Canon 5D Mark II - A videography revolution? [Archive]

fivepoint

Nov 6, 2008, 09:43 AM

I've been reading up a bit on the new Canon 5D Mark II (dSLR) through Gizmodo and a few other sites... they seem to be implying that due to recent technological breakthroughs including processor speed, and old benefits such as the glass and sensor, SLR's might now be able to produce higher quality videos than even the best video cameras. They posted a few example videos, both of which were VERY impressive by my standards. I'd really like to get your opinions and thoughts on how this might change the video industry.

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086

http://gizmodo.com/5078123/its-official-the-canon-5d-mk-ii-will-turn-us-all-into-professional-cinematographers

http://gizmodo.com/5050819/canon-5d-mark-iis-full-hd-video-is-so-stunning-our-eyes-explode

Courtaj

Nov 6, 2008, 10:09 AM

I thought there were serious limitations with the present offerings. Auto-focus, for one; resolution for another; file size is another. Those big DSLR sensors sure are appealing, though. This isn't going to change the video industry just yet - it's an intriguing option for those looking for a tool primarily for shooting stills that has the bonus of shooting short HD clips. But I doubt Canon would be jumping on this bandwagon if they thought it would cast their camcorder line-up in a shadowy light.

Andrew.

FF_productions

Nov 6, 2008, 10:12 AM

There's gonna be a sweeping change to the videography industry, with cameras like the nikon d90 and the Canon Mark II . Not saying they will replace video cameras, but the video camera makers will step it up a notch to match this high quality footage these cams are outputting.

Give it time, it's in its early stages, don't want to piss off the pro video people lol, they can't bare to hear such a thing.

I have the D90, but Mark II just stomps a mudhole in it.

fivepoint

Nov 6, 2008, 10:17 AM

the video camera makers will step it up a notch to match this high quality footage these cams are outputting.

The most amazing aspect in my opinion is the low-light performance. I'm just amazed at the amount of detail it picks up in low lighting situations. The video seems to have so much 'character'. It's very hard to describe.

jampat

Nov 6, 2008, 10:45 AM

It will be interesting to see if the aftermarket comes up with video camera type handles for these SLR's. An SLR is not shaped properly to shoot video with (well not much of it anyway). Before they have a real chance, someone will need to come up with a much more comfortable (and stable) way to hand hold them. For tripod shots, the idea is intriguing though.

goinskiing

Nov 6, 2008, 10:48 AM

Now those were much more incredible than I had imagined they would be. Wow.

duncanapple

Nov 6, 2008, 01:02 PM

Wow, those were great. Makes it even easier for a casual user to justify such an expensive camera too.

What file format does the canon record in? Based on the video I assume its something FCE, FCP, and iMovie can read?

Pretty cool regardless. I have thought about if I really want an HD video camera - I like the idea of editing and having movies, though not many things I would record would be more clips more than a few minutes each (ie babys first steps) or else they get borderline boring or something you don't ever watch again. So, from my perspective, it seems like for a lot of people, combining a really great video camera, into a stellar still camera is the way to go.

- Chris

pdpfilms

Nov 6, 2008, 01:28 PM

mkrishnan

Nov 6, 2008, 01:35 PM

The most amazing aspect in my opinion is the low-light performance. I'm just amazed at the amount of detail it picks up in low lighting situations. The video seems to have so much 'character'. It's very hard to describe.

I think a big thing too will be that tons of higher level amateurs will have access to removable optics. That will open up all kinds of cinematographical technique not previously available to them. Interesting.

(And I watched the first video... very, very nice.)

FF_productions

Nov 6, 2008, 08:07 PM

Just wait until Nov. 13 (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21039). It (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21335) will (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=21163) be (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710) incredible. (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710)

Yes, the holy RED Scarlet...too bad it's not coming until year from now at earliest but they are helping to revolutionize this industry.

lucidmedia

Nov 6, 2008, 08:51 PM

Yes, the holy RED Scarlet...too bad it's not coming until year from now at earliest but they are helping to revolutionize this industry.

I don't think he is referring to the scarlet... he it talking about the RED DSLR replacement... interesting days ahead.

