Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Canon 5D Mark II - A videography revolution?

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.
 
Red DSMC thingy

LethalWolfe said:
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
Click to expand...

Something like this?

red-scarlet-dslr.jpg
 
Guys guys guys... watch this 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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
wheelhot said:
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
Click to expand...

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
 
wheelhot said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
bigbossbmb said:
the difference is the type of motion you capture... 24fps emulates film, 30fps looks very "video"
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.)
 
bigbossbmb said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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 ;)
 
KeithPratt said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back