PDA

View Full Version : 5D MkII Sample Video is up...


Pages : [1] 2

profec291
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 23:48
On Vincent Laforet's Blog! Wow!

Stealthy Ninja
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 23:51
Direct link:
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2086

This one (MAY) let you download it if you right-click and save target as or some such thing:
http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

Sfordphoto
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 23:54
shhh...don't tell anyone! i want all the bandwidth to myself!

Stealthy Ninja
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 23:55
Heh, I'm trying to work out how to download the thing.

Nightcrawler
22nd of September 2008 (Mon), 23:59
here is a direct direct link - http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:00
^^ that link doesn't work.

Tom W
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:00
Pretty doggone nice. As if I could put something like that together! :)

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:01
here is a direct direct link - http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v


Thanks, I can download from that. But not from my link. :D

Nightcrawler
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:02
Well, if you just copy the link in the address bar it works, but clicking it in here doesn't.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:02
Pretty doggone nice. As if I could put something like that together! :)

It was very, very, very good. The focus did seem a little off at times, but considering the lack of light and extremely shallow DOF, it was AWESOME.

You wait till news of this reaches Video circles... this camera will sell like anything dudes.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:03
^^ that link doesn't work.


Rightclick and open in new tab works

drisley
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:03
shhh...don't tell anyone! i want all the bandwidth to myself!
:D:lol:

Tony Yeung
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:06
Drools.......... Should I make the jump from 30D? This is quite amazing!!!!

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:09
C'etait un Rendezvous comes to mind. Very nice footage.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:09
Am I ever glad I chose THIS year to expand my video business into photography.

:D :D :D

I am EXTREMELY impressed by the FOV obtainable (UWA/fisheye, whatever it was), the shallow DOF (in video it's hard to get this because of the sensor size, my XL2 has a crop factor of about x7) and the low light performance.

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:14
Rightclick and open in new tab works

that works, but it doesn't prompt me to download (it just starts the quicktime movie)

amazing movie!

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:17
that works, but it doesn't prompt me to download (it just starts the quicktime movie)

amazing movie!

You'll need Quicktime Pro to be able to save the movie.

Nightcrawler
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:18
Right click - Save Link As... or Save Target As...

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:18
You'll need Quicktime Pro to be able to save the movie.


I'm on a mac, so it may be different.

But for me, I could right-click and save "target as", or "save linked file as"

worked for me anyway. I don't think you need quicktime pro or anything...



^^Umm yeah, what he said. :lol:

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:20
Right click - Save Link As... or Save Target As...

Ah, I missed the post where the direct link was posted.

cptrios
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:21
Is it sad that I've been waiting hours for this?

All in all, I think I'd call LaForet a cinematographer over a director :D, but wow some of those shots were beautiful! The one of the guy running into the DOF and of him hanging out of the helicopter were my favorites.

Anyone want to give me $2700?

Please?

Nightcrawler
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:22
The IQ of the video looked awesome. I am hoping they release the 1080p version.

Vascilli
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:22
You see, HD video isn't just a gimmick. Imagine the cost of doing this with an actual video camera.

tonylong
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:30
I'd love to have this in full resolution...

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:30
poop, no quicktime pro. oh well

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:32
You see, HD video isn't just a gimmick. Imagine the cost of doing this with an actual video camera.

More.... a lot more.

Then you'd probably have some sound with it (not just music) too... but there you go.

:lol:

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:33
poop, no quicktime pro. oh well

Try itunes (if you have it)... why do you need quicktime pro? (serious question)

drisley
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:34
Quicktime Pro allows you to save the file to your computer for future viewing.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:34
Quicktime Pro allows you to save the file to your computer for future viewing.

You can't just right-click and save target as etc.?

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:35
nope. ahhh, you mac user :D you're not privy to the pains we experience as pc users :D jk

folville
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:35
The video quality was very, very good. Most people will probably be disappointed when they realize that they aren't able to shoot footage of that caliber, but I have not doubts that in the right hands this camera will be an able tool.

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:36
i think its been decided...i'm getting this camera, and sooner rather than later :D. i would've gotten it as a still camera.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:39
nope. ahhh, you mac user :D you're not privy to the pains we experience as pc users :D jk

I also happen to have quicktime pro (came with Final Cut Studio 2). But I don't seem to need to use it.

Try opening it in VLC maybe.

Poor PC. Have some emoticons:
:)
8)
:lol:
:eek:
:shock:

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:41
The video quality was very, very good. Most people will probably be disappointed when they realize that they aren't able to shoot footage of that caliber, but I have not doubts that in the right hands this camera will be an able tool.

If you look at the making of footage. They have it stuck to the front of the car etc. It wasn't a cheap setup. Though, I think he mainly used natural light. So it is awesome that way.

The lack of DOF in it was EXCELLENT.

I am now official a Video on a DSLR preacher (not just a mere convert anymore).

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:44
so biascally what happens is that i open the new tab, and it has quicktime running in the browser. there is no way to get it on my computer. and no way to open it in such things as VLC.

its fine, i already saw the movie :) thanks for da helpz anyway

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:44
The video quality was very, very good. Most people will probably be disappointed when they realize that they aren't able to shoot footage of that caliber, but I have not doubts that in the right hands this camera will be an able tool.

right. Be prepared to see a bunch of "my first 5dmk2 video" posts.. mostly handheld and shaky. You really need different gear for quality video work (not to mention dollies, jibs, cranes, etc for the added effect).

Nonetheless, I look forward to it.

donysy
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:46
great video quality ...

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:46
Try itunes (if you have it)... why do you need quicktime pro? (serious question)

In Windows if you right click on the movie it says "Pro-Save As" and is not clickable unless you have Quicktime Pro.

Anyone notice any jello effect? I didn't notice anything dramatically but there may have been a slight amount of it.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:46
so biascally what happens is that i open the new tab, and it has quicktime running in the browser. there is no way to get it on my computer. and no way to open it in such things as VLC.

its fine, i already saw the movie :) thanks for da helpz anyway

You can't right click and save target as or something like that (I can do what you said too)?

^^gooble, why don't you click on the link here and save TARGET as (or whatever it is) not open it in a new window??

Anyway, thankfully I have a mac. ;)

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:48
right. Be prepared to see a bunch of "my first 5dmk2 video" posts.. mostly handheld and shaky. You really need different gear for quality video work (not to mention dollies, jibs, cranes, etc for the added effect).

Nonetheless, I look forward to it.

Not much different than people's "My first post" of still photos I'm sure. We all started somewhere.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:48
If you look at the making of footage. They have it stuck to the front of the car etc. It wasn't a cheap setup. Though, I think he mainly used natural light. So it is awesome that way.

The lack of DOF in it was EXCELLENT.

I am now official a Video on a DSLR preacher (not just a mere convert anymore).

Evangelist. ;)

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:50
right. Be prepared to see a bunch of "my first 5dmk2 video" posts.. mostly handheld and shaky. You really need different gear for quality video work (not to mention dollies, jibs, cranes, etc for the added effect).

Nonetheless, I look forward to it.

Definitely a tripod video camera. ;) Lack of IS in video doesn't help at all. That's why this isn't really a proper replacement for a video camera (in all cases).

As a second camera on a tripod for events etc. it is certainly worth looking into, especially if you can connect it to a computer for capturing.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:50
In Windows if you right click on the movie it says "Pro-Save As" and is not clickable unless you have Quicktime Pro.

Anyone notice any jello effect? I didn't notice anything dramatically but there may have been a slight amount of it.

I know nothing about video cameras but I have seen people talk about how even some high end ones have some jello effect. This clearly isn't as bad as the Nikon D90. Does Nikon make video cameras?

