[anigbrowl]

Rockwell is weird. Nobody in Indie production uses autoficus because even on pro camcorders like Vatican's it looks awful for most narrative work.

You do not need 45 people to do good, controlled work with a DSLR (or a film camera). 3-4 skilled folks are sufficient crew for most non-ensemble work.

[barrkel]

Not to speak up too strongly for Rockwell (I think he has certain biases), but you are actually arguing his point. He says that nobody in Hollywood uses autofocus because it's rehearsed and it's the focus-puller's job, and that's precisely why autofocus is handier for home video.

[zokier]

But the whole point is that video DSLR's are aimed at amateur/indie film makers, not home video shooters. And Rockwell completely misses that, claiming that manual focus cameras are useful only in Hollywood-scale productions.

[jasonlotito]

>For use by a single photographer, you can't get DSLRs to focus on things that move. If you can't shoot things that move, then why are you trying to shoot video? Video and movies need to track focus on things that move; that's the whole point.

>When I want video of my family, even if I'm also carrying my Canon 5D Mark II, I still carry a real camcorder!

That's what he's saying. I don't see the problem.

[zokier]

He's also saying:

"If you're doing the sort of Hollywood shoot where you have 45 people on a call sheet like transportation captains [lots of titles] then you might have a focus puller, and you might want to consider a DSLR in place of your Panavision or ARRI to save on film costs."

and

"If something moves, you need a focus puller and a special rig with special Hollywood focusing hardware to shoot with a DSLR.

DSLR video is for serious professional production, which is why you'll see it promoted as being used on big productions."

I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.

[jasonlotito]

It's called 'Hyperbole.' He's not just talking about 45 people productions. Seriously, you think he's sitting there counting, at if you have 44 people, he's saying you shouldn't use DSLR? But anything where you have a camera crew of multiple people.

The article is pretty clear. For home users/amateurs, it's not worth it. For more serious users with actual production costs, then you're talking.

> I'd agree that manual focus is not the best choice for wedding shoots, but that doesn't mean that manual focus is unusable by all but Hollywood productions.

I'm pretty sure he's okay with productions outside of Hollywood using it, too.

[anigbrowl]

Home users/amateurs don't shoot narrative work, as a rule, just pictures of their kids.

People who do use cameras and camcorders for creative purposes like manual focus. A solo shooter can shoot video with manual focus. There are lots of adapters and so on to make it easier on small cameras like this.