz said:


> Check this thread out that I posted of the videographer who covered a wedding with us.
> 
> They had 4 guys shooting and they came home with 25 hours worth of video from that day.
> 
> Here's the link : http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/general-shop-talk/243244-behind-scenes.html


omg no thanks! 25 hours to cull through?! Yuck.


----------



## Village Idiot (Jul 25, 2011)

Sw1tchFX said:


> camz said:
> 
> 
> > Check this thread out that I posted of the videographer who covered a wedding with us.
> ...



That's what fastforward was made for.


----------



## fokker (Jul 25, 2011)

Ginu said:


> The video feature on SLR's is a gimmick, it works but with lots of flaws. In alot of cases you will be better to buy that cheap video-recorder or even an iPhone4 will do a much better job and not to mention the size difference.
> 
> I posted an unedited vid of me biking down whistler mountain with an iPhone 3Gs which doesn't have the video quality of an iPhone4.



Nice bail on the wallride. Haha


----------