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:50
Not much different than people's "My first post" of still photos I'm sure. We all started somewhere.

Absolutely. Nothing wrong with it at all. There will be a deluge tho :p

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:50
Evangelist. ;)

Evangelists will go out and preach the word, so I am a preacher evangelist I guess.

Depends how you look at it.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:51
Definitely a tripod video camera. ;) Lack of IS in video doesn't help at all. That's why this isn't really a proper replacement for a video camera (in all cases).

As a second camera on a tripod for events etc. it is certainly worth looking into, especially if you can connect it to a computer for capturing.

So is confirmed that IS is N/A for video capture?

Thought I read somewhere that it kicks in as if you were half-holding the shutter button...? No?

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:51
You can't right click and save target as or something like that (I can do what you said too)?

^^gooble, why don't you click on the link here and save TARGET as (or whatever it is) not open it in a new window??

Anyway, thankfully I have a mac. ;)

I tried. It only saves as an .htm file even though hovering over link in Opera shows it as and .mp4 file. If I click on the link it says I'm not allowed to view that page.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:52
here is a direct direct link - http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

Right click and do a Save Target As on this link.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:53
I tried. It only saves as an .htm file even though hovering over link in Opera shows it as and .mp4 file. If I click on the link it says I'm not allowed to view that page.


Did you do it with the direct link or the first link (the one I posted). There is another one you can click and download.

So is confirmed that IS is N/A for video capture?

Thought I read somewhere that it kicks in as if you were half-holding the shutter button...? No?


Maybe with the 1/2 shutter thing, but that would be very annoying.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:53
Right click and do a Save Target As on this link.

It saves an .htm file.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:53
http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

This one lets me download it

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:55
Did you do it with the direct link or the first link (the one I posted). There is another one you can click and download.


Maybe with the 1/2 shutter thing, but that would be very annoying.

The IS is on at all times in video mode unless you turn the switch off on the lens. I've read/heard that several places including from Chuck Westfall in an interview he did.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:56
The IS is on at all times in video mode unless you turn the switch off on the lens. I've read/heard that several places including from Chuck Westfall in an interview he did.

Heh. Is there an external power adaptor for this camera?

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:56
Right click and do a Save Target As on this link.

Thanks for this...works like a charm.

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:56
Definitely a tripod video camera. ;) Lack of IS in video doesn't help at all. That's why this isn't really a proper replacement for a video camera (in all cases).

As a second camera on a tripod for events etc. it is certainly worth looking into, especially if you can connect it to a computer for capturing.

I'd want it as a 3rd. just effects shots, esp considering it seems to be limited to 12 mins at a time, which is all I'd need. But I wonder if the sensor needs to cool? Or perhaps they don't want to step on their own toes with their HD cams.

Anyway.. time to dust off the dolly :lol:

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:57
http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

This one lets me download it

This is what I get if I click link directly "Referral Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v" on this server.

Reference #24.348e5640.1222145755.5ba63bd"

and it only gives an option save a htm shortcut if I click and save as.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:57
The IS is on at all times in video mode unless you turn the switch off on the lens. I've read/heard that several places including from Chuck Westfall in an interview he did.


Oh cool, that's awesome to know (didn't read/listen to that).

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:57
Did you do it with the direct link or the first link (the one I posted). There is another one you can click and download.




Maybe with the 1/2 shutter thing, but that would be very annoying.

I said as if you were holding half shutter. Not that you had to hold half shutter

r1ch
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:58
The video was great, very well done. Now if Canon would remove the video feature which I will not use and put in more focus points, increase the frame rate, it would be a camera for a photographer like me and would make me want to purchase thise camera.

I am not sure why Canon would put this feature on at the expense of photography features which is what photographers want. If you want a video camera, why doesn't canon make a video camera with these features and in this price range and make a better photography camera for photographers. I am sure this will be considered a whine but... Damit Jim.. I am a photographer, not a videographer. Canon give photographers what they want and ask for, not what you think they need.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:59
This is what I get if I click link directly "Referral Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v" on this server.

Reference #24.348e5640.1222145755.5ba63bd"

and it only gives an option save a htm shortcut if I click and save as.

Direct clicking won't work on that (even for me). I need to open in new tab.

Can you do something like "save linked file as"?

Maybe if you open it in a new tab, then click on the movie...?

I said as if you were holding half shutter. Not that you had to hold half shutter

Oh sorry, misread what you wrote.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 00:59
This is what I get if I click link directly "Referral Denied
You don't have permission to access "http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v" on this server.

Reference #24.348e5640.1222145755.5ba63bd"

and it only gives an option save a htm shortcut if I click and save as.

What browser are you using? That's a direct link to a .m4v file. There's no reason it should give you a .htm.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:02
The video was great, very well done. Now if Canon would remove the video feature which I will not use and put in more focus points, increase the frame rate, it would be a camera for a photographer like me and would make me want to purchase thise camera.

I am not sure why Canon would put this feature on at the expense of photography features which is what photographers want. If you want a video camera, why doesn't canon make a video camera with these features and in this price range and make a better photography camera for photographers. I am sure this will be considered a whine but... Damit Jim.. I am a photographer, not a videographer. Canon give photographers what they want and ask for, not what you think they need.

Well, I'm a hybridographer (both videographer and photographer) this camera is made for me. "Real" photographers have plenty of other choices... like Nikon. :p

Maybe if Canon removed the outer points (which I don't use) it would be a better camera for ME. ;)

I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth getting at all.

"why doesn't canon make a video camera with these features and in this price range" little more expensive, but try the CANON XH-A1.

You can't make a video camera with those features because the sensors are too small and the lenses are not the same.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:10
Direct clicking won't work on that (even for me). I need to open in new tab.

Can you do something like "save linked file as"?

Maybe if you open it in a new tab, then click on the movie...?



Oh sorry, misread what you wrote.

I finally got it to work in IE and Firefox. For some reason it wouldn't work with Opera. Thanks.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:11
Well, I'm a hybridographer (both videographer and photographer) this camera is made for me. "Real" photographers have plenty of other choices... like Nikon. :p

Maybe if Canon removed the outer points (which I don't use) it would be a better camera for ME. ;)

I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth getting at all.

"why doesn't canon make a video camera with these features and in this price range" little more expensive, but try the CANON XH-A1.

You can't make a video camera with those features because the sensors are too small and the lenses are not the same.

I assume that being a Mac guy you use FC? Did you notice the one "Fit to Fill" edit?

Sfordphoto
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:17
http://downloads.canon.com/CDLC/Reverie_Final_Cut2_midres.m4v

This one lets me download it

right clicking on that link and trying to save link as yields a firefox document. sadly, no dice. it's alright man! thanks for the help anyway

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:20
I assume that being a Mac guy you use FC? Did you notice the one "Fit to Fill" edit?


you mean the woman standing waiting bit. I assumed that was a style choice...

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:23
you mean the woman standing waiting bit. I assumed that was a style choice...

In the Tilt/Shift shot of the gal waiting by the water, look at the wave action...It's wee bit quick...

Also, her body motions are a bit exagerated. Looks to my eye like that scene's running at some percentage above 100%...

Still and all, considering the source of the material, it's pretty ground breaking stuff.

I had to keep reminding myself that it's all exsisting lighting...

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:28
In the Tilt/Shift shot of the gal waiting by the water, look at the wave action...It's wee bit quick...

Also, her body motions are a bit exagerated. Looks to my eye like that scene's running at some percentage above 100%...

Still and all, considering the source of the material, it's pretty ground breaking stuff.

I had to keep reminding myself that it's all exsisting lighting...

At abot 59 seconds you can see the same thing.

