A video camera is a machine that has recording capabilities that captures images through an attached lens. Whether it's your phone, DSLR, film, or a digital cinema camera, that's the basic principle. But wait. You watch a behind-the-scenes footage of a movie and you see a gigantic monstrous camera that has lots of cables and gadgets. If it's the camera body and the lens that do the essential work, why complicate things that much?
One of my previous articles was about a documentary shot on the new Canon C200. A behind-the-scenes video shows the camera rigged in complex builds which arose a discussion if that actually shows the camera capabilities or the rig somehow alters the performance of the C200 in order to produce something of better image and audio quality. It's a good question, because this professional looking setup is something most of us can't afford.
A Shocking Revelation
There are lots of ways to look professional on set and having a complex rig could be one of them. This level of "professionalism" is quite expensive unless you need every part of that camera system. I hope I am not alone, but I was quite surprised the first time I realized a cinema camera is actually this:
Before that moment I've always thought a cinema camera is sold as an ugly machine with tangled cables and lack of design:
After I started working with video cameras I found the reason for that look and began appreciating the beauty and functionality of it.
Bare Bones
There are cases when you may use a camera without anything else but a lens mounted on. Most often it's when you need a light setup and a small footprint. You can see light setups today used with drones. Small drones work with dedicated drone-only cameras, but there are bigger air crafts that can carry a heavier camera such as a RED with a cinema lens. Other cases with a small setup are when you need to place a camera in a tight place. Oh, and one more case: you can't afford to have a big rig because you don't have the budget to afford it.
Basic Stabilization
With video is important to use an appropriate stabilization for every specific case. Whether it's a tripod, a shoulder rig, a steadicam, a crane, a dolly, a slider, you usually mount the whole setup on it whether it's bare bones or a full blown set of cables and devices. Let us go through some of the most common setups that will explain the need of each part that is attached to the camera.
Support Rigs
When you want to add something to the camera there are either mounting points on the body or you need to "package" the camera into something that would provide mounting points and allow adding more items. A basic way to provide more mounting points is to put the camera on a base plate with rods:
These rods allow for attaching more items and devices later. A shoulder mount is available even in the minimal rig above, but it's more common a bigger support rig of this kind:
Another way of packaging the camera is to use a camera cage (also seen above). They come into varieties and are usually for a specific camera brand. Some include rods, others don't. They are very versatile because extend the mounting capabilities of the camera body.
Now that you have lots of mounting points, let's start adding stuff up.
Matte Boxes
Matte boxes are placed in front of the lens. They can help reduce light reflections and provide slots for lens filters. Sometimes they are attached to the lens, other times they are mounted on the rods.
In terms of looks, matte boxes have that "professional camera" appeal and can even make a cheap DSLR rig look high-end.
Lens Support
Lens support is used for lenses that are longer and heavier. You have probably seen that with long telephoto still lenses. With them you attach the camera to them, not vice versa. The still lenses support have a mounting point for a tripod. The difference with lens support for cinema bodies and lenses is that cameras also weigh a lot. That's why you need to have two points of support: one for the camera body and one for the heavy lens.
External Video Recorder
You might need to record video onto an external recorder for various reasons. Your camera may not support higher quality file formats and such a device can extend the capabilities of your device without having to purchase a better model. This is especially true for cameras such as DSLRs or some base model cinema cameras that shoot compressed 4:2:0 footage while you may need uncompressed 4:2:2 at a higher bitrate or framerate. Other times you may use an external recorder just as a backup.
External Audio Recorder
For professional work audio is captured with external microphones and recorded either into an external device memory storage or can be saved into the video file while the footage is being captured.
If it is stored into another device's memory it has to be synchronized with the video in post. This is done either by time code or by aligning the audio track to the video track matching the sound waveform peaks. Most of us use the second method. This is where the slate sound takes in place. If you don't have a slate you can clap with your hands, so it's easy to find the exact peak spot where audio waveforms from the video file and from the external audio are lining up. This is done either manually or automated by various pieces of software.
When synchronizing external audio with time code there needs to be a time code device. An instance of it is attached to every recording device and there's a master one who is used to synchronize the "tick" between them all.
The time code is stored in the meta data of the files of the recording devices, audio and video. In post production the software can be told to line up the files from the different devices based on their time code meta data. These time code devices are usually wireless transmitters or receivers that are connected to the sync or time code ports of the camera. The following video explains how time code synchronization using Lockit Sync Boxes works:
In case audio is captured externally and stored directly into the video file there has to be a way to bring that sound signal in. This is usually achieved either by a direct cable from the audio capturing device to the camera or via a wireless receiver mounted on the camera rig. The camera records the audio and stores it in the video file perfectly synchronized without the need to do that in post.