LethalWolfe

Nov 6, 2008, 09:08 PM

I don't think he is referring to the scarlet... he it talking about the RED DSLR replacement... interesting days ahead.
Speculation is that the Scarlet and RED's 'DSMC' (Digital Still & Motion Camera) are being morphed into a single product. After Nikon and Canon released their DSLRs w/HD video RED said the Scarlet and DSMC were changing and there would be more news on 11-13.

Lethal

FF_productions

Nov 7, 2008, 10:50 AM

Ohh, I must be behind on the news...Can't wait!!

wheelhot

Nov 7, 2008, 12:05 PM

Well since Canon wont take videography into an important factor since they have their own proper DV cams, how about Nikon? I don't think Nikon make video cams rite? The only disadvantage for Nikon is its lack of experience in making video cams, compared to Canon and Sony. :D

rhett7660

Nov 7, 2008, 02:31 PM

Re: Canon 5D Mark II. I think I just found my next camera. Both me and the wife have 30D's and I have been looking to get a 5D. Think I might take the plunge after seeing that. Oh man....

Courtaj

Nov 7, 2008, 03:06 PM

Make sure to buy the rest of the kit: the multiple lenses, lighting and grip rig that went in to making that picture.

fivepoint

Nov 7, 2008, 03:34 PM

Make sure to buy the rest of the kit: the multiple lenses, lighting and grip rig that went in to making that picture.

Check out the 2nd article. They didn't use any of that... especially the helicopter.

rhett7660

Nov 7, 2008, 03:44 PM

Make sure to buy the rest of the kit: the multiple lenses, lighting and grip rig that went in to making that picture.

I have the lighting :D

I have several lenses now! The grip might be hard to come by thou.....

I have a feeling this remark was ment as a smart a$$ comment, because everyone knows the equipment is what makes a really good movie or picture. :rolleyes:

Check out this video. Behind the scenes shots:

http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/#378608891_Jd2CT-A-LB

jammiefreerider

Nov 9, 2008, 08:48 PM

LethalWolfe

Nov 9, 2008, 09:04 PM

I think it is a videography revolution. People pay tons of cash to add DoF adapters and adapters for L series lens's etc. Its the look that some videographers want and now its here, perfect but in an unconventional form. There will be lots of supports that will make it feel more like a video camera.
I wouldn't say perfect as it's 30.00fps only, h.264, no manual controls in video mode, no timecode, no usable audio, skew & jello from the CMOS sensor, etc., but it definitely is a nice sign of future potential.

Lethal

wheelhot

Nov 9, 2008, 09:52 PM

Yeah, videography for DSLR is awesome, well the thing that needs to be clear is that if you are serious into videography, don't be cheap and expect a 2 in one component.

I agree that DSLR + video will be able to achieve something amazing but they are a lot of other things in a proper video camera (I'm not into videography, I just enjoy recording stuffs)

But like some user posted, if you are a person who shoots some video regularly and just a general user, then this feature is great :D

fivepoint

Nov 10, 2008, 09:13 AM

I wouldn't say perfect as it's 30.00fps only, h.264, no manual controls in video mode, no timecode, no usable audio, skew & jello from the CMOS sensor, etc., but it definitely is a nice sign of future potential.

Lethal

Lethal,
Just a few questions from a video newb. Why did you list h.264 as a negative? Also, with the audio, doesn't the canon accept microphone attachments? Also, skew and jello?

Thanks
Fivepoint

KeithPratt

Nov 10, 2008, 12:05 PM

For the 'jello' effect, see the attached (Nikon D90).

CMOS chips suffer to varying degrees from the 'rolling shutter' technique they use to extract information from the sensor. They scan the image top to bottom, not all at once. Any movement during this process will cause some "jello-ing". (I may well have coined a new industry phrase there!) As I say, it varies camera-to-camera/chip-to-chip. The 5D is pretty bad. The Nikon D90 is worse.

H.264 is good — if teamed with a powerful processor; which the 5D doesn't have.

I don't see this as being of any use to event videographers. Manual focus with a sensor this size is not a run-and-gun thing, and audio syncing — even with automated software or plug-ins — would be unwelcome hassle to turnaround time.