It may be a style choice, to give it a surreal dreamlike feeling.

It is, did you see the DOF on the shot within the car (his hand on the wheel). MAN!

All existing lighting... all existing lighting... a-maz-ing!

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:30
All existing lighting... all existing lighting... a-maz-ing!

It is.. and yet, as satisfied as I am .. are you not pining for 24fps? I gotta believe a simple firmware update will do it. That would make it complete.

GetOnMyLevel
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:31
this camera is amazing.

a question. is 30 fps somewhat on par for prosumer video cameras today? like a vx2100 or a dvx100.
i swear after seeing that video, i want to film skating with it. if the frames are fast enough.

Cristnotchrist
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:31
For those who might have missed out on the blog. Vincent filmed this all within a span of 72 hours from start to finish with no extra time for preproduction setup or planning.
As far as I understood, he has not done much video work before except some video editing.
He had a personal budget of $5,000 for the video (2k alone went to the chopper ride).
The video your watching is 1/4 the original resolution.
There was no editing done to the footage besides cutting the scenes and adding the music.
Also note, it was filmed with a preproduction model. Things may not change at all, but keep in mind that they might as well.

That is all what I gathered from his blog last night while I was reading at 4am trying to figure out if there was actually a video up or not (and after reading what felt like 1000 comments, i was totally disappointed lol)


Pretty amazing video. Props to everyone involved.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:32
It is.. and yet, as satisfied as I am .. are you not pining for 24fps? I gotta believe a simple firmware update will do it. That would make it complete.

Adding a "film look" to it is best done in post...

I'd much prefer to start with full-up 30fps and then mess with effects after it's been edited.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:35
For those who might have missed out on the blog. Vincent filmed this all within a span of 72 hours from start to finish with no extra time for preproduction setup or planning.
As far as I understood, he has not done much video work before except some video editing.
He had a personal budget of $5,000 for the video (2k alone went to the chopper ride).
The video your watching is 1/4 the original resolution.
There was no editing done to the footage besides cutting the scenes and adding the music.
Also note, it was filmed with a preproduction model. Things may not change at all, but keep in mind that they might as well.

That is all what I gathered from his blog last night while I was reading at 4am trying to figure out if there was actually a video up or not (and after reading what felt like 1000 comments, i was totally disappointed lol)


Pretty amazing video. Props to everyone involved.

And what's been released isn't yet the complete video is it? I think it's only a preview because of bandwidth issues?

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:36
It is.. and yet, as satisfied as I am .. are you not pining for 24fps? I gotta believe a simple firmware update will do it. That would make it complete.

Not me. I'm happy with 30fps. I'm not interesting in the "film look" myself. I have magic bullet suite anyway (if I want that). I do corporate stuff. :)

Adding a "film look" to it is best done in post...

I'd much prefer to start with full-up 30fps and then mess with effects after it's been edited.


Yes, I agree with that too. :lol: I always try to get the best (most realistic) shot I can in camera (with as many fps as I can) then do any effects in post.

Just like I don't shoot B+W jpegs. ;)

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:38
Adding a "film look" to it is best done in post...

I'd much prefer to start with full-up 30fps and then mess with effects after it's been edited.

hmm.. I'm not specifically talking about the 'look' (gamma curves).. it's the frame rate -- that's harder. if it were 60, then that would be OK as there are enough frames to get 24, but 30 and 24.. hard to cut footage. 30 rendered as 24 just doesn't look right. For archival stuff I do 30p but for other things I use 24p and well..

It's not like I won't get it but I'd love to have my cake and eat it too. :p

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:39
And I do broadcast.

Generally speaking, if an ENG shooter brings a tape into the truck that's been shot at 24p on a Vari-Cam, we beat him about the head and neck and make him go out and re-shoot.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:40
And I do broadcast.

Generally speaking, if an ENG shooter brings a tape into the truck that's been shot at 24p on a Vari-Cam, we beat him about the head and neck and make him go out and re-shoot.


:lol: Yep, TV does a bit better at the right framerate.

hmm.. I'm not specifically talking about the 'look' (gamma curves).. it's the frame rate -- that's harder. if it were 60, then that would be OK as there are enough frames to get 24, but 30 and 24.. hard to cut footage. 30 rendered as 24 just doesn't look right. For archival stuff I do 30p but for other things I use 24p and well..

It's not like I won't get it but I'd love to have my cake and eat it too. :p

Fine if you're transferring to film dude. ;) I know what you mean. It depends on what the final product will be really. I personally think 24p is overrated by many people.

Here in PAL land we use 25fps anyway.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:42
:lol: Yep, TV does a bit better at the right framerate.

It's not that we can't use 24p but when 99% of your show is non-shutter and only a few shots get rolled in that have a shutter in them, it stands out like a sore thumb.

It has it's uses but generally speaking, sports isn't one of them...

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:44
It's not that we can't use 24p but when 99% of your show is non-shutter and only a few shots get rolled in that have a shutter in them, it stands out like a sore thumb.

It has it's uses but generally speaking, sports isn't one of them...

I know, that's what I meant (came out wrong). Many times in news magazines programs they use interlaced for the "action" stuff, then switch to progressive (or 24 fps) for the interviews. Annoying when you know what you're looking for.

Sports in progressive usually looks terrible IMO... well I think so, not sure about HD... (still stuck on SD TV here...) we do have HD broadcasts, just I haven't bothered to buy a set top box yet.

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:47
It's not that we can't use 24p but when 99% of your show is non-shutter and only a few shots get rolled in that have a shutter in them, it stands out like a sore thumb.

It has it's uses but generally speaking, sports isn't one of them...

I totally understand. My purview is a bit wider though :), I need to know my target audience ahead of time and be able to shoot ntsc for tv, 30p for archival (specific subject matter), and 24p for other things including a handful of weddings.

I will just sit hope a firmware update is in the near future.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:49
I know, that's what I meant (came out wrong). Many times in news magazines programs they use interlaced for the "action" stuff, then switch to progressive (or 24 fps) for the interviews. Annoying when you know what you're looking for.

Sports in progressive usually looks terrible IMO... well I think so, not sure about HD... (still stuck on SD TV here...)

Only time we'll generally drop in a shutter of any kind is for cameras shooting "boundaries."

Looking up the foul lines in baseball or the race off pit road in NASCAR, etc... Those types of shots where when you replay them, you want the frames to "step" more than normal slomo...

We have a system for the MLB playoffs that shoots at 900fps for night games and up to 2000fps in good light...it's pretty cool...

Cerbera LM
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:51
Anyone having any trouble downloading the video :lol:

Behind the scenes video here (http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/378479692_MRytZ#378479692_MRytZ-A-LB)

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:52
Only time we'll generally drop in a shutter of any kind is for cameras shooting "boundaries."

Looking up the foul lines in baseball or the race off pit road in NASCAR, etc... Those types of shots where when you replay them, you want the frames to "step" more than normal slomo...

We have a system for the MLB playoffs that shoots at 900fps for night games and up to 2000fps in good light...it's pretty cool...

Awesome. Pro-sports like that would need some pretty fast framerates wouldn't it.

I did a little TV in university (part of the broadcast part of my degree). I'd like to work in TV but it seems pretty hard to get into.

I'm happy doing my corporate stuff. Pays quite well. ;)

Weddings I do occasionally, but not my main business.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:54
Ok so here's a question:

Still format is 4x3 but HD video is 16x9.

How does it generate the 4th 4 for 16x9 and doesn't end up 12x9?

Or to put it a different way, how does it not end up with a still format of 5.34:3?

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 01:55
Ok so here's a question:

Still format is 4x3 but HD video is 16x9.

