Video Shmideo

[MDJAK]

I've got three video camera. No, I ain't braggin. One's an oldie but still goodie, a Canon with eye control focusing. Haven't used it in a dog's age except to play back old videos.

A Sony, same use.

And a somewhat newer Sony, the PDX-10, which has XLR connectors for external mics, etc.

If I want to shoot video, I'll buy a video camera. Yeah, it's nice to have it in a pinch so if you're lucky enough to have some news worthy event happen right in front of you, video can sometimes (sometimes) tell a more complete story. But if it's your kid's recital you want to film, etc., get the real deal, not a still camera with video tacked on.

That's my .2 cents. Your mileage may vary.

me

[pastanley]

Agree 100%. Get a point and shoot camera if you want video/pictures.

[manutd101]

Big difference in DOF even between the 7x XH-A1 and the 1x 5D Mk II in terms of sensor size. Add in interchangeable lenses and there's material there to get excited about.

[neumanns]

Alright I'll Play...How about me?

I'm a still's kinda guy. My only intrest in video's are of my kids. I am happy capturing there lives in still's but my wife wants video's.

If I bought her a video camera it would result in a net gain of Zero...It would stay in the closet and every time she wished she had it a lot of good it would do there.

I carry my camera nearly everywhere, If we had a video camera i would still take "My" camera.

BUT...Along comes the 5D2, Now if I want to grab some video to Please the wife I can. While carrying "My" camera.

The 5D2 is a large step from 40D no doubt. But I have the computer and I have the video software (CS4 web premium on order) I would have to learn the proccesing but for home use it shouldn't be that toufgh.

And, While I had not intended to make this step up on this release Full frame is lickley where I'm headed somwhere in the forseable future. As nice as they are I do not believe the 1 series are in my forseable future.

So...I get my full frame, wife get's her video, and we do not end up with a camera bag setting in the closet unused.

Sure the cost is a bit more but there are a lot of benifits to upgrading...and one worth mention is. I would rather pay more for somthing that would get used than a few hundered less for somthing that was gonna set in the closet.

So Under this lighting is the benifit of video on the 5D2 enoufgh to push me over the edge ? Video alone, no! Video + other benifit's, Quite possably! That is the decision I'm trying to make.

If I do Can I borrow that bag of glass setting in your closet till the 1D IV ship's?

[davidfig]

A noink friend of mine put it the best. What follows is why you want a 5D MII.

He commented on the new 5D by saying "If the Nikon D701 comes with HD video it will be easier to justify for a Christmas purchase". Get it. It allows him to use that $1000 on his DSLR rather than a video camera his wife wants. Plus he is salivating over using his Nikkor's for video.

[alankey]

Agree 100%. Get a point and shoot camera if you want video/pictures.

Why? thats like saying saying get a crap 20 year old car without a cd player instead of a Ferrari with one cause your not going to use the cd player. Point is the Ferrari still does what it was made for damn well, plus it has a cd player.

And as far as i can tell, the video quality the 5d produces is amazing. better than that of some video cameras in a similar price range.

The 5d produces images as good as a 1dsmkiii, and produces amazing video.

So tell me, why should i get a point and shoot over a 5dmkii if i want to use it for video and pictures?

why does it seem as if everyone is hating the 5dmkii cause it does video?

[Duder]

If I want to shoot video, I'll buy a video camera.



you say that. but the 5DmkII takes better quality video than the majority of dedicated video cameras out there, and you have a massive choice of lens to use. plus, it's basically a free add-on to a new 5D, which you can still take photos with if you wish.

[osv]

the 5dmkII does not have a real zoom lens(yet), so it's not much of an option for the p&s crowd... still camera zooms don't usually work the same way as a video zoom, they typically don't hold focus while zooming.

even if it did hold focus, a slow crawl shot with a motorized zoom is much easier than doing it with a still camera zoom.

5dmkII video quality... huge 39Mbps bitrate, but it doesn't use b-frames or cabac, which means that it's not as compressed as, say, 24Mbps AVCHD... less compression means less artifacting, and it'll play back on a computer easier, but it doesn't guarantee better video quality over a more compressed bitstream.

5dmkII mov container... google "quicktime gamma shift", there is a thread on dvinfo.net about this with 5dmkII video.

i wish that i had a 5dmkII to play with, but right now i'd rather wait for the next generation of this unit.