Viewfinder
Viewfinders of many high-end cinema cameras are mounted separately because it depends on the situation and camera operator. In bright sunlight a viewfinder is a great option but for a steadicam operation it is not. A viewfinder may be built-in, but most cinema cameras provide an option to connect an additional external one.
External Monitor
Some external monitors have the ability to record audio and video. Others are just reference monitors. They are attached to camera's HDMI or SDI ports and allow the operator, the director, the focus puller, the client, or other members of the crew to see what is being captured in real time.
Sometimes people who want to watch the recording can't be together with the camera operator (for example there's a steadicam shot on a small boat). The solution is to have a wireless transmission system that sends audio and video signal to a receiver and then the receiver is connected to a remote monitor providing audio and video signal.
Follow Focus, Aperture, Zoom, and Camera Operations Control
That's the unit allowing you to smoothly and accurately set focus especially when it has to be altered during a take. The follow focus allows a focus puller to use it either working side by side with the operator and rotating the knob on the camera rig, or to control it remotely. Remote control can be achieved via a cable or a wireless connection.
The same approach applies for changing the lens aperture or the focal distance of a zoom lens. This can be done from the lens' rings, of course, but in larger productions they are usually controlled using wirelessly operated motors.
Some cameras provide remote control interfaces so they can be operated from a distance. For example, this allows a steadicam operator to do their best while another person is starting and stopping the recording. As you can see, that's yet another wireless device attached to the camera rig.
Battery
External battery sources are common with cinema cameras where there has to be enough juice to process all the input and output signals of the devices rigged above. There should be an easy way to change the battery without having to make changes to the rig to reach to the battery compartment of the camera body. This is especially critical when the camera is balanced on a steadicam or on bigger productions where every second costs a huge amount of money.
External power sources are mounted on the camera rigs and batteries are attached on them. The power sources (or battery plates) are connected to the DC power input of the camera. This moves the power source point away from the camera body, somewhere on the periphery of the rig, and makes changing of a drained battery quick and easy.
Conclusion
I am sure there are lots more devices that can be possibly attached to the camera but I think the current list is more than enough. This gives you an idea what happens on set and why cameras look like that. It's inevitable, because these cameras are made to serve a universal role allowing different devices to be attached to their input and output ports. For small productions heavy setups are an overkill but for bigger ones they are a kind of a standard. As you see, all these devices are used to help the crew in the production to do their job better. The rigs don't alter the image quality produced by the camera body and the lens. This means you can also create beautiful films without complex and expensive setups. All you need is a good camera body and a good quality lens.
Great post! I understand why you would go crazy with this stuff if you were shooting a movie with one camera. I don't understand why so many indie shooters like buying small cameras (like the GH5) and then attaching all this crap onto them.
It seems like videographers fall into two categories. They are either like me and they want the smallest setup possible, or they want to make the most impressive rig ever by making it look as complicated as possible.
Thanks Lee.
I'm also wondering about the complex rigs built with small cameras. I'd justify them if most of the expensive gadgets in the rig are rented. Otherwise I'd not justify these rigs. They are ridiculously overpriced without improving the image quality or the overall viewer experience (except for audio). The most expensive devices should be those that serve the main purpose of the movie: image and audio. Everything else has a supporting role and makes no sense to cost way higher than the image and audio recording devices.
I personally keep things as simple as possible and toys are only added on demand.
I'd be glad to see if there's another opinion that justifies complex rigs with small cameras.
For small cameras the usual devices that I find normal on a rig are:
- External monitor/recorder;
- Manual follow focus;
- Audio recorder or a mic (primary or just for a backup);
I still think a cage is a necessity for smaller cameras. One hotshoe is often not enough if you have to record sound. However, I have yet to find a GH5 with XLR adaptor friendly cage.
But you did mention follow focus, that would mean you need a cage with rails.
Yes, it depends on the devices that are being attached. A cage is a mounting hub anyway, not that expensive and not that needless.
As a videographer, I would say we fall into a lot of categories, and none are easily defined, though I will admit that I've been on both sides of the isle that you are referring too. Now I find myself with a simple goal which is too use whatever tools are necessary to create the scene.
I always find myself asking what am I actually going to need to get the shot. 9/10 my productions don't require much, and 10/10 I bring everything anyway. You learn as you go, but generally, I would say you are right about videographers making more of a show of their gear for their clients sake.
I would say bring everything, but only attach what is necessary.
Thanks. Well said.
