The Official DSLR w/ Video feature Thread
09-23-2008, 05:10 PM
#1
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
The Official DSLR w/ Video feature Thread
It sucks, next topic.
09-23-2008, 05:13 PM
#3
So what cameras are we talking about???
09-23-2008, 05:16 PM
#4
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:36 PM
#5
is learning to moonwalk i
Come to think of it, I can see some pro film makers making use of this feature - as a supplement, not replacement, to conventional video cameras.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
09-23-2008, 05:41 PM
#6
Senior Moderator
hahahaa... awesome 1st post.
09-23-2008, 05:43 PM
#7
Come to think of it, I can see some pro film makers making use of this feature - as a supplement, not replacement, to conventional video cameras.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
Trending Topics
09-23-2008, 05:50 PM
#8
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,276
Received 2,793 Likes
on
1,988 Posts
thanks.
09-23-2008, 05:54 PM
#9
now with four rings
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Bixby, OK
Age: 42
Posts: 1,745
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
09-23-2008, 05:55 PM
#10
Senior Moderator
looked briefly, some info here.. also a little refresher on "The Corpse Bride"..
http://photo.net/digital-camera-shopping-forum/00DAae
09-23-2008, 05:57 PM
#11
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
Come to think of it, I can see some pro film makers making use of this feature - as a supplement, not replacement, to conventional video cameras.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
Think of how innovative The Matrix was with it's use of dozens of 1D series cameras. Now, just think of applying similar techniques using HD video. Imagine filming the same scene in HD from multiple angles at the same time from places/positions you can't fit a human body. I think this WILL work its way into studio work, but only for specialty shoots.
etc etc etc
09-23-2008, 05:58 PM
#12
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
09-23-2008, 06:01 PM
#13
Needs more Lemon Pledge
From http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/01/02/1048219
This is nothing new. As a matter of fact, there's actually a really cool Behind-the-scenes featurette on the Matrix DVD. They actually show each step of the process, from the camera circle / GreenScreen, to the Computer rendering of the walls, to finished product. Good stuff.
Whoever thought up this technique was brilliant. The design is simple, but obviously *very* effective. Basically, the design is simply a row of cameras (usually circular with varying height) that film on a central position. The cameras are all exactly synched with eachother, and film simultaneously. During the editing process, the film from each angle is played at the same time, and frames from each camera are used as input to the final master. So say Camera 1 is at position A, Camera 2 is at position B, and Camera 3 is at position C. All three cameras are filming one central point. During editing, Frame 1 is taken from Camera 1, and the next two frames in succession are taken from the next two cameras, all from the SAME TIME POINT. (Since all cameras are exactly synched, you get 3 different angles of the same shot.)
When the editing is finished, the shot appears to rotate around the central film point.
Whoever thought up this technique was brilliant. The design is simple, but obviously *very* effective. Basically, the design is simply a row of cameras (usually circular with varying height) that film on a central position. The cameras are all exactly synched with eachother, and film simultaneously. During the editing process, the film from each angle is played at the same time, and frames from each camera are used as input to the final master. So say Camera 1 is at position A, Camera 2 is at position B, and Camera 3 is at position C. All three cameras are filming one central point. During editing, Frame 1 is taken from Camera 1, and the next two frames in succession are taken from the next two cameras, all from the SAME TIME POINT. (Since all cameras are exactly synched, you get 3 different angles of the same shot.)
When the editing is finished, the shot appears to rotate around the central film point.
09-23-2008, 06:09 PM
#14
is learning to moonwalk i
I'm pretty sure they show the setup in the bonus features of the DVD.
Here's a short video - each of the black dots is a camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZh787eKeEw
Sorry - I noticed there were a few replies since I started this post (was AFK for a few)
Here's a short video - each of the black dots is a camera:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZh787eKeEw
Sorry - I noticed there were a few replies since I started this post (was AFK for a few)
09-23-2008, 07:42 PM
#16
Big Block go VROOOM!
Alright, I'm going to rip the 24p/30p thing over to here. I actually hope Canon doesn't release a 24p firmware update for the 5DII. The reason being that I have a hunch many of the people crying for it are doing so because "it's the cool thing" and not because they have an actual need for it.