How does it generate the 4th 4 for 16x9 and doesn't end up 12x9?

Or to put it a different way, how does it not end up with a still format of 5.34:3?

Maybe it crops it a bit. There is plenty of resolution to work with. Like letterboxing...

Good question...

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:06
At abot 59 seconds you can see the same thing.

It may be a style choice, to give it a surreal dreamlike feeling.

It is, did you see the DOF on the shot within the car (his hand on the wheel). MAN!

All existing lighting... all existing lighting... a-maz-ing!

I can't speak for the specific shot you mention here but I think they did use lighting some of the time.

I just watched the longer behind-the-scenes video and he used a lighting guy in the shot with the girl standing in the street. He held a spot high up aimed on her.

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:08
Ok so here's a question:

Still format is 4x3 but HD video is 16x9.

How does it generate the 4th 4 for 16x9 and doesn't end up 12x9?

Or to put it a different way, how does it not end up with a still format of 5.34:3?

I think the still is 3:2??

edit: yeah (most p&s's are 4:3 tho):
• 36 x 24 mm CMOS sensor
• Full 35 mm size frame
• RGB Color Filter Array
• Built-in fixed low-pass filter (with self-cleaning unit)
• 22.0 million total pixels
• 21.1 million effective pixels
• 3:2 aspect ratio

GetOnMyLevel
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:09
this camera is amazing.

a question. is 30 fps somewhat on par for prosumer video cameras today? like a vx2100 or a dvx100.
i swear after seeing that video, i want to film skating with it. if the frames are fast enough.

anybody?
"/

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:10
I can't speak for the specific shot you mention here but I think they did use lighting some of the time.

I just watched the longer behind-the-scenes video and he used a lighting guy in the shot with the girl standing in the street. He held a spot high up aimed on her.


Link?

Here? http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/378479692_MRytZ#378479692_MRytZ-A-LB

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:12
It is.. and yet, as satisfied as I am .. are you not pining for 24fps? I gotta believe a simple firmware update will do it. That would make it complete.

For those that want 24fps and/or other 29.97, 23.976 etc you might look here: http://prolost.blogspot.com/

Go down a few posts and you'll see a specific discussion about frame rates and also Vincents video, the Canon 5D mark II and other stuff is there too.

Anyway that post has a customer feedback number to Canon and an email address so those of us who feel like these frame rates should be added in a firmware update can let them know.

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:14
anybody?
"/

The dvx100s will work for you. the sony's you mentioned are consumer and interlaced I think (the PD150/170 are pro but still interlaced). I have DVXs and they do 30p/24p/60i so that'd be your best bet for an older camera but they are all SD, not HD.

you may really want to look at an HV30. HDV to tape, but full HD through hdmi and 24f/30f

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:16
For those that want 24fps and/or other 29.97, 23.976 etc you might look here: http://prolost.blogspot.com/

Go down a few posts and you'll see a specific discussion about frame rates and also Vincents video, the Canon 5D mark II and other stuff is there too.

Anyway that post has a customer feedback number to Canon and an email address so those of us who feel like these frame rates should be added in a firmware update can let them know.

Hey thanks for that info. I believe I will put my consumer powers to work - albeit a drop in the water, no doubt - and voice my desires to Canon.

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:17
I can't speak for the specific shot you mention here but I think they did use lighting some of the time.

I just watched the longer behind-the-scenes video and he used a lighting guy in the shot with the girl standing in the street. He held a spot high up aimed on her.

Yes, you're right. They did use a light here and there. But not that much considering. I think it was mainly for effect.

If you've every tried doing a video in that sort of light (even with the extra lighting) you'll know it is very impressive.

@LuxuryGlass... you're a DVX user... I know now why you love the "filmlook" so much. ;)

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:19
Link?

Here? http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/378479692_MRytZ#378479692_MRytZ-A-LB

That's the link. Shoulda posted it. Look at around 1:45

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:24
@LuxuryGlass... you're a DVX user... I know now why you love the "filmlook" so much. ;)

see.. you get it now :lol::lol: seriously. hard to give that up.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 02:33
For those interested I think I found the model in the video: http://www.modelmayhem.com/414415

Some shots slightly NSFW though.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 03:14
I think the still is 3:2??

edit: yeah (most p&s's are 4:3 tho):
36 x 24 mm CMOS sensor
Full 35 mm size frame
RGB Color Filter Array
Built-in fixed low-pass filter (with self-cleaning unit)
22.0 million total pixels
21.1 million effective pixels
3:2 aspect ratio

Doh...

You're correct. See, you start mixing video with stills and that's what happens. SDTV is 4x3 and HDTV is 16x9...

But still, how does it make the conversion?
- Drops part of the sensor?
- Electromechanical Masks?
- Elfin Magic?

mellowd
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 03:24
Wow, and that's only 1/4 of the res!

Amazing!

jkaiser
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 03:36
i think this screen capture of the video says everything
http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/content/reverie.jpg

radiohead
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 03:58
Some thoughts.

It's VERY impressive.
He's using a Kenyon Gyro a lot apparently - the handholding side of this will be interesting.
The chances of me being able to knock a video like that out are zero.

Raymond Lin
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 04:06
What's really impressive is that the 5D footage surpass the XH A1 footage, if they are both as raw as he claims for both then out of the camera, the 5D just needs less work post production.

Doing a degree in media/movie/shortfilms? I think you got to get one of these !

Stealthy Ninja
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 04:20
What's really impressive is that the 5D footage surpass the XH A1 footage, if they are both as raw as he claims for both then out of the camera, the 5D just needs less work post production.

Doing a degree in media/movie/shortfilms? I think you got to get one of these !

I'd say the XH A1 would have a better (can't think of the word of the top of my head so I'll say:) bitrate.

However, the footage looks excellent. The lenses help (getting different effects).

I'm actually impressed how well this came out. I'm totally looking forward to what Canon is going to do in the realm of VIDEO cameras! If they can do this with a STILL camera!

Doh...

You're correct. See, you start mixing video with stills and that's what happens. SDTV is 4x3 and HDTV is 16x9...

But still, how does it make the conversion?
- Drops part of the sensor?
- Electromechanical Masks?
- Elfin Magic?

It must drop part of the sensor I'd say. Cropping.

My XL2 is 16:9 native. IT crops (by memory) to do 4:3. Therefore it's better for me to film in 16:9 and crop it using FCP.

cmason
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 08:11
Smugmug is hosting higher res video (not much more) and the behind the scenes footage:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/don/2008/09/22/amazing-canon-5d-mkii-hd-video-footage/

r1ch
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 09:26
Well, I'm a hybridographer (both videographer and photographer) this camera is made for me. "Real" photographers have plenty of other choices... like Nikon. :p

And you are the minority. Going after the minority is ok unless it is at the expense of features photographers want.

Maybe if Canon removed the outer points (which I don't use) it would be a better camera for ME. ;)

Maybe Canon should listen to videographers and focus on and produce a video camera videographers want instead of putting those feature and price in a photography camera.

I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth getting at all.

but video feature does not increase the performance of the photographic quality in any way.

"why doesn't canon make a video camera with these features and in this price range" little more expensive, but try the CANON XH-A1.

You can't make a video camera with those features because the sensors are too small and the lenses are not the same.

But Canon CAN put the 5d2 sensor in the XH-A1 and give videographers what they want, they only need to listen to their customers.

I don't want the XH-A1 because I am a photographer, I want a photographic camera and a good one, not some hybrid video camera.

"I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth
getting at all."

And that is the point, if you are a photographer, you have lived without the video function for all these years, why because you bought the camera for photography. I don't use the print button, and I can ignore it but canon did not spend much money on that feature and still produced the best camera (until Nikon stepped it up). They added the video feature but did not make their camera superior in features compared to the Nikons that don't have a video feature. I am not saying Canon should not put the video feature on the new 5d. Any photographer could ignore the feature but it was at the sacrifice of features a photographers want. Better focus, fps, etc. As for getting a Nikon, more people are shooting Nikon because Nikon is producing a better camera through better features photographers want (they don't have 21mp yet which Nikonians complain about, Nikon does not have a dedicated print button because they know most photographers don't use it. They have other dedicated buttons for photography features and even the Canonites complain about the print button because they don't use it and rather use that button for something related to photography. Haven't heard many Nikonians complaining they don't have a print button.

Canon needs to listen to what photographers want, and not listen to videographers want at the expense of creating the best photography camera. Nikon listens and it shows in their increased sales, Canon lost their dominance at the olympics because they don't listen to what photographers want.

I have heard Canonites say they don't need more mps, they need other competitive features. Should canon not put more mps in their camera? Of course not, there are a lot of photographers that want it and it can increase image quality. But it is easy to upgrade the 5d2 to include the focus point and increased fps which many photographers can use. Photographers do not need phase detection autofocus chip, it does nothing to photographic performanc (because it is slow) many photographers complained the focus was not up to par and the old 5d, then canon IMHO should have spend the money to resolve that problem instead of adding another print button (video feature)

I shoot Canon and Nikon, so I can choose which FF camera I can choose because I have lenses for both but Canon is making it hard for me to choose a Canon FF and I may indeed choose a Nikon FF body. That's ok but if Canon is trying to increase market share then they need to look at the wants and needs of the photographer first instead of the videographer IMHO.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 09:35
But Canon CAN put the 5d2 sensor in the XH-A1 and give videographers what they want, they only need to listen to their customers.

I don't want the XH-A1 because I am a photographer, I want a photographic camera and a good one, not some hybrid video camera.

"I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth
getting at all."

And that is the point, if you are a photographer, you have lived without the video function for all these years, why because you bought the camera for photography. I don't use the print button, and I can ignore it but canon did not spend much money on that feature and still produced the best camera (until Nikon stepped it up). They added the video feature but did not make their camera superior in features compared to the Nikons that don't have a video feature. I am not saying Canon should not put the video feature on the new 5d. Any photographer could ignore the feature but it was at the sacrifice of features a photographers want. Better focus, fps, etc. As for getting a Nikon, more people are shooting Nikon because Nikon is producing a better camera through better features photographers want (they don't have 21mp yet which Nikonians complain about, Nikon does not have a dedicated print button because they know most photographers don't use it. They have other dedicated buttons for photography features and even the Canonites complain about the print button because they don't use it and rather use that button for something related to photography. Haven't heard many Nikonians complaining they don't have a print button.

Canon needs to listen to what photographers want, and not listen to videographers want at the expense of creating the best photography camera. Nikon listens and it shows in their increased sales, Canon lost their dominance at the olympics because they don't listen to what photographers want.

I have heard Canonites say they don't need more mps, they need other competitive features. Should canon not put more mps in their camera? Of course not, there are a lot of photographers that want it and it can increase image quality. But it is easy to upgrade the 5d2 to include the focus point and increased fps which many photographers can use. Photographers do not need phase detection autofocus chip, it does nothing to photographic performanc (because it is slow) many photographers complained the focus was not up to par and the old 5d, then canon IMHO should have spend the money to resolve that problem instead of adding another print button (video feature)

I shoot Canon and Nikon, so I can choose which FF camera I can choose because I have lenses for both but Canon is making it hard for me to choose a Canon FF and I may indeed choose a Nikon FF body. That's ok but if Canon is trying to increase market share then they need to look at the wants and needs of the photographer first instead of the videographer IMHO.

Yeah it really sucks when a company includes new features in a product plus improves nearly every other old feature and then charges less than the model it's replacing. What a stupid company.

Seriously though, the fact of the matter is that it's highly probable that every camera that Canon releases from here on out will have video capabilities. It costs very little to implement vis a vis variable costs on cameras especially if they already have live view capabilities and it's a value add.

The constant complaining about video is getting old and lame. If you don't want it don't use it. In fact if you never used live view there'd be no way you'd even know it's there. So maybe you ought to just black out the portion of your manual that mention video and then you'd all be happier.

Bollan
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 09:40
Im actually happy that there are few users like you r1ich, that don't like the camera or it's features.

Hopefully it will cut down the six month (at least) waiting time for the 5DMKII by a few days :-):-):-).

shutterfiend
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:06
Isn't there a 12 minute/4GB limit? Or is that only for CF cards? Can the camera be hooked up to a laptop and record to hard-drive?

Raymond Lin
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:16
Isn't there a 12 minute/4GB limit? Or is that only for CF cards? Can the camera be hooked up to a laptop and record to hard-drive?

The limit is 29 mins 59 seconds or 4G. Which ever that comes first.

In a real world shoot, you will get around 12 mins of video as the 4G usually comes first than 30 mins, it could be more or less depend on what you are shooting therefore how much data is recorded.

timnosenzo
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:22
But Canon CAN put the 5d2 sensor in the XH-A1 and give videographers what they want, they only need to listen to their customers.

I don't want the XH-A1 because I am a photographer, I want a photographic camera and a good one, not some hybrid video camera.

"I'm sure the video will make the photos it takes totally suck. Won't be worth
getting at all."

And that is the point, if you are a photographer, you have lived without the video function for all these years, why because you bought the camera for photography. I don't use the print button, and I can ignore it but canon did not spend much money on that feature and still produced the best camera (until Nikon stepped it up). They added the video feature but did not make their camera superior in features compared to the Nikons that don't have a video feature. I am not saying Canon should not put the video feature on the new 5d. Any photographer could ignore the feature but it was at the sacrifice of features a photographers want. Better focus, fps, etc. As for getting a Nikon, more people are shooting Nikon because Nikon is producing a better camera through better features photographers want (they don't have 21mp yet which Nikonians complain about, Nikon does not have a dedicated print button because they know most photographers don't use it. They have other dedicated buttons for photography features and even the Canonites complain about the print button because they don't use it and rather use that button for something related to photography. Haven't heard many Nikonians complaining they don't have a print button.

Canon needs to listen to what photographers want, and not listen to videographers want at the expense of creating the best photography camera. Nikon listens and it shows in their increased sales, Canon lost their dominance at the olympics because they don't listen to what photographers want.

I have heard Canonites say they don't need more mps, they need other competitive features. Should canon not put more mps in their camera? Of course not, there are a lot of photographers that want it and it can increase image quality. But it is easy to upgrade the 5d2 to include the focus point and increased fps which many photographers can use. Photographers do not need phase detection autofocus chip, it does nothing to photographic performanc (because it is slow) many photographers complained the focus was not up to par and the old 5d, then canon IMHO should have spend the money to resolve that problem instead of adding another print button (video feature)

I shoot Canon and Nikon, so I can choose which FF camera I can choose because I have lenses for both but Canon is making it hard for me to choose a Canon FF and I may indeed choose a Nikon FF body. That's ok but if Canon is trying to increase market share then they need to look at the wants and needs of the photographer first instead of the videographer IMHO.

Wow, epic rant.

Bottom line is that there is no evidence that Canon skipped on other features to introduce a video mode. Chances are that they have been developing a video mode since Live View became a standard for DSLRs, and the 5D happens to be the first camera they're rolling it out with. I doubt they took development dollars out of the 5D to enable this feature.

Just because you don't see value in a feature, does not mean that there are no photographers out there that are looking for this feature. A bit selfish to think so, no? The 5D MKII is what it is at this point, and no degree of complaining is going to change it. You say you shoot both Canon and Nikon, so your choices are many. Why not just move on if Canon isn't building the right tool for you?

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:22
Isn't there a 12 minute/4GB limit? Or is that only for CF cards? Can the camera be hooked up to a laptop and record to hard-drive?

Don't think so. It's possible with a wireless grip to record to network or hdd but has a wireless grip been announced for the 5D mark II (I think so but am not certain)?

My impression is that the limitation, 4 GB or around 40 minute of shooting-whichever comes first, is not due to CF used but some other issue, possibly just an arbitrary number.

Before anyone asks about the limitation I mentioned, I think I've read it on one of the multitude pages about the 5D II I've read or else Chuck Westfall said it in an interview I heard. I imagine that the only way you'd get 40 minutes is when shooting SD. In other words SD gives around 40 minutes/4GB and HD gives you 12 minutes/4GB. Although that sounds a little high for SD.

Edit: based on post above perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe the difference in length of video per storage space is dependent on ISO used and subject just as some still images vary significantly in file size depending on the colors in the image and ISO used.

shutterfiend
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:28
Don't think so. It's possible with a wireless grip to record to network or hdd but has a wireless grip been announced for the 5D mark II (I think so but am not certain)?

My impression is that the limitation, 4 GB or around 40 minute of shooting-whichever comes first, is not due to CF used but some other issue, possibly just an arbitrary number.

Before anyone asks about the limitation I mentioned, I think I've read it on one of the multitude pages about the 5D II I've read or else Chuck Westfall said it in an interview I heard. I imagine that the only way you'd get 40 minutes is when shooting SD. In other words SD gives around 40 minutes/4GB and HD gives you 12 minutes/4GB. Although that sounds a little high for SD.

Wireless grip is a way too fancy. I was thinking more along the lines of a USB connection. I could shoot directly to my laptop with my 20D. I can do it now with my 5D and 30D. I'm sure they'll have that feature available. I'm just wondering if the 4GB limitation can be overriden if the camera's hooked up to a computer.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:38
Wireless grip is a way too fancy. I was thinking more along the lines of a USB connection. I could shoot directly to my laptop with my 20D. I can do it now with my 5D and 30D. I'm sure they'll have that feature available. I'm just wondering if the 4GB limitation can be overriden if the camera's hooked up to a computer.

I'm just recalling that when tethered you can make it so that the shots are downloaded to the computer as you shoot but I still think it records to the card in the camera.

I have no idea how this will work shooting video.

r1ch
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:53
Im actually happy that there are few users like you r1ich, that don't like the camera or it's features.

Hopefully it will cut down the six month (at least) waiting time for the 5DMKII by a few days :-):-):-).

Well there seems to be a lot of them so I don't think you will have to wait long:)

There will be a lot of people who would buy the camera despite the complaints. Some will hold out for another FF camera that camera produces, either the successor or Canon may produce a camera that may appeal to photographers instead of videographers and may charge a little bit more and a camera the beats the Nikon offerenings in features and in more mps. I will probably be one of those people.

r1ch
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:58
Wow, epic rant.

Just because you don't see value in a feature, does not mean that there are no photographers out there that are looking for this feature. A bit selfish to think so, no? The 5D MKII is what it is at this point, and no degree of complaining is going to change it. You say you shoot both Canon and Nikon, so your choices are many. Why not just move on if Canon isn't building the right tool for you?

No, I don't think it is selfish to expect Canon to compete with Nikon as far as fps and af. If people don't complain, then Canon will not know people are unsatisfied. Not that Canon will listen.

If you had lenses for both system, you would not move on either. Seeing the advantages of both excludes me from being a fanboy of either brand but that does not mean I am not entitled to an opinion about Canons latest offering. Many Canonites don't care for the print button feature, that does not stop them from complaining about it.

LuxuryGlass
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 10:58
Doh...

You're correct. See, you start mixing video with stills and that's what happens. SDTV is 4x3 and HDTV is 16x9...

But still, how does it make the conversion?
- Drops part of the sensor?
- Electromechanical Masks?
- Elfin Magic?

The only way I can see is it drops part of the top and bottom. Letterboxing - I think Stealthy mentioned it way back up somewhere.

2112
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 14:33
wow, just amazing. Getting to see those lenses applied in a video really shows their power, not to mention what the sensor is capable of. Thats at only 1/4 of the original quality too :shock: Need to get one of these!

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 15:10
I saw Vincent's video, nice work. Nice low light performance from the 5DII.

However, in response to the video, I think messages like:

"I am so happy that I got 5DII on order!" or "Naysayer, take THAT!"

Those are, frankly, foolish.

This clip was made by a professional, with 20 times the cost of the camera in lenses and other equipment. More than two dozen people worked on it, with many many hours of footage that was edited with powerful editing software/hardware. Many DAYS of work has gone into making this short clip.

Of course, the camera performs really well. But we should not fool ourselves. Statements from people like the above I mentioned goes to show how well the Canon campaign actually works. It is like seeing a supercomputer at work and saying, "Oh thank GOD that I was early to order that keyboard!".


+1...

circles_of_confusion
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 15:39
The video looks pretty cool, and I love the look of the TS lens.

I think the rolling shutter issue was most apparent in panning shot of the NY skyline at night, you could see the undulation as the camera pans. I haven't compared much it to the other cameras so I'm not sure how big of an issue it would be.

I also hope they'll find a way to add 24p to the camera. The video is pretty cool, but there were some shots shots that were screaming out to be overcranked, even if only at 36 fps, mostly the shot in which the guy drops the flowers and the close up and medium night shots of the girl.

Aside from the excellent shallow DOF and low light performance, for some reason it all looks very "video" to me. I'm not quite sure why.. Is it the 30fps, lack of a 180 deg shutter, strobing of motion (ie. close of of the guy's feet running) or lack of overcranked slow-motion shots I'm used to seeing with film?

timnosenzo
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 15:56
Many Canonites don't care for the print button feature, that does not stop them from complaining about it.

See all the good it does? ;)

I do think that Canon needs to know about features people would like or wouldn't like to see on new cameras. But I don't think that the amount of complaining and arguing that is going on in this forum for the past week really does anything. I think people should write letters to Canon about it, blog about it, or vote with their wallets, but there hasn't been a civil thread on this board about the 5D MKII since it came out. Many start out with well intentioned questions or comments, but they all seem to spiral into a thread of bickering and bad mouthing.

Believe it or not, there are people here who are happy with the new release and are excited to buy it, but god-forbid they mention is here because they'll be blasted as a Canon fan boy, or have to read pseudo-humorous comments about out of focus pictures and old focusing systems, or how much better the D700 is. Some people actually want more megapixels, video, etc.

Maybe someone could just start a 5D MKII complaint thread, everyone who hates it could post in that thread, and then someone could send the thread off to Canon execs and know that their voice will be heard. Then the rest of us who don't feel like arguing or feel like defending a buying decision can have a little peace. Just a thought. :)

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 15:58
See all the good it does? ;)

I do think that Canon needs to know about features people would like or wouldn't like to see on new cameras. But I don't think that the amount of complaining and arguing that is going on in this forum for the past week really does anything. I think people should write letters to Canon about it, blog about it, or vote with their wallets, but there hasn't been a civil thread on this board about the 5D MKII since it came out. Many start out with well intentioned questions or comments, but they all seem to spiral into a thread of bickering and bad mouthing.

Believe it or not, there are people here who are happy with the new release and are excited to buy it, but god-forbid they mention is here because they'll be blasted as a Canon fan boy, or have to read pseudo-humorous comments about out of focus pictures and old focusing systems, or how much better the D700 is. Some people actually want more megapixels, video, etc.

Maybe someone could just start a 5D MKII complaint thread, everyone who hates it could post in that thread, and then someone could send the thread off to Canon execs and know that their voice will be heard. Then the rest of us who don't feel like arguing or feel like defending a buying decision can have a little peace. Just a thought. :)

We should be greatful to the Mods here that we have some pretty wide lattitude 'cause the noises people were making on some other boards were squashed pretty hard and in no uncertain terms...

dpreview was particularly strident regarding Brand Bashing and such...basically saying "Stop Now or all this goes away..."

radiohead
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 16:05
dpreview was particularly strident regarding Brand Bashing and such...basically saying "Stop Now or all this goes away..."

The irony being that DPR is the worst moderated photo forum on the planet. They seem to ban some excellent posters and let the worst kinds of vitriolic fanboys run amok. It's a mental place.

martook
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 16:05
My impression is that the limitation, 4 GB or around 40 minute of shooting-whichever comes first, is not due to CF used but some other issue, possibly just an arbitrary number.

Before anyone asks about the limitation I mentioned, I think I've read it on one of the multitude pages about the 5D II I've read or else Chuck Westfall said it in an interview I heard. I imagine that the only way you'd get 40 minutes is when shooting SD. In other words SD gives around 40 minutes/4GB and HD gives you 12 minutes/4GB. Although that sounds a little high for SD.

Edit: based on post above perhaps I'm wrong. Maybe the difference in length of video per storage space is dependent on ISO used and subject just as some still images vary significantly in file size depending on the colors in the image and ISO used.


There's two issues with how much video you can record, if I've understood things correctly...

Issue one is that the European Union has a much higher import tariff on video cameras than on photographic equipment, so to keep the prices down (yeah right... they are lot higher than the US prices anyway... :( ) they have to put a time limit on it. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07100301cipaeustatement.asp


Issue two, and the most important one here I'd say, is that CF cards uses the FAT32 filesystem, where maximum filesize is 4GB. Therefore the 1080P clips will rarely be longer than 12 minutes, because at that time, your video file (depending on what you are filming obviously) will be 4GB in size.

kini
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 16:25
What's the big obsession over 24p? Heck most TVs don't know what to do with it and of the ones that do most make it look like crap.

Does any type of media other than a few BluRay discs even come in 24p?

Show that video to a million people and you'd be lucky to find 100 that even knows what 24p is and out of those 100 maybe 5 could tell it wasn't 24p.

The 24p issues is way overblown.

Gene

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 16:30
The irony being that DPR is the worst moderated photo forum on the planet. They seem to ban some excellent posters and let the worst kinds of vitriolic fanboys run amok. It's a mental place.

Interesting...

I usually only drift by there to see the image gallery for each model.

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 18:05
There's two issues with how much video you can record, if I've understood things correctly...

Issue one is that the European Union has a much higher import tariff on video cameras than on photographic equipment, so to keep the prices down (yeah right... they are lot higher than the US prices anyway... :( ) they have to put a time limit on it. See:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0710/07100301cipaeustatement.asp


Issue two, and the most important one here I'd say, is that CF cards uses the FAT32 filesystem, where maximum filesize is 4GB. Therefore the 1080P clips will rarely be longer than 12 minutes, because at that time, your video file (depending on what you are filming obviously) will be 4GB in size.

I hadn't thought of the FAT32 limitation. Is FAT32 the only file system CF cards can support? Is NTFS possible and does UDMA have any effect on any of this?

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 18:14
What's the big obsession over 24p? Heck most TVs don't know what to do with it and of the ones that do most make it look like crap.

Does any type of media other than a few BluRay discs even come in 24p?

Show that video to a million people and you'd be lucky to find 100 that even knows what 24p is and out of those 100 maybe 5 could tell it wasn't 24p.

The 24p issues is way overblown.

Gene

Most new LCD TVs at least now operate at 120Hz which means they'll display 24p just fine: 120/24=5.

I'm not an expert on this but I believe most DVDs and certainly Blurays of films can be shown in 24p. Depends on how it was mastered, how old the film is etc.

People care about 24p becuase if you're an indie film maker and you want your movie to look like film 24p is necessary and is easier than going from 30 to 24.

Show the same video in 30 and 24 and people will notice and prefer the 24 because that's how all films look in a movie theater.

Hey, I don't think anyones is arguing that 24 is somehow technically superior in any way it's just a preferance and that's how films look and have looked for decades and when you change that people get bent out of shape. I think Canon just ought to give people the option.

bacchanal
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 18:14
All I'm sayin' is...I don't have any clue how many p's are best and...

Moby has some pretty fly videos, but I think this one takes it.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:27
I saw Vincent's video, nice work. Nice low light performance from the 5DII.

However, in response to the video, I think messages like:

"I am so happy that I got 5DII on order!" or "Naysayer, take THAT!"

Those are, frankly, foolish.

This clip was made by a professional, with 20 times the cost of the camera in lenses and other equipment. More than two dozen people worked on it, with many many hours of footage that was edited with powerful editing software/hardware. Many DAYS of work has gone into making this short clip.

Of course, the camera performs really well. But we should not fool ourselves. Statements from people like the above I mentioned goes to show how well the Canon campaign actually works. It is like seeing a supercomputer at work and saying, "Oh thank GOD that I was early to order that keyboard!".

+1...

-1

I don't see the point of posts like this.

So people that buy anything are foolish because they see what something can do and like it?

You fool! Don't pre-order that large format digital camera! Who do you think you are? Ansel Adams?

If someone buys a panoramic camera are people going to call them a fool because they'll never be Peter Lik?

So the next time I see people getting excited over an awesome sample shot from a camera, I should put in their place for wanting to get the camera?

Oh, BTW I have a pair of Palin's glasses on order and I don't even wear glasses.

IB///M
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:37
Don't know if anyone has brought it up yet, but how many of you think that we will need a video section for this forum? :)

With this kind of quality, we can have a lot of good posts here.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:38
Don't know if anyone has brought it up yet, but how many of you think that we will need a video section for this forum? :)

With this kind of quality, we can have a lot of good posts here.

Our Fearless Leader is way ahead of ya...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=572394

circles_of_confusion
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:39
-1

I don't see the point of posts like this.

So people that buy anything are foolish because they see what something can do and like it?

You fool! Don't pre-order that large format digital camera! Who do you think you are? Ansel Adams?

If someone buys a panoramic camera are people going to call them a fool because they'll never be Peter Lik?

So the next time I see people getting excited over an awesome sample shot from a camera, I should put in their place for wanting to get the camera?

Oh, BTW I have a pair of Palin's glasses on order and I don't even wear glasses.

+2

A camera like this opens up more creative freedom and flexibility for the owner. Who knows what budding cinematographers or other hybrid photographers will get a hold of it to create the new thing.

I would point out that Vincent, as he has stated before, is neither a professional cinematographer, nor is Final Cut and an apple laptop the top of the line industry editing software. Much of that equipment is standard for most hobbyist and student filmmakers

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:44
+2

A camera like this opens up more creative freedom and flexibility for the owner. Who knows what budding cinematographers or other hybrid photographers will get a hold of it to create the new thing.

I would point out that Vincent, as he has stated before, is neither a professional cinematographer, nor is Final Cut and an apple laptop the top of the line industry editing software. Much of that equipment is standard for most hobbyist and student filmmakers

Final Cut (and more so FC HD) has made huge inroads in the professional world. FCHD is being used by all the major networks on their sports broadcasts now. Much of these setups are being run off of G5s but there is some MacBook Pro work being done as well...