Well, on the cheap end of the market; the one using DSLR and photo lens,... but need rail to add a matebox cause they need to impress he client where their photo lens sunhood was way enough already.
And on the other end, it's more a camera customization to feel more at home. For example, I will have my EVF to put on C300 just because it's better than the one from Canon.
I will had a nice shoulder pad to work longer and batteries too.
There are technical limitation where you need to add a recorder, and nice add-on to keep working on better conditions.
It's a personal thing how to look in front of the client.
A rule of a thumb is to make the final result look at least as good as the setup on set. The best situation is to have a way more impressive result. It is seen by more people and could bring more clients than impressing just a single person on set who is already a client.
this article was great until the elitist attitude of f stoppers had to come in and start bashing people with dslr rigs. The way i see it a smaller camera needs this stuff more. I NEED and external monitor and external micing and waveform and scopes and a focus pull. Show me the hit shoe mount that can hold all of that! Seriously I often wonder why a person with a C200 needs a rig with a matte box and monitor. The cam has scopes and ND filters built in!
I film with a DSlr and was able to get a cage for 100. A 4k monitor for another 100 and a follow focus for 150. How is that over board?? The cage allows it all to be mounted to one thing so I can pick it up or mount it.
I have read articles on here like "you can't shoot a wedding with a crop sensor cam". "You can't do pro video work with FCPX. "
And now....the only people that should have a camera rig are people that have 6,000 cameras!!
You guys sound more elitist and out of touch every day.
Especially Lee Morris. Obviously he started this rant about cages on what was a simple education article.
We get it Lee you are better then us and you have five GH5 cameras. Way to go. Congratulations! You win photography! And the internet! Now tell us again how apple computers can't produce quality work!! We are all waiting!!
You should read the comments once again, because there's nothing like bashing people with DSLRs. Nobody did that but it was discussed that people with DSLRs add extremely expensive (or needless) stuff to their rigs just for looks while it will not help to produce a picture of better quality.
There's no sense of using a Flanders monitor on a DSLR, because it costs more than the DSLR itself. There's no sense of using Lockit devices with DSLRs because it's cheaper to sync the audio in post for such small productsion. There's no need for cages just for looks. There's no need for wireless transmitters just so that a director of a crew of 2 can see what happens on a remote monitor.
If you ask Lee Morris, he's using external devices too just enough that they help to record the video without breaking the bank. DSLRs are not meant for video but with a few tools they can do a good job. When these tools become way more expensive than the DSLRs, they look like a person living in a trailer driving a Lambo.
Nobody here is looking down on DSLRs. We are looking down on people that do this just for looks and care less about the image than about the devices on the rig.
Again: read the comments carefully without being biased we are against DSLRs. Most of us still use DSLRs for video.
Shane Hulbert filmed Act of Valor using nothing but 5d mkiis and most of the lens' he used alone were worth twice as much as the cameras. Not to mention the lighting setups and other things (like remote transmitters) they used....I don't think anyone would consider them to be using a Lamborghini while living in a trailer park. They had a need for smaller cheaper cameras and those cameras needed to be rigged up. In fact a lot of times people will tell you to upgrade your lens and lighting and gaff gear before you upgrade your camera body because with those things you will get better results. Go and film with a c200 and no lighting vs a dslr and pro lighting setup and check the results. There have been plenty of good articles out there on it.
Btw...this was a good article talking about pro gear. Just went off the rails on labeling people in the comments.
Of course people get GAS and go over board. The impression his (Lee) and other statements here makes is that it is ALWAYS unnecessary and that is just not simply true.
And the other point I was making is you can get follow focus/monitors/cages/mattes for dslrs that are quality and do the job and don't break the bank. And if used correctly just like anything else ...you will get good results and solve issues.
The reason I know all of this is from Shane Hulbert himself on his tips on shooting with DSLRs on his blog. One of the first thing he recommends is getting a cage and a follow focus! All while showing this on a Zeiss cinema lens worth twice the camera. The cage and follow he recommends are in the hundred and two hundred range.
Again there are levels of equipment for the things you need and the budget you are on.
Shane Hurlbut is s a great cinematographer and I'm very familiar with his work, his tutorials, and the articles he publishes in his members guild. He provides great insight on the work he does indeed. I'm quite familiar with his phylosophy and the way he works.
On Act of Valor they used film cameras (not cheap at all) together with more than 10 5D's. The 5D's have been just released. How much did a 5D cost back in the day? So they spent probably more than $20K for the DSLR cameras together with a... Panavision film camera.