[MDJAK]

Geez, seems as if started a real brouhaha. Didn't mean to. Nor am I knocking the new 5D in any way, shape or form. It is by all accounts an awesome picture taking machine. The original 5D was a stunning producer of high quality pictures also.

Nope, that's not my point at all. All I'm stating is if I want serious video and all that goes with it, including quality soundtrack, focusing while zooming as stated above, etc., I will choose the right tool for that job, a video camera. I'm not knocking the 5D because it has video. Not at all. Didn't mean for it to sound that way either.

I'm sorely tempted to pick one up as I've got a lot of unused glass sitting around waiting for the reincarnation of the 1DMKIII in either "N" form or MKIV iteration.

me

[gooble]

the 5dmkII does not have a real zoom lens(yet), so it's not much of an option for the p&s crowd... still camera zooms don't usually work the same way as a video zoom, they typically don't hold focus while zooming.

even if it did hold focus, a slow crawl shot with a motorized zoom is much easier than doing it with a still camera zoom.

5dmkII video quality... huge 39Mbps bitrate, but it doesn't use b-frames or cabac, which means that it's not as compressed as, say, 24Mbps AVCHD... less compression means less artifacting, and it'll play back on a computer easier, but it doesn't guarantee better video quality over a more compressed bitstream.

5dmkII mov container... google "quicktime gamma shift", there is a thread on dvinfo.net about this with 5dmkII video.

i wish that i had a 5dmkII to play with, but right now i'd rather wait for the next generation of this unit.

What is a real zoom lens?

Whether or not a zoom lens stays in focus while changing focal length depends on whether it is parfocal. Here is a list of parfocal Canon lenses: http://www.rogercavanagh.com/helpinfo/30_parfocal.stm

[osv]

What is a real zoom lens?

holding focus is the number one criteria, but how many of those lenses have a motorized zoom?

in the prosumer world, this would be one definition of a real zoom lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=ModelFeaturesTabAct&fcategoryid=175&modelid=17035

[gooble]

holding focus is the number one criteria, but how many of those lenses have a motorized zoom?

in the prosumer world, this would be one definition of a real zoom lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&tabact=ModelFeaturesTabAct&fcategoryid=175&modelid=17035

I'll ask again, what is a real zoom lens? You did not answer the question. All the "zoom" means is that the focal length changes and that is true for any motorized or non-motorized zoom lens.

For the record there is not one motorized zoom lens for any DSLR on the market. There may have been some wierd ones in the past, at least by Canon, but today?

That xl-h1s is over $9,000 and you're comparing it to a $2,700 dslr?

[NickJushchyshyn]

The usefulness of video in a DSLR like the 5D varies greatly depending on the user.
For most consumers ... it will be "handy" to occationally shoot a high-quality HD quicktime video clip without having to carry multiple cameras. It's not "ideal" for video, but many passionate users (which you generally are if you are a consumer investing in a $2500+ DSLR in the first place) will likely be quick to adopt new shooting habits that will take advantage of the camera's (and lens's) strengths.

A LOT of the excitement over these features is coming from people that have been involved in (or aspire to) feature film, indie film and similar productions (amateur or professional). The reason for this is that there is a dramatic optical difference between a shot done on 35mm film digitally scanned at 2K vs the "look" of inexpensive (<$10,000) video cameras that natively shoot digital.

Keep in mind that feature film cameras are manual focus, manual zoom to begin with ... and that one of the more popular "cheats" for getting 35mm film look is to add moving ground-glass in front of a video camera using a SLR lens (again, manual focused and zoom) to focus a 35mm image onto the glass ... which is then recorded by the video camera.

Having a sub-$3000 camera that shoots digitally using fast (dramatic bokka), interchangeable glass is revolutionary for this market. The interesting thing is that the "video" from a 5D with a f2.8 or faster lens will look DRAMATICALLY better (for a film-ic production) than just about anything the xl-h1 can shoot natively. The only thing to really do this at a "reasonable price" before has been the RED, which (at least at the moment) doesn't have the mass-production prospects of a Canon or Nikon product.

Understandably, there are likely thousands of photographers that would have absolutely no interest whatsoever in a DSLR's ability to shoot video. Video schmideo. Thankfully, the improvements in cameras like the 5D mII make it a very attractive product even without using it to shoot motion.

