I get the impression he's been doing more and more jobs where there's been an unrealistic expectation of the camera's abilities.
And for him, the very tight DOF that we enjoy isn't always a blessing!
There's other issues he has about working with the bodies that you don't get with a dedicated moving image body - just little things like getting out a tape measure to check focal lengths. Normally there's a spot to physically hook it onto where the focal plane of the camera is - not so much on a DSLR.

For a lot of people (myself included), the HD video recording capabilities of a dSLR will be a first step into HD video, not a replacement for pro equipment. To take an analogy, if you give a Formula 1 driver a Bugatti Veyron, they won't realistically expect the car to allow to change wheels and front wing in a matter of seconds, even though it happens to travel almost as fast as a Formula 1 car, and is a lot cheaper. If your friend's employees are asking him to use a dSLR in his work as a focus puller, then they've lost their marbles.


I'm sure, but that's missing my point. I was simply remarking one one of the aspects that have made pros interested in dSLR videography. If they want a shallow DoF shot then they can now get a relatively cheap camera just for that footage without having to spend millions on a custom-built video camera with a large sensor.

From an email he's just sent me:

“To answer your text from last night (was long dull day) the 7D has its place but does not replace a film or even prosumer camera!
To make the film thing work you need good lens and all the problems that comes with! Someone who can pull focus and put marks down, but if your using a 7D you don't have the money so how do you get the film look? It's ok but I don't get the fuss about HD1080 when no one broadcasts in it and everything ends up on the net!

But it is fun if you have the time and money. But then why would you use it? I'm just pissed cos i've used it three times now!”

According to our Freesat Receiver, the BBC is broadcasting 1080.

I'm sure your friend knows what he's on about, though.

Yeah, apparently most HD broadcasters transmit in 1080i - two fields of 540. AFAIK, nobody's transmitting in 1080p.

Currently all HD TV from Freesat , Freeview or Sky is in 1080.

However all this content is interlaced (1080i) rather than progressive (720p/1080p) as 1080i requires less bandwidth to transmit.

When recording video with a DSLR your main issues are most likely to be maintaining usable focus and exposure as having a narrow depth of field is not much use if your chosen subject keeps going in and out of focus during the shot.
For relatively static subjects such as the series finale of House this is not much of an issue but where any fast moving action is involved it is a problem.

In the UK yes.

In the US there is 720p and has been for years. A lot of their satellite provided stuff offers 1080p as well.

I'm no expert but I though if you had a 1920x1080 panel the 1080i diplays in full (but at half frame rate - 30 or 25 fps depending). I read this as rather than 2 fields of 540 you have the full 1080 field. Not that I imagine I'm right!