Why did they use DSLR cameras? Because they had small budget? No. They had the budget to use a Panavision, extremely expensive cinema lenses, they had areal footage that wasn't shot with a DSLR either. They had lots of VFX in post too. Shane shared how they had to tweak the DSLR footage to match the film grain as much as possible and how it was far from perfect.
Shane used DSLRs not because he thought he could do the job with any camera. They wanted to be unique at that stage. They wanted to have a unique experience and they go the 5D's to try something new. This was doing Canon a favor too. It's business and promotions lots of the times.
Shane used DSLRs on "Need for Speed" too. He also used GoPro's just because they wanted to have it all in-camera. But the DSLRs were not used for the entire film. They used cinema cameras, C500's. Why C500? Shane wanted to give it a try. It was just released.
Why shane doesn't shoot with DSLRs today? Because he tried them out, he knows their limitations and knows when he can rig a DSLR.
As I said, it's quite normal to live in a luxury house and drive a cheap car. That's what Shane did. He had the budget, he used film cameras, he used cinema lenses, he knew the limitations of the DSLRs and he wanted to try them out. He tweaked the imperfect DSLR footage as much as he could in post (you've probably read it).
So it's not that they had 1 DSLR and they wanted to make a movie with it. They had a Panavision and wanted to add more to the user experience by using a technology that was revolutional back in the day. Today they would probably use an Alexa Mini or a Canon cinema camera or something similar for such shots. Shane is a man who knows why he does that. It's not the budget, it's the experience he is after.
As you see the example with Act of Valor is not contradicting anything we've commented here.
Quite a few of the people who commented on this post are professionals who are shooting with expensive cinema cameras and rigs and can do great stuff with DSLRs too. There's no doubt that DSLRs can come a long way. There's no point of living in a trailer park and driving an expensive car. There's no point of buying Panavision lenses and using them DSLRs unless you always shoot indoors in controlled environments. There's no financial argumentation of buying more and more toos that are way more expensive than the main tool, the camera, to create a better film. As in Act of Valor, they used cheaper cameras (DSLRs) to provide a new kind of experience for a great part of the movie. It was not about the quality of the picture there. It was about the experience the viewer had.
What I really wonder about is why movie crews need so much gear.
I understand that serious high-end productions take a lot of lighting and rigging equipment.
But I've seen major movie productions around New York City, and they'll have staggering amounts of gear. Like hundreds of light stands and Arri lights and things. You'll see block after block of big trucks full of gear, none of it being used.
Do they just over order everything in case of an emergency?
It certainly doesn't look like they're setting up 10 scenes at once.
Can anyone enlighten me? I've wondered about this for a while.
Yes they must be ready for all kind of lighting situations, mother nature usually does not follow filming schedules. A lot of it are backup equipments in case something breaks.
For me it's difficult to give a light to that question because I don't know what "staggering amounts" is and what "a major movie production" is.
What I know is grip and lighting equipment is the bulkiest: stands, grip heads, flags, scrims, diffusions, cables, etc. Backup equipment is always a must when many people are involved and it's comparable to the production cost which may involve crazy expensive locations, crazy expensive celebrities, or there's simply a crazy big budget.
I'm talking about anything that requires 200+ C stands. 10+ full trailers full of gear.
I understand the importance of backup and flexibility, but I walk past these sets and there are just trucks full of gear that are unused.
Change your business model then and start a NYC based rental company. Someone pays for all that stuff being rented.
8 of those trailers were part of Will Smith's entourage
A commenter (down in the comments) said sometimes you rent the gear by the truck. That may be the reason.
You wanted 2 lightstands and they've sent you a truck. You wanted a little makeup, they've sent you a truck with tools to make silicone face masks. You wanted a few baseball caps as an accessory, they've sent you a truck full of clothing and accessories so all of your talent and production team can be dressed as dwarfs and elves.
Isn't it just that they keep the gear in the truck, and they don't spend the morning unloading the bits they might not need today ? Just storage units on wheels.
Makes sense unless they have 3 trucks of the same gear when they needed 5 lightstands.
Hi Michael. I was actually working as a camera assistant at a rental place in Munich once, and even though this rental was aimed towards news, reportage, and other (non-fictional) stuff, the concept may be the same: equipment was rented in "packages", i.e. the customer paid for a certain package (in this case, a van full of equipment). He always paid the same price regardless of that he might not need everything in the van. There were different "van packages" - small, medium, large, outdoor, indoor, etc. And if you imagine a motion picture production that costs several tens hundred million of dollars, then even these ten 18-wheelers are probpably just "peanuts". At least that´s what I think . . .
Thanks for the insight. As a small scale filmmaker I learned something new.
