It's official: 5D Mark II
09-23-2008, 09:21 AM
#281
Big Block go VROOOM!
Dan, I'm pretty sure that example of jellocam is caused by the CMOS rolling shutter. That's pretty damn extreme though.
Regarding the look of 24p vs. 30p, I've read that you can't compare the two when viewing on a computer monitor due to the fact that the monitor is locked to a 60 Hz refresh rate (assuming an LCD panel).
Regarding the look of 24p vs. 30p, I've read that you can't compare the two when viewing on a computer monitor due to the fact that the monitor is locked to a 60 Hz refresh rate (assuming an LCD panel).
09-23-2008, 10:25 AM
#282
09-23-2008, 12:55 PM
#284
Senior Moderator
09-23-2008, 02:38 PM
#285
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
No funds or plans for a new body for some time.
09-23-2008, 04:08 PM
#288
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's a sample video from the 5D Mark II, damn I wish I had $2700
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086
09-23-2008, 04:26 PM
#290
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
I don't know if this has been posted yet, but it's a sample video from the 5D Mark II, damn I wish I had $2700
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086
Great....for something that looks like the end all be all of VIDEO.
09-23-2008, 04:29 PM
#291
is learning to moonwalk i
Should this feature come at the price of sub-par still IQ? Hell no, but it seems like IQ has been greatly improved.
09-23-2008, 04:32 PM
#292
Senior Moderator
I do understand his concern, as it has the potential to affect his job. Of course, I would never want that to happen. But look at what's happened with photography over the past years (everyone and their mother has an SLR). It is possible this could happen with film as well. The winds of change stop for nothing.
09-23-2008, 04:33 PM
#293
He's reading a lot of shit from video forums about how this is the next best thing since slice bread. So his 
from there carries over here.
from there carries over here.
09-23-2008, 04:34 PM
#294
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
I seriously don't understand why you are so dead set against this. Sure, this isn't a video camera and maybe not a feature that a pro filmmaker/videographer would use, but that demographic represents less than 0.01% of the population/users. I think the remaining 99.99% of users will find it useful.
Should this feature come at the price of sub-par still IQ? Hell no, but it seems like IQ has been greatly improved.
Should this feature come at the price of sub-par still IQ? Hell no, but it seems like IQ has been greatly improved.
Aside from that I am serious. The video looks great. But its also the epitome of all things HD video. Home movies...awesome.
09-23-2008, 04:35 PM
#295
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
I do understand his concern, as it has the potential to affect his job. Of course, I would never want that to happen. But look at what's happened with photography over the past years (everyone and their mother has an SLR). It is possible this could happen with film as well. The winds of change stop for nothing.
09-23-2008, 04:38 PM
#297
is learning to moonwalk i
I do understand his concern, as it has the potential to affect his job. Of course, I would never want that to happen. But look at what's happened with photography over the past years (everyone and their mother has an SLR). It is possible this could happen with film as well. The winds of change stop for nothing.
I don't see any producers or directors of photography going out and finding people off the street to shoot their movies because they have a 5DmkII. Sure, the studios are budget conscious, but not completely stupid. I don't see what has happened recently with wedding photography with people having cousins shoot because they have a dSLR (and often regret) will happen in film making. Sure, some more indi/short film makers may go this route, but generally they would have been shooting with other con/pro-sumer equipment, not real pro gear with union cinematographers.
09-23-2008, 04:42 PM
#298
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
If anything, I see this as technology that will drastically improve the equipment he uses down the road.
I don't see any producers or directors of photography going out and finding people off the street to shoot their movies because they have a 5DmkII. Sure, the studios are budget conscious, but not completely stupid. I don't see what has happened recently with wedding photography with people having cousins shoot because they have a dSLR (and often regret) will happen in film making. Sure, some more indi/short film makers may go this route, but generally they would have been shooting with other con/pro-sumer equipment, not real pro gear with union cinematographers.