I'd welcome Sarlacc's comments but here's what I gathered back when I was doing my video research. The only legitimate reason to shoot in 24p is if you have a specific known target output for your material. In 99.9% of cases that known target output needs to be either A) film or B) a disc player capable of 24p output combined with a display that is capable of both accepting a 24p input and having a refresh rate that is a multiple of 24. No other combination of things are going to give you a "real" 24p display.
Now can you shoot in 24p and achieve a "different look" than 30p if you're not outputting to either A or B mentioned above? Yes, but what that "different look" actually looks like is going to depend on the hardware you're using for playback and display, and/or the software you used for capture and editing, and/or the processes you used within the software. In other words it's just shy of a crapshoot.
So why not include 24p in the 5DmII? Because anyone that has a legitimate need for it is not going to use a DSLR to shoot their stuff.
I'd welcome Sarlacc's comments but here's what I gathered back when I was doing my video research. The only legitimate reason to shoot in 24p is if you have a specific known target output for your material. In 99.9% of cases that known target output needs to be either A) film or B) a disc player capable of 24p output combined with a display that is capable of both accepting a 24p input and having a refresh rate that is a multiple of 24. No other combination of things are going to give you a "real" 24p display.
Now can you shoot in 24p and achieve a "different look" than 30p if you're not outputting to either A or B mentioned above? Yes, but what that "different look" actually looks like is going to depend on the hardware you're using for playback and display, and/or the software you used for capture and editing, and/or the processes you used within the software. In other words it's just shy of a crapshoot.
So why not include 24p in the 5DmII? Because anyone that has a legitimate need for it is not going to use a DSLR to shoot their stuff.
09-23-2008, 07:52 PM
#17
Senior Moderator
For pro work, don't use the 5D2. I can see that point.
But tell me this - if the 5D2 was 24p, would Vincent Laforet's video have had the "film look" on my computer screen? If the answer is yes, I want it. I want it because that's a more professional looking look. Not because it's cooler.
But tell me this - if the 5D2 was 24p, would Vincent Laforet's video have had the "film look" on my computer screen? If the answer is yes, I want it. I want it because that's a more professional looking look. Not because it's cooler.
09-23-2008, 08:03 PM
#18
Big Block go VROOOM!
A different look, yes. But if you gave that same video file to me and I played it on my screen, the look could be different than on your screen. Now if you put the video to a BD, it could have a third different look on your TV and player and a fourth different look on my TV and player. Some of these looks you might like, some you might not. No control.
09-23-2008, 08:07 PM
#19
CL9 ABP
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Commack, Long Island -> Queens NY
Age: 37
Posts: 4,528
Received 245 Likes
on
112 Posts
I was comparing a friends new d90 and my d300 at a club event for school. Wow his iso noise is pretty darn nice, maybe clearer than my d300.
The video mode is cool but i can see alot of people kill that idea. (ahhh stop the camera shake or ##$@#$#@ tilt.
The video mode is cool but i can see alot of people kill that idea. (ahhh stop the camera shake or ##$@#$#@ tilt.
09-23-2008, 08:09 PM
#20
Senior Moderator
dang serious.. I'd still like to get one later on.. to have a smaller cam.
09-23-2008, 08:10 PM
#21
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
Alright, I'm going to rip the 24p/30p thing over to here. I actually hope Canon doesn't release a 24p firmware update for the 5DII. The reason being that I have a hunch many of the people crying for it are doing so because "it's the cool thing" and not because they have an actual need for it.
I'd welcome Sarlacc's comments but here's what I gathered back when I was doing my video research.
So why not include 24p in the 5DmII? Because anyone that has a legitimate need for it is not going to use a DSLR to shoot their stuff.
I'd welcome Sarlacc's comments but here's what I gathered back when I was doing my video research.
So why not include 24p in the 5DmII? Because anyone that has a legitimate need for it is not going to use a DSLR to shoot their stuff.
09-23-2008, 08:11 PM
#22
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
A different look, yes. But if you gave that same video file to me and I played it on my screen, the look could be different than on your screen. Now if you put the video to a BD, it could have a third different look on your TV and player and a fourth different look on my TV and player. Some of these looks you might like, some you might not. No control.
09-23-2008, 08:12 PM
#23
Big Block go VROOOM!