You build your camera according to the confines of the budget and needs of each individual shoot.
There are days I'm shooting literally out of a backpack with an on camera LCD, cine lens, and battery; then the next day I have a full studio configuration with camera/lens support, matte box w/filters, wireless video & FIZ, cine tape, etc.; then the next day I could be bare bones for gimbal/drone work.
There's a reason why professional shoots typically require all the extra accessories: it's a collaborative field, a studio configuration is very cumbersome for a lone operator with no AC. And each piece of gear has a specific purpose. Luckily unlike cameras, matte boxes and other gear don't need to get upgraded ever. So it may be expensive but will last you throughout your career.
I prefer larger studio configurations, generally that means larger budgets with larger crews-so less of a burden for me to do all the work myself, but to have others helping me... And of course more pay usually on those days ;)
That's true, but it's strange to see DSLRs rigged in setups that usually "look better" on cinema cameras and are comparable to their price range.
Having an expensive house and a cheap car is OK, but living in a trailer and driving a Lambo feels awkward.
lol I like that analogy!
For DSLRs it makes no sense to me why people rig their cameras like that-especially when using cheap gear
Here is a rig that exemplifies this wonderfully =D
But let's remember that the audience has the last word.
Many of these crazy set ups are rarely ever necessary. I see crews all the time walking around with camera rigs that look more like exoskeletons, and then when I actually see the results of the project, more often than not, it turns out to be something you could have probably shot with minimal gear and a 1-2 man crew.
I used to shoot with a crew of guys who would put matteboxes on their markiiis just to make them look more like "real video cameras" in front of the client. I.e. as a way to justify their costs. They never once put any filters in them.
There is definitely a time and a place for all of it, but one of the things that I hate most about video/photo is how heavy, clunky, and cluttering all this gear becomes. It's a pain in the ass when and makes it hard to transition between scenes and locations.
I definitely prefer being lighter. Which is why I am so happy that every year cameras and stabilizers get better and smaller.
I actually don't even bother when I see fellow filmmakers with more expensive gear than I use on my productions as it's all about the end result, as you have mentioned. If these filmmakers make profit from looking cool during the shoot, that's OK. It seems to be a business policy. For people that don't have the money to look cool the only way is to squeeze out the best of the gear they already have and deliver a product that will get them to the next client.
Guess which ones will stay on the market. The ones who show cooler stuff on their portfolio of course. Maybe some filmmakers are better at getting clients by showing cool BTS than cool end results :)
Matte boxes have more use than just putting filters in. It's to prevent lens flare. Also depending on the type of work you are doing it can be extra protection for the lens; whether you're working in a small environment or just have a lot of people walking past the lens it can help.
That's absolutely true.
The problem Christian mentioned was with the big bulky matte boxes that are placed on DSLR-based rigs instead of using a normal lens hood. I use the latter all the time for protection.
While you're correct, there are easier, lighter, less intrusive ways to prevent lens flares and provide protection.
In my experience, very few people I've seen using matte boxes use them for anything other than aesthetics.
Sometimes you rent equipment by the truck, not buy the item. On big productions, the grip and electric and lighting trucks show up with all the stuff in case it's needed. Time is money and if they decide they want to change something on set, the gear is already there.
That's good to know. Thanks
It's not just about improving the quality of the image, it's also about workflow. If you don't have wireless video monitoring, you're limited by cables and your director is limited to where they can sit during the shot. If you don't have wireless focus, aperture and zoom control you risk affecting the operator and your can adjust when on a jib or crane. If you don't have a timecode sync, you create loads of extra work for the edit, matte box is essential to creating the image, without an eye piece you struggle to see in bright sun. Most camera teams will break the camera down to what they need for any given shot
That's correct, Simon.
For low budget productions the director may get along without a wireless transmitter and one can use much cheaper plugins for AE or HitFilm to sync audio in post.
It's all about balancing the budget. As I said above, it's OK to live in a luxury mansion and to drive a cheap car, but it's quite strange to drive a Lambo while living in a trailer. In other words, if the production is based on DSLR cameras that have much narrower dynamic range, there's no logical reason of buying (or renting) gear that's way more expensive that won't affect the image quality in a good way. If renting expensive devices to shoot with a DSLR why not rent a cinema camera too?
If the time of the production team is more expensive, then using lots of high-end gear is absolutely justified.
At the end the viewer cares about the story, not about the gear that was used. That's what brings the client more profit, that's what brings the filmmaker more clients.
A great BTS just brings more filmmaker fans :)
A big "thank you" from all the writers at FStoppers, William. I'm glad you enjoy the original articles.