I don't see any producers or directors of photography going out and finding people off the street to shoot their movies because they have a 5DmkII. Sure, the studios are budget conscious, but not completely stupid. I don't see what has happened recently with wedding photography with people having cousins shoot because they have a dSLR (and often regret) will happen in film making. Sure, some more indi/short film makers may go this route, but generally they would have been shooting with other con/pro-sumer equipment, not real pro gear with union cinematographers.
09-23-2008, 04:45 PM
#299
is learning to moonwalk i
You are very much correct. Its just giving the indie guys another means to be even MORE clueless about the process of filmmaking when they think these cams are amazing make the job easier...when in reality its vice versa. The video forums are running rampant with these uber tards right now. And the only reason I'm following any of it is because I'm stuck in this damn condo with nothing else to do
09-23-2008, 04:47 PM
#300
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 04:47 PM
#301
Senior Moderator
If anything, I see this as technology that will drastically improve the equipment he uses down the road.
I don't see any producers or directors of photography going out and finding people off the street to shoot their movies because they have a 5DmkII. Sure, the studios are budget conscious, but not completely stupid. I don't see what has happened recently with wedding photography with people having cousins shoot because they have a dSLR (and often regret) will happen in film making. Sure, some more indi/short film makers may go this route, but generally they would have been shooting with other con/pro-sumer equipment, not real pro gear with union cinematographers.
I don't see any producers or directors of photography going out and finding people off the street to shoot their movies because they have a 5DmkII. Sure, the studios are budget conscious, but not completely stupid. I don't see what has happened recently with wedding photography with people having cousins shoot because they have a dSLR (and often regret) will happen in film making. Sure, some more indi/short film makers may go this route, but generally they would have been shooting with other con/pro-sumer equipment, not real pro gear with union cinematographers.
I'm a proponent of the idea that if you are good at something, share your knowledge with others. It keeps you motivated and doesn't let you get lazy or get into a rut.
09-23-2008, 04:48 PM
#302
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 04:50 PM
#303
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
Because now all these low budget retards can go "make" their movies with an inexpensive HD camera using real high quality interchangeable optics that dont cost as much comparing to cinema optics...or dont require the use of an obtrusive annoying and costly lens adapter.
09-23-2008, 04:51 PM
#304
Senior Moderator
You are very much correct. Its just giving the indie guys another means to be even MORE clueless about the process of filmmaking when they think these cams are amazing make the job easier...when in reality its vice versa. The video forums are running rampant with these uber tards right now. And the only reason I'm following any of it is because I'm stuck in this damn condo with nothing else to do
09-23-2008, 04:52 PM
#305
Senior Moderator
it was inevitable. are you saying you don't like advances in technology? that would not be good, because, I think this is just the tip of the iceberg..
09-23-2008, 04:53 PM
#306
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 04:53 PM
#307
Big Block go VROOOM!
I'm in the horses for courses camp. Gimme a video camera or give me a still camera. Somewhere, somehow, compromises were made to get video of this quality into this SLR. As to how important those sacrificial lambs may have been to you, me, anyone, can be discussed ad nauseum. Make no mistake about it though, compromises were made.
09-23-2008, 04:54 PM
#308
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:01 PM
#309
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
can we make a separate thread about video on DSLRs, i keep looking at this thread hoping for more info about the 5DmkII 
09-23-2008, 05:07 PM
#310
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:09 PM
#311
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,256
Received 2,787 Likes
on
1,987 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:10 PM
#312
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:12 PM
#313
I'm in the horses for courses camp. Gimme a video camera or give me a still camera. Somewhere, somehow, compromises were made to get video of this quality into this SLR. As to how important those sacrificial lambs may have been to you, me, anyone, can be discussed ad nauseum. Make no mistake about it though, compromises were made.
09-23-2008, 05:18 PM
#314
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
What if the whole reason they kept the same AF...was because they found it worked better with the video function?
Not saying they did...but man would I be infuriated if it were true if I was a die hard canon shooter...