The 5D is currently unusable for planned shoots. It's a water-tester — and I think Canon know this (wanting to see public and market reaction to the concept but not instantly risk cannibalising their camcorder sales would explain the odd 30fps frame rate). What's exciting is what the 5D and D90 suggest might be just around the corner.

kaidomac

Nov 10, 2008, 01:19 PM

The 5D is currently unusable for planned shoots. It's a water-tester — and I think Canon know this (wanting to see public and market reaction to the concept but not instantly risk cannibalising their camcorder sales would explain the odd 30fps frame rate). What's exciting is what the 5D and D90 suggest might be just around the corner.

Well I think the whole idea is that people are becoming more web-oriented as we get higher bandwidth at home, thus 30p = great on the web and on computer monitors. Youtube has a "High Quality" feature now and there are other methods like Vimeo or personal websites where you can put your own samples up in Flash or H.264 encoding, so really it seems targeted towards showing off your clips online. I agree, it's a water-tester and a first-generation product. I do see a LOT of potential with it, and I'm very excited to see what RED releases on the 13th. The black levels alone would make the system worth it! Now we just need 24p, no rolling stutter, etc etc etc :D

P-Worm

Nov 10, 2008, 04:07 PM

Lethal,
Just a few questions from a video newb. Why did you list h.264 as a negative?

Although I can't speak for Lethal himself, h.264 is very processor intensive. Often, editors will convert the format to another to speed up the editing process. Also, if I'm not mistaken, h.264 is limited to 4:2:0 color information. Basically what that means is that for every 4 recorded values of luminance (a pixel that determines how bright/dark the pixel will be) there is only 1 information of color. 4:2:0 (used by HDV) and 4:1:1 (used by DV) makes it hard to do things such as green screen work because there's a quarter of the color information there in order to find a key.

P-Worm

bigbossbmb

Nov 10, 2008, 05:31 PM

h.264 is a great delivery codec, but it is not meant for editing/shooting.

it is highly compressed. it is interframe. it is very processor intensive to edit natively (and very few NLE's can edit h.264 natively).

with shooting/editing, you want the least compressed image you can get so that you have the most color information/latitude possible for post.

GRuizMD

Nov 10, 2008, 09:55 PM

Speculation is that the Scarlet and RED's 'DSMC' (Digital Still & Motion Camera) are being morphed into a single product. After Nikon and Canon released their DSLRs w/HD video RED said the Scarlet and DSMC were changing and there would be more news on 11-13.

Lethal

Something like this?

http://www.snappertalk.com/images/red-scarlet-dslr.jpg

calebmedia

Nov 10, 2008, 10:07 PM

Guys guys guys... watch this (http://www.akihabaranews.com/en/news-16980-Canon+5D+Mark+II:+The+World's+first+forbidden+HD+Video+finally+Official!!.html) and reconsider what some of you have said...

This camera is not a red.. and until red comes out with there ultimate kill joy beastly SLR this camera is a revolution. 1080p can use great lenses, H.267 (best compressed file) and while your shooting video you could say to yourself. "oh gosh thats a nice shot" and click! you have a great high quality photo. What camcorder out there can do that?

bigbossbmb

Nov 10, 2008, 10:46 PM

the 5DmkII only shoots 30fps... so it looks like video. nice video, but not many people want their stuff to look like video. give the mkII 24fps and I'll upgrade my 30D in a heartbeat.

also, you're not understanding that, while h.264 is a good web codec, it is not good for shooting and editing. it is highly compressed which gives you less flexibility in post.

wheelhot

Nov 10, 2008, 11:15 PM

What's the difference between 24fps and 30fps? I thought 30fps is the one seen on TVs? Sorry about this noobish question, I don't know a lot about videography.

LethalWolfe

Nov 11, 2008, 12:37 AM

What's the difference between 24fps and 30fps?