One niche application that would be cool for the 5DmII would be for projects like the Beastie Boys I f*ckin' shot that! movie where you hand out a fleet of cameras to a bunch of anyones and then assemble something from the footage (and stills) they capture.
09-23-2008, 08:15 PM
#24
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,276
Received 2,793 Likes
on
1,988 Posts
the only thing that bugs me about 24fps is in those long pans it looks really choppy in my eyes.
09-23-2008, 08:15 PM
#25
Senior Moderator
09-23-2008, 08:17 PM
#26
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
Heres the thing, cause I know where Bill is going with this.
Yes. I just ran out and shot a project in 24p...then I edited in 24p...but when I made the output I had my computer do whatever conversions were necessary to make it playable on a DVD or quicktime or whatever...for arguments sake, lets say 60p...I'm not changing my framerate. I shot a project at 24. Ive just outputted that project to be able to play on other formats.
Its a lot different then say I shot 24p...and within that same timeline I needed to change a portion to 48fps for a slow mo effect.
The "look" of shooting 24fps is still there no matter what you watch on.
Yes. I just ran out and shot a project in 24p...then I edited in 24p...but when I made the output I had my computer do whatever conversions were necessary to make it playable on a DVD or quicktime or whatever...for arguments sake, lets say 60p...I'm not changing my framerate. I shot a project at 24. Ive just outputted that project to be able to play on other formats.
Its a lot different then say I shot 24p...and within that same timeline I needed to change a portion to 48fps for a slow mo effect.
The "look" of shooting 24fps is still there no matter what you watch on.
09-23-2008, 08:18 PM
#27
Senior Moderator
09-23-2008, 08:18 PM
#28
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
09-23-2008, 08:19 PM
#29
CL9 ABP
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Commack, Long Island -> Queens NY
Age: 37
Posts: 4,528
Received 245 Likes
on
112 Posts
Apparently some quick reading people say the d90 has good high iso but not up there as the d300, it just produces cleaner images.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm
yes its KR but... just seeing what his test came out...
---------------------
D90
The D90 is second best. The D90 has much more noise in the background, and pleasantly, it retains what looks like plenty of sharpness and real, live texture in the subject. The D90 seems a tweak oversharpened in the highlights, while that the darker right side of Mr. Monkey is actually noise, and not monkey fur texture. Look at the random pattern of dark spots in the darker fur, not seen in the D3 example. The D90 is doing a superb job of trying to fool our eyes while carefully alternating between real texture and random noise. I wouldn't mind this, so long as the background noise levels are OK.
D300
The D300 is next to last. D300 images at ISO 3,200 don't look noisy, but they do reduce a lot of the resolution and look more like an image from a point-and-shoot as opposed to a real, living clean image like what you get from the D3 and D90.
The D300 has about the same middle-frequency and chroma noise, but has smudged over all the fine monkey fur texture. The D300 image looks OK, until you compare it with the real texture in the D90 image. Much of what looks like fur in the D300 image is actually colored random noise.
The D300 image has also lost color and vibrancy compared to the D90 and D3.
Looking at exposure, the D300 isn't quite as sensitive as the D90; the D300 is slightly darker.
At ISO 3,200 you're making excuses with the D300, while the D3 still looks great. The D90 is in between these two.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d90/iso-3200.htm
yes its KR but... just seeing what his test came out...
---------------------
D90
The D90 is second best. The D90 has much more noise in the background, and pleasantly, it retains what looks like plenty of sharpness and real, live texture in the subject. The D90 seems a tweak oversharpened in the highlights, while that the darker right side of Mr. Monkey is actually noise, and not monkey fur texture. Look at the random pattern of dark spots in the darker fur, not seen in the D3 example. The D90 is doing a superb job of trying to fool our eyes while carefully alternating between real texture and random noise. I wouldn't mind this, so long as the background noise levels are OK.
D300
The D300 is next to last. D300 images at ISO 3,200 don't look noisy, but they do reduce a lot of the resolution and look more like an image from a point-and-shoot as opposed to a real, living clean image like what you get from the D3 and D90.
The D300 has about the same middle-frequency and chroma noise, but has smudged over all the fine monkey fur texture. The D300 image looks OK, until you compare it with the real texture in the D90 image. Much of what looks like fur in the D300 image is actually colored random noise.