09-23-2008, 05:20 PM
#315
Any field (ie: yours) involving technology guarantees you'll always need to be learning and adapting to new things in order to stay knowledgeable, skilled, and competitive, right? It's not like the technology you're currently using will remain forever either.
Personally, I can't see the average consumer and purchaser of this camera interfering at all with people who have years of skill and experience behind them, using proper video equipment. If this is the wave of the future (next few gens of still cameras), hooray for the people who wanted a multi-functional camera.
I don't know if I care so much about the video function at the moment, but I certainly think Canon is being smart in making a multi-purpose device, and advancing that technology (in still cameras), for future users and generations of cameras.
09-23-2008, 05:27 PM
#316
Big Block go VROOOM!
I think that point is strongly a matter of perspective. What if you happen to be a video enthusiast to begin with? I'd be pretty pissed if I was. I now have to pay for a DSLR still camera to get Canon's best consumer level video technology.
09-23-2008, 05:29 PM
#317
Didn't think of it that way, no wonder Canon is going to open a new lens factory in the next few months.
09-23-2008, 05:30 PM
#318
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,265
Received 4,937 Likes
on
2,627 Posts
So? Let them.
Any field (ie: yours) involving technology guarantees you'll always need to be learning and adapting to new things in order to stay knowledgeable, skilled, and competitive, right? It's not like the technology you're currently using will remain forever either.
Any field (ie: yours) involving technology guarantees you'll always need to be learning and adapting to new things in order to stay knowledgeable, skilled, and competitive, right? It's not like the technology you're currently using will remain forever either.
Or some "visionary" DP will decide he wants to use one...make it a giant cluster fuck for us, and then bitch and moan when things dont happen how he wants, and refuses to understand why.
I love learning new technologies. I do my best to stay current with the times.
A stupid idea is still a stupid idea.
09-23-2008, 05:35 PM
#320
Senior Moderator
Originally posted by srika
btw dunno if you have heard the talk about the video framerate issue. but 24fps is the "film" rate and 30fps is "video".. the 5D2 is 30fps. It results in the video looking like it was shot by a camcorder. Anyways, people are speaking out all over the place about this issue and I have a feeling Canon will do a firmware update to have selectable fps.
btw dunno if you have heard the talk about the video framerate issue. but 24fps is the "film" rate and 30fps is "video".. the 5D2 is 30fps. It results in the video looking like it was shot by a camcorder. Anyways, people are speaking out all over the place about this issue and I have a feeling Canon will do a firmware update to have selectable fps.
Originally posted by (user)
How does having a higher or lower FPS have anything to do with the quality of the shots? Those people are fucking idiots. More fps just means smoother motion. You know like 60hz and 120hz refresh rates? Exactly the same concept.
How does having a higher or lower FPS have anything to do with the quality of the shots? Those people are fucking idiots. More fps just means smoother motion. You know like 60hz and 120hz refresh rates? Exactly the same concept.
Originally posted by srika
no, its a valid issue, they are not idiots, they are pros. movies are shot at 24fps (23.976 to be exact) and this gives them the "film" look. you might have to do some reading on it to understand what they're talking about. it's a pretty big difference.
no, its a valid issue, they are not idiots, they are pros. movies are shot at 24fps (23.976 to be exact) and this gives them the "film" look. you might have to do some reading on it to understand what they're talking about. it's a pretty big difference.
Originally posted by (user)
If I am not mistaken, this has NOTHING to do with FPS, and has EVERYTHING to do with the sensor.
If I am correct in my assumption they are talking about the FOV problems where EVERYTHING is in focus, you have no depth, etc? If that is the case, FPS is a lame excuse. It is NOT FPS, but sensor design.
If I am not mistaken, this has NOTHING to do with FPS, and has EVERYTHING to do with the sensor.
If I am correct in my assumption they are talking about the FOV problems where EVERYTHING is in focus, you have no depth, etc? If that is the case, FPS is a lame excuse. It is NOT FPS, but sensor design.