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:45
+2

A camera like this opens up more creative freedom and flexibility for the owner. Who knows what budding cinematographers or other hybrid photographers will get a hold of it to create the new thing.

I would point out that Vincent, as he has stated before, is neither a professional cinematographer, nor is Final Cut and an apple laptop the top of the line industry editing software. Much of that equipment is standard for most hobbyist and student filmmakers

I'll agree it does open up possibilities for the future; my point is that there is a lot more involved in producing even a short clip like that, compared to being able to shoot, process, and print an entire wedding by yourself.

But saying Vincent isn't a cinematographer is like saying Hendrix wasn't much of a Spanish classical guitarist... sure, it wasn't his thing, but I bet he could pick it up pretty quickly and be better than 99% of other classical guitarists.

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:49
Another area this new critter will impact: The Grip industry...

Think how much easier and less obtrusively you can mount the MkII Vs a standard video camera...

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:50
First I was thinking, yea, they should make a grip for it like a pistol.. then I realized you meant Grips as in part of the crew :D Yea, I bet action sequences are going to get a lot more exciting when you can strap $2500 to any old mount and go to town with it, vs. a $250,000 rented camera.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:51
I'll agree it does open up possibilities for the future; my point is that there is a lot more involved in producing even a short clip like that, compared to being able to shoot, process, and print an entire wedding by yourself.

But saying Vincent isn't a cinematographer is like saying Hendrix wasn't much of a Spanish classical guitarist... sure, it wasn't his thing, but I bet he could pick it up pretty quickly and be better than 99% of other classical guitarists.

That'd be pretty amazing for someone that can't read music.

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:51
That'd be pretty amazing for someone that can't read music.

OK if I raise Hendrix from the dead, you can buy him some Classical Guitar lessons on video and we'll see who is right...

FlyingPhotog
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:52
OK if I raise Hendrix from the dead, you can buy him some Classical Guitar lessons on video and we'll see who is right...

If you pull this off, I think you'll get better offers.

I'd hold out... ;)

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 19:57
OK if I raise Hendrix from the dead, you can buy him some Classical Guitar lessons on video and we'll see who is right...

I never said he couldn't do it. Jimi IS amazing. I'd sure love to hear him try.

Indecent Exposure
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:00
Hendrix watching an Esteban video? Comedy gold.

That's an SNL skit waiting to happen.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:04
Hendrix watching an Esteban video? Comedy gold.

That's an SNL skit waiting to happen.

Jimi with a Guitars for Dummies? Jimi playing Guitar Hero? :rolleyes:

Pekka
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:11
But saying Vincent isn't a cinematographer is like saying Hendrix wasn't much of a Spanish classical guitarist... sure, it wasn't his thing, but I bet he could pick it up pretty quickly and be better than 99% of other classical guitarists.

Mmm, how do I say this. No. Knowing technique is a different thing to knowing style and culture it belongs to.

I liked the look of Vincents moving images but as a film it's not the most wonderous piece I've seen, mainly in areas of directing and editing. But then again, considering that the film is really a technology demo and shot in very short time it deserves much kudos.

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:17
Mmm, how do I say this. No. Knowing technique is a different thing to knowing style and culture it belongs to.

I liked the look of Vincents moving images but as a film it's not the most wonderous piece I've seen, mainly in areas of directing and editing. But then again, considering that the film is really a technology demo and shot in very short time it deserves much kudos.

The few people that I've shown it to are like... huh? When I explain that it's a video to show the technical capabilities of a camera they are like... oh cool, that's awesome, etc.

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:22
Mmm, how do I say this. No. Knowing technique is a different thing to knowing style and culture it belongs to.

Agreed, but given Vincent's eye for composition, exposure, and the other elements that make an amazing photograph, I think he would have an easy transition in to cinematography (much like HC Bresson did, but in reverse). And given Jimi's technique and ear, I think he could play a mean classical guitar if so inclined.

Presenting this as a tool for photographers is admirable but misguided. I don't think the average 5D II purchaser will ever use the camera in video mode to the extent that Vincent did. I'm sure some will get some great use out of it, but overall, I think it is a fantastic feature in the wrong body. Why not take the sensor technology here and make a proper HD camcorder out of it?

proxes
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:28
Agreed, but given Vincent's eye for composition, exposure, and the other elements that make an amazing photograph, I think he would have an easy transition in to cinematography (much like HC Bresson did, but in reverse). And given Jimi's technique and ear, I think he could play a mean classical guitar if so inclined.

Presenting this as a tool for photographers is admirable but misguided. I don't think the average 5D II purchaser will ever use the camera in video mode to the extent that Vincent did. I'm sure some will get some great use out of it, but overall, I think it is a fantastic feature in the wrong body. Why not take the sensor technology here and make a proper HD camcorder out of it?

I think you'd be surprised at what people will do. I recall someone making a short film with the 20D after it came out. I think he cheated in some parts but over all it looked like it was shot at 5 fps.

TheHoff
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 20:30
I think you'd be surprised at what people will do. I recall someone making a short film with the 20D after it came out. I think he cheated in some parts but over all it looked like it was shot at 5 fps.

Hey I'm not against video or against the inclusion in the camera, it just seems a little half baked right now. It will give you some great output but there are a lot of disadvantages to having it in a 35mm still camera form factor. And having come from a video production background, I think the amount of work necessary for a quality final product is underestimated by most of those "blown away" by Vincent's video.

Scunner
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 21:03
Very impressive stuff.

Looking at the wide shot of the city from the helicopter, I thought at first the cars were leaving light trails, but the footage has been reversed. The cars are all going backwards. :)

It also looks like there's a dead pixel just right of center. It shows up at 0:46-0:50 just above the car roof, to the right of the driver as we look at it, then again at 1:10 just below his lower eyelid, and it stands out like a sore thumb at 1:42 when the camera zooms in on the guy.

Granted, it's a pre-production model, but I'd be ticked if I saw that on my some-months-off production model!

gooble
23rd of September 2008 (Tue), 21:16
Agreed, but given Vincent's eye for composition, exposure, and the other elements that make an amazing photograph, I think he would have an easy transition in to cinematography (much like HC Bresson did, but in reverse). And given Jimi's technique and ear, I think he could play a mean classical guitar if so inclined.

Presenting this as a tool for photographers is admirable but misguided. I don't think the average 5D II purchaser will ever use the camera in video mode to the extent that Vincent did. I'm sure some will get some great use out of it, but overall, I think it is a fantastic feature in the wrong body. Why not take the sensor technology here and make a proper HD camcorder out of it?

I think it shows he's a good cimematographer not a necessarily a good director. But aren't cinematographers basically photographers that shoot motion? Directors are more focused on the story and the whole presentatioin.

I don't think there's any use trying to convince Canon or anyone else that video is not needed/wanted in a still camera. I'm convinced that the cat's out of the bag and Canon, Nikon and probably everybody else will have video in all their DSLRs in the near future.

Fabrian
24th of September 2008 (Wed), 00:14
I'd like to know what lens is on that body in front of the woman. It doesn't look familiar to me...

FlyingPhotog
24th of September 2008 (Wed), 00:31
I think it shows he's a good cimematographer not a necessarily a good director. But aren't cinematographers basically photographers that shoot motion? Directors are more focused on the story and the whole presentatioin.

I don't think there's any use trying to convince Canon or anyone else that video is not needed/wanted in a still camera. I'm convinced that the cat's out of the bag and Canon, Nikon and probably everybody else will have video in all their DSLRs in the near future.

Cinematographers are basically moving picture photographers but they'll usually (unless they're total auteurs) work with the Director, Lighting Director, Set Designers and camera operators to get the look that's required. It's rarely a one-man job...