bunkofurko

Okay, Abe. I watched the clip well into :20. Up until that time, I saw about 12 seconds of seriously out-of-fucus blur and about 8 seconds of in-focus shots. I assume it is a horror flick of sorts, since there was a scary-looking creature with a giant set of eyegalasses walking towards camera?

Thanks for the lead, bro'! It's been... well, you know... 'real.' :~))

Not only did the VDLSR manufacturers never intended for filmmakers to replace motion picture film cameras, they also never intended videographers to replace their video camcorders. Which may be one reason why Canon, Panasonic, etc. are still in the business of selling video camcroders. You know, the cameras designed from the ground up to capture video at various frame rates.

Nor have these clever VDSLR mfrs provided any "cheap alternatives" to filmmaking. Instead, what they did do was to design, build, and sell pretty competent digital STILL cameras at reasonable prices. Then they threw in as a freebie the "video capture" capability.

Think of it this way. You are buying a still photo camera for let's say $1,700. With that, you also get the limited, rudimentary video capability for absolutely free. Since you didn't really pay anything extra for the video-portion of your DSLR, you don't really have much ground to complain and expect much by way of features and specs from it, right?

BTW, there are probably a good 35-40 digital video cameras out there, priced between that of a Canon EOS 7D and that of a Red One camera, most if not all of which would do a markedly better job in capturing video than a DSLR would. Since according to their name and the mfrs literature, these babies were designed primarily for still image capture, not video shoots. Which is probably why they have crazy, monster-sized image sensors, not the normal 1MP (for 720p video) or 2.2MP (for 1080i or 1080p video) video-sized sensors. Correct?

Soji, you talk of the imminent death of "Hollywood-style" 35mm film and digital cinema exhibition and of television itself. I assume next thing you are going to tell us, "Blair Witch" and "Paranormal" made its millions by having it pasted for free on Vimeo and YouTube? Maybe from download sales, then?

Soji, no companies I know of have released any sorts of revolutionary tools recently. Cameras that can take both still pictures and video clips have been around for a good 10 years.

It's just until now, they did not have a reflex mirror in them. And whereas motion picture film cameras with reflex mirrors can indeed be used for filmmaking, these VDSLRs unfortunately cannot.

Of the hundresd of feature films that will be shot with VDSLRs, you and I will probably not be able to see one anywhere when money would need to change hands first. But I am sure there willl be some of them parked for free here on Vimeou, YouTube. etc. Enjoy!

Time-shift miniaturization is a nifty effect, but when an entire video clip contains nothing but the same effect, it quickly becomes boring by losing its original novelty value. I'd say in an average three-minute clip 30 seconds of this should have been plenty enough.