Originally posted by srika
no, that's not what they're talking about.
have a look here:
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/09/...4p-please.html
no, that's not what they're talking about.
have a look here:
http://prolost.blogspot.com/2008/09/...4p-please.html
Originally posted by (user)
...23.975 vs 29.997 has good arguments if you are outputting for film use, but who is? 29.997 is fine (Yes I saw that they were complaining of the retiming and ghosting issues associated with resampling, etc) but that doesn't change the fact that 50fps and 100fps will have no effect on color gamut, fov, depth, clarity (except in high motion), etc. It is strictly adding more frames per second. Sensor design has a huge effect on how it deals with higher frame rates, and the quality, but strictly blaming fps is a crock of shit.
You should check out the RED ONE if you haven't read up on it.
...23.975 vs 29.997 has good arguments if you are outputting for film use, but who is? 29.997 is fine (Yes I saw that they were complaining of the retiming and ghosting issues associated with resampling, etc) but that doesn't change the fact that 50fps and 100fps will have no effect on color gamut, fov, depth, clarity (except in high motion), etc. It is strictly adding more frames per second. Sensor design has a huge effect on how it deals with higher frame rates, and the quality, but strictly blaming fps is a crock of shit.
You should check out the RED ONE if you haven't read up on it.
Originally posted by srika
lots of people want the "film" look, on their computer screens. which is possible with 24fps. I'm one of em.
I know about the Red One - kinda an entirely different ballgame.
lots of people want the "film" look, on their computer screens. which is possible with 24fps. I'm one of em.
I know about the Red One - kinda an entirely different ballgame.
Originally posted by (user)
I still don't get this "film" look that you are talking about. I am fully aware of the obvious color gamut, depth, fov, etc differences in movies at the theater (I do see it there), but that has to do with the quality of the film cameras compared to the digital counterparts (excluding the RED ONE of course) sensors when comparing the raw video. Is the "film" look referring to the motion blur, the color reproduction or what? There has to be some tangible way of explaining this. Or give me the exact same video; one at 24p, and one at 29.997p (or even 30p whatever works) and prove that it really is different aside from frame-rates.
I still don't get this "film" look that you are talking about. I am fully aware of the obvious color gamut, depth, fov, etc differences in movies at the theater (I do see it there), but that has to do with the quality of the film cameras compared to the digital counterparts (excluding the RED ONE of course) sensors when comparing the raw video. Is the "film" look referring to the motion blur, the color reproduction or what? There has to be some tangible way of explaining this. Or give me the exact same video; one at 24p, and one at 29.997p (or even 30p whatever works) and prove that it really is different aside from frame-rates.
Originally posted by srika
no this is purely having to do with frame rate - not anything else. It's tricky to explain the difference. Ever watch a soap opera? Do you know how the speed of the motion (framerate) looks different than say, a show like CSI or something? It looks like a home video, not a production. That's the difference. You can see it in the Laforet video too, it's basically "too" smooth and that gives it a "shot by a video camera" look which is not a "pro" look. Read around on it, there's probably some awesome comparisons out there showing side by side videos and such. I have to run out now otherwise I would do it myself.
no this is purely having to do with frame rate - not anything else. It's tricky to explain the difference. Ever watch a soap opera? Do you know how the speed of the motion (framerate) looks different than say, a show like CSI or something? It looks like a home video, not a production. That's the difference. You can see it in the Laforet video too, it's basically "too" smooth and that gives it a "shot by a video camera" look which is not a "pro" look. Read around on it, there's probably some awesome comparisons out there showing side by side videos and such. I have to run out now otherwise I would do it myself.
Originally posted by (user)
Ahh so you want that old look. The traditional 1950s style annoying flickering. I have always hated that. I can see it in theaters of all types that use film. I fucking get so annoyed with it.
edit//fucking traditionalists!!!!!!!!!! :p
Ahh so you want that old look. The traditional 1950s style annoying flickering. I have always hated that. I can see it in theaters of all types that use film. I fucking get so annoyed with it.
edit//fucking traditionalists!!!!!!!!!! :p
Originally posted by srika
el o' el..
el o' el..