The D300 image has also lost color and vibrancy compared to the D90 and D3.
Looking at exposure, the D300 isn't quite as sensitive as the D90; the D300 is slightly darker.
At ISO 3,200 you're making excuses with the D300, while the D3 still looks great. The D90 is in between these two.
09-23-2008, 08:19 PM
#30
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,276
Received 2,793 Likes
on
1,988 Posts
09-23-2008, 08:20 PM
#31
Senior Moderator
good move on creating separate thread... now we can ramble on and on and on and on and not feel like we're thread-jacking. 
09-23-2008, 08:22 PM
#32
Senior Moderator
the D90 in between the D3 and D300?? wow that's news to me... wow... I was under the impression the D90 was a "baby D300"... but it looks like it's a "baby D3"!!! 
09-23-2008, 08:27 PM
#33
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
09-23-2008, 08:28 PM
#34
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
09-23-2008, 08:30 PM
#35
CL9 ABP
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Commack, Long Island -> Queens NY
Age: 37
Posts: 4,528
Received 245 Likes
on
112 Posts
Nah its not a baby d3 because of the body and such, but that camera is like a d80 body and damn d300 feature of high iso. Even 4fps, it replaced the cost of the d80 new too i think.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.
09-23-2008, 08:30 PM
#36
Moderator
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Not Las Vegas (SF Bay Area)
Age: 40
Posts: 63,276
Received 2,793 Likes
on
1,988 Posts
09-23-2008, 08:31 PM
#37
The Third Ball
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,316
Received 4,967 Likes
on
2,645 Posts
Nah its not a baby d3 because of the body and such, but that camera is like a d80 body and damn d300 feature of high iso. Even 4fps, it replaced the cost of the d80 new too i think.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.
D3 has a mic...in the back....and fuck no they better never enable such a feature.
09-23-2008, 08:34 PM
#38
Big Block go VROOOM!
Heres the thing, cause I know where Bill is going with this.
Yes. I just ran out and shot a project in 24p...then I edited in 24p...but when I made the output I had my computer do whatever conversions were necessary to make it playable on a DVD or quicktime or whatever...for arguments sake, lets say 60p...I'm not changing my framerate. I shot a project at 24. Ive just outputted that project to be able to play on other formats.
Its a lot different then say I shot 24p...and within that same timeline I needed to change a portion to 48fps for a slow mo effect.
The "look" of shooting 24fps is still there no matter what you watch on.
Yes. I just ran out and shot a project in 24p...then I edited in 24p...but when I made the output I had my computer do whatever conversions were necessary to make it playable on a DVD or quicktime or whatever...for arguments sake, lets say 60p...I'm not changing my framerate. I shot a project at 24. Ive just outputted that project to be able to play on other formats.
Its a lot different then say I shot 24p...and within that same timeline I needed to change a portion to 48fps for a slow mo effect.
The "look" of shooting 24fps is still there no matter what you watch on.
Taking your example, clearly there has to be some frames made up or interpolated to make up the difference in acquired frame rate versus displayed frame rate. Srika's combination of equipment might "make up" the frame rate difference by displaying entire frames multiple times whereas my combination of equipment might make up the difference by creating frames from fields in adjacent frames. It's these differeneces that I was thinking are what potentially creates a different looking image on Srkia's stuff than mine.
Of course now that I just typed all that, I'm starting to get the feeling that everything I just spewed primarily effects edge definition during movement. Bah! I'm not meant to run on four hours of sleep.
09-23-2008, 08:38 PM
#39
CL9 ABP
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Commack, Long Island -> Queens NY
Age: 37
Posts: 4,528
Received 245 Likes
on
112 Posts
I really don't want to start seeing garbage that people throw up cuz they got an entry level slr and use full auto and make crappy videos.
Same with anyone who buys a d300 and doesn't use manual...
Same with anyone who buys a d300 and doesn't use manual...
09-23-2008, 08:48 PM
#40
Senior Moderator
Nah its not a baby d3 because of the body and such, but that camera is like a d80 body and damn d300 feature of high iso. Even 4fps, it replaced the cost of the d80 new too i think.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.
The video idea is still so weird, but i think the d300 and d3 might get firmware for it if someone comes with a mic and speaker attachment.