Still, for thousands of other photographers and film makers, being able to shoot "video" with fast, interchangeable glass (even if it's "just" still camera glass) at very low (<$3000) price points is EXTREMELY useful ... (especailly when a lot of us already have cache of glass ready to go). :)

[MDJAK]

Nick, that is an excellent, well thought out and learned reply. Welcome to the forum.

mark

[osv]

I'll ask again, what is a real zoom lens? You did not answer the question.

yes, i did, and i even gave you a perfect example of it from canon... what part of those specs did you not understand?

quote us the specific features that didn't make sense to you, and i'll do my best to talk you through it.

the 5d presents a bit of a dilemma for canon, because if they actually do produce a real zoom lens for it, will people buy the 5d, or the successor to the xl-h1s? at some point, there will be a blurring of the product lines.

one of the huge weaknesses with the 5d is the cmos sensor, with it's rolling shutter issues:
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

it will be interesting to see if canon keeps the ccd block with the upcoming redesign of the xl-h1s.

[gooble]

yes, i did, and i even gave you a perfect example of it from canon... what part of those specs did you not understand?

quote us the specific features that didn't make sense to you, and i'll do my best to talk you through it.

the 5d presents a bit of a dilemma for canon, because if they actually do produce a real zoom lens for it, will people buy the 5d, or the successor to the xl-h1s? at some point, there will be a blurring of the product lines.

one of the huge weaknesses with the 5d is the cmos sensor, with it's rolling shutter issues:
http://dvxuser.com/jason/CMOS-CCD/

it will be interesting to see if canon keeps the ccd block with the upcoming redesign of the xl-h1s.

It's like you're not reading my posts. A zoom lens is a lens that can be changed from one focal length to another. It has nothing to do with whether it is 20x is manually operated or whether it is motorized. Period end of issue.

I wanted you to state what you thought was a "real" zoom lens was, which you obviously believe is one with 20x and motorized but refused to say.

Also the rolling shutter doesn't seem that great of an issue on the 5D II if you've seen any video from it, and it is much better than the D90.

[osv]

It's like you're not reading my posts.

it's like you're not reading that canon link that i posted.

again, what is it on that link that you don't understand?

i'd like to hear the logic behind how rolling shutter could somehow be "better" on the 5d than it is on the d90... or even with the red camera, for that matter.

[bieber]

It's like you're not reading my posts. A zoom lens is a lens that can be changed from one focal length to another. It has nothing to do with whether it is 20x is manually operated or whether it is motorized. Period end of issue.

I wanted you to state what you thought was a "real" zoom lens was, which you obviously believe is one with 20x and motorized but refused to say.

Also the rolling shutter doesn't seem that great of an issue on the 5D II if you've seen any video from it, and it is much better than the D90.
...he clearly isn't talking about the literal meaning of a "real" zoom lens here: he's referring to one that's made for video. And yes, you really do need to have motorized zoom for video. With the event video work I've done, the only place I've ever been able to get away with manual zoom is at rock concerts. Everywhere else, you need smooth, and there's no way you're gonna get it without a motor, especially handheld.

[gooble]

...he clearly isn't talking about the literal meaning of a "real" zoom lens here: he's referring to one that's made for video. And yes, you really do need to have motorized zoom for video. With the event video work I've done, the only place I've ever been able to get away with manual zoom is at rock concerts. Everywhere else, you need smooth, and there's no way you're gonna get it without a motor, especially handheld.

Then whay don't they say that? I gave them several chances to do so and they just keep repeating that I didn't read the Canon xl-h1s page etc. The xl-h1s page does not conain the word "real" ok. Their definition of a "real" zoom lens is made up. That's my point.

I don't recall ever saying a motorized zoom wasn't necessary or useful for video I was taking issue with the definition of a 'real' zoom. Where is the definition of a real zoom lens that says it's motorized? Is there a special definition of a video zoom lens where real means it's motorized?

[gooble]

it's like you're not reading that canon link that i posted.

again, what is it on that link that you don't understand?

i'd like to hear the logic behind how rolling shutter could somehow be "better" on the 5d than it is on the d90... or even with the red camera, for that matter.

Just look at videos from the two cameras! The videos I've seen from the D90 are pretty horrible and the 5D II videos are barely noticeable if at all. What more do you want? Why are you arguing?