About 6fps. :D

Lethal

bigbossbmb

Nov 11, 2008, 12:42 AM

bigbossbmb

Nov 11, 2008, 12:43 AM

About 6fps. :D

Lethal

i almost posted that...

wheelhot

Nov 11, 2008, 11:43 AM

aaah interesting, hmm. I wonder if there is any video showing the difference side by side between a 24fps and a 30fps. Would love to see the "emulates film" and "video" effect :D

P-Worm

Nov 11, 2008, 12:04 PM

aaah interesting, hmm. I wonder if there is any video showing the difference side by side between a 24fps and a 30fps. Would love to see the "emulates film" and "video" effect :D

I think the best way to describe it (sorry, I'm not willing to shoot side by side comparisons for you) is that when you have less frames per second, you get more motion blur on each frame. Because video 'snaps frames' quicker than film, each individual frame is crisper. However with film, if there's motion, there's some bleed around the moving parts. This motion blur makes the displayed movie much more fluid.

P-Worm

P-Worm

Nov 11, 2008, 12:05 PM

Something like this?

http://www.snappertalk.com/images/red-scarlet-dslr.jpg

Where did this come from?

P-Worm

bigbossbmb

Nov 11, 2008, 02:19 PM

aaah interesting, hmm. I wonder if there is any video showing the difference side by side between a 24fps and a 30fps. Would love to see the "emulates film" and "video" effect :D

the differences are very subtle...most people don't conscientiously pick up on it. although for short/indie films, just about anyone watching will tell you that a 24fps short (all other things equal) will look "better".

it's Scrubs (24fps) vs any sitcom (30fps)
or The Hills (24fps) vs just about every other reality show (30fps)

it's a stylistic choice. there is a lot of info around the internet on this... google it.

ftaok

Nov 11, 2008, 03:22 PM

the difference is the type of motion you capture... 24fps emulates film, 30fps looks very "video"

To me, this is only half of the equation when comparing "film" to "video". The other part of the equation is the DoF. I can shoot a 24 fps video camcorder all day and night, and it'll most likely still look like video because of the deep DoF. It just screams video.

Having the huge apertures available from an SLR lens will allow budding film-makers the ability to shoot with shallow DoF, thus making their footage more film-like.

Now if Canon, et. al. wanted to get serious, they'd include 24 fps so that we'd have both ends of the equation.

ft

Disclaimer - I'm not a film student or pretend to know much about it. I just know what my eyes tell me.

KeithPratt

Nov 11, 2008, 07:39 PM

While adding a 24fps frame rate may make the footage look more like it was shot on the kind of camera Hollywood uses (albeit digitized to a pretty shoddy codec), there's massively more to making it look like a Hollywood film. As much as anything it's the cast and crew (including pre- and post-production).

If Canon gives the 5D a 24p mode, a lot of people will be really excited, and then wonder why their footage still doesn't look like it was part of a $50 million movie. (A lot of people will create some great stuff too.)

faustfire

Nov 11, 2008, 08:15 PM

the difference is the type of motion you capture... 24fps emulates film, 30fps looks very "video"

here's a very brief way to break it down...you're typical reality show or news show is 30fps. it makes it look very live and real. most primetime dramas/action shows are shot 24fps (usually on film). 24fps creates a semi-reality look that is one of the cornerstones of filmmaking.

Really, reality and news shows are actually 60 fields per second, which is basically (smoothness wise) 60fps. 30 progressive frames per second is not nearly as "videoy" looking as 60i, and actually looks a lot closer to 24 fps than to 60i.

wheelhot

Nov 11, 2008, 08:55 PM

thanks for the answer guys, really informative :D

Hmm, come to think about it, some show I watch does have a sense of odd feeling in it (from the video quality). Guess it has something to do with the fps eh ;)

bigbossbmb

Nov 11, 2008, 10:08 PM

there's massively more to making it look like a Hollywood film. As much as anything it's the cast and crew (including pre- and post-production).

If Canon gives the 5D a 24p mode, a lot of people will be really excited, and then wonder why their footage still doesn't look like it was part of a $50 million movie. (A lot of people will create some great stuff too.)

absolutely. i did not mean to imply that 24p was the only critical element. i would definitely put lighting and sound ahead of the cast though.

i'm saying that restricting the canon to shooting 30p seems fairly arbitrary. right now the nikon is better for filmmaking because it does 24p (even though it's only 720p). i'm anxious to hear thursday's announcements from the red team, though. that'll definitely stir things up a bit.