[osv]

Then whay don't they say that? I gave them

"they" and "them" understand the point that's being made here.

it's obvious that you don't shoot video, but try to imagine how shutter speed, frame rate, and camera handling might have an effect on how rolling shutter is perceived.

is it smart to make a purchasing decision based on comparing two completely disparate video clips that you know nothing about?

[NickJushchyshyn]

Regarding CMOS readouts and rolling shutter...
The key difference between D90 and even the CMOS readout in the HV10 and HV20 vs the 5D or RED is how quickly the CMOS is read out in relation to the overall exposure time.

When the readout is slow, there is substantial undesirable offset within a frame directly related to the readout timing over the course of the exposure time. This is very noticeable in the D90 and HV10 & HV20 CMOS cameras. This effect also makes creating seamless visual effects on shots from these cameras nearly impossible.

The readout speed of the 5D II and RED is a fraction of the fraction of a second that each frame is exposed. To the point where really, the only way to "see" the rolling readout is to fire a strobe during the readout process. I've worked on visual effects on shots from RED cameras, mostly on shots taken with a moving camera requiring 3D matchmoving and tracking, and can say with confidence that the rolling CMOS readout is NOT a problematic factor in that camera.

Of course I haven't worked on shots from the 5d II, but what little I've seen on the net looks to have the readout performance of the RED ... very promising.

[osv]

Having a sub-$3000 camera that shoots digitally using fast (dramatic bokka), interchangeable glass is revolutionary for this market.

um, not quite... the xl-h1 has a factory eos adapter for mounting 35mm canon glass... as did the canon l1, l2, xl1, xl1s, xl2, etc... the adapter has been around for years.

so canon video cameras with removeable lenses can use the exact same 1.4 glass that canon still cameras can use.

since the ccd block has a smaller footprint than a 35mm frame size does, there is a multiplier effect that's similar to what happens with aps-c cameras... xlnt for long distance like wildlife shooting, but not so good if you want wide angle shots.

[Stealthy Ninja]

um, not quite... the xl-h1 has a factory eos adapter for mounting 35mm canon glass... as did the canon l1, l2, xl1, xl1s, xl2, etc... the adapter has been around for years.

so canon video cameras with removeable lenses can use the exact same 1.4 glass that canon still cameras can use.

since the ccd block has a smaller footprint than a 35mm frame size does, there is a multiplier effect that's similar to what happens with aps-c cameras... xlnt for long distance like wildlife shooting, but not so good if you want wide angle shots.

It's something like x7 (the multiplier). With video the bigger the sensor the better, so I guess (unless they crop the sensor a lot) the 5D mkII should be (theoretically) better than the other "real" video cameras.

Also (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) one of the good things about FF is the DOF control (ie less DOF). So you're getting much more control over your DOF over a dedicated video camera. Just changing the lenses using the adaptor does NOT give you this effect (you need to have some special set up - expensive - to get the narrow DOF associated with things like FILM).

Therefore (if it turns out to be good enough) the 5D mkII videos DOF control trumps "real video cameras" ability to clamp on other lenses.

You are correct in what you say though. You can exchange the lenses, it just doesn't have the same effect that it would with a DSLR.

Note: I own the XL2 and I have only taken the kit lens off once (when I sent it in to be repaired). I've had it for about 2 years and I am a video professional.

BTW: I'm not attacking your post, just adding points to it. :D

[gooble]

"they" and "them" understand the point that's being made here.

it's obvious that you don't shoot video, but try to imagine how shutter speed, frame rate, and camera handling might have an effect on how rolling shutter is perceived.

is it smart to make a purchasing decision based on comparing two completely disparate video clips that you know nothing about?

Why don't you share it with us.

Are you saying the D90 has bad wobble becuause it is 24fps and the 5D II is better because it shoots in 30fps?

[osv]

Matthew Jeppsen (http://www.freshdv.com/) Jan 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm (http://www.freshdv.com/2007/12/xdcam-ex1-cmos-rolling-shutter-strobe-artifacts.html#comment-30803)
For a little perspective on this rolling shutter strobe failing of CMOS sensors, have a look at this footage from a RED camera.
http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/SHUTTER_STUDIES/STROBE&ROLLING_SHUTTER.mov (http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/SHUTTER_STUDIES/STROBE&ROLLING_SHUTTER.mov)
Let me remind you of the price points we’re talking about here…
XDCAM EX1 = $6500-ish for a basic setup (SxS card, battery).
RED One = $25,000 - $30,000-ish for a basic setup (body, lenses, rods, CF storage, batteries, follow focus, etc).

it's old news... but do i really want to spend $30k for video gear that can't handle a still camera flash? no models on runways, no after-game locker room shots, etc.

"Spoken like someone who truly has never used a RED ONE. Well, I've had them side-by-side for two weekends... YES, the RED has the same issues. Pan the RED fast and you get skew."
http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=140020&page=3

[gooble]

Matthew Jeppsen (http://www.freshdv.com/) Jan 10th, 2008 at 4:54 pm (http://www.freshdv.com/2007/12/xdcam-ex1-cmos-rolling-shutter-strobe-artifacts.html#comment-30803)
For a little perspective on this rolling shutter strobe failing of CMOS sensors, have a look at this footage from a RED camera.
http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/SHUTTER_STUDIES/STROBE&ROLLING_SHUTTER.mov (http://ftp.datausa.com/imageshoppe/outgoing/SHUTTER_STUDIES/STROBE&ROLLING_SHUTTER.mov)
Let me remind you of the price points we’re talking about here…
XDCAM EX1 = $6500-ish for a basic setup (SxS card, battery).
RED One = $25,000 - $30,000-ish for a basic setup (body, lenses, rods, CF storage, batteries, follow focus, etc).

it's old news... but do i really want to spend $30k for video gear that can't handle a still camera flash? no models on runways, no after-game locker room shots, etc.

"Spoken like someone who truly has never used a RED ONE. Well, I've had them side-by-side for two weekends... YES, the RED has the same issues. Pan the RED fast and you get skew."
http://dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=140020&page=3

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for or against anymore and you seem to keep arguing for or against things that I'm not even sure someone is opposing you on.

The 5D II is a really compelling video camera for someone who is primarily interested in still photography. I don't think it'll disuade serious video shooters from buying a dedicated video camera. I don't care that it doesn't have motorized zoom capabilities.

[Stealthy Ninja]

I'm not even sure what you're arguing for or against anymore and you seem to keep arguing for or against things that I'm not even sure someone is opposing you on.

The 5D II is a really compelling video camera for someone who is primarily interested in still photography. I don't think it'll disuade serious video shooters from buying a dedicated video camera. I don't care that it doesn't have motorized zoom capabilities.

Primarily I guess we'll all agree the 5D mkii is a still camera first, video camera later.

There are applications I think it may (MAY, who knows at this point) trump a dedicated video camera (special shots, low light etc.). But usually, a proper video camera is a better option (XLR anyone?). :D

I personally see it as a compliment to my XL2. The XL2 is a SD video camera (here in Hong Kong HD isn't as big/needed as it is in the States) so something like the 5D mkII will be a good specialist camera (special shots that is). NOT a very good event video camera (I mean filming an event). Unless it doesn't have problems with overheated sensor and it can connect to a computer to capture.

I don't need HD all that much (which is why I said it would compliment my XL2) so when I do need to do something in HD (ie a talking head or something) it might be better than the XL2 in that case. Because I could blur the background more and make it look like film (in terms of DOF) and keep the colour saturation that is popular in the asian culture (the "film look" isn't so popular here).

Well that's my hope at least.

[osv]

hey, i'm impressed that there are actually video people on this forum :-) i've owned all of the canon cameras up to and including the xl1s, and i just jumped off the deep end for this vixia hf11... rolling shutter issues and all, lol, gotta start checking out hi-def sometime.

with a 7x multiplier effect, the dof will be shallow, because of the length... and there is no light loss, so you would still get the fast 1.4.

i would also point out that you can't begin to touch that amount of zoom when you are shooting video on a 5d.

It's something like x7 (the multiplier). With video the bigger the sensor the better, so I guess (unless they crop the sensor a lot) the 5D mkII should be (theoretically) better than the other "real" video cameras.

Also (someone correct me if I'm wrong here) one of the good things about FF is the DOF control (ie less DOF). So you're getting much more control over your DOF over a dedicated video camera. Just changing the lenses using the adaptor does NOT give you this effect (you need to have some special set up - expensive - to get the narrow DOF associated with things like FILM).

Therefore (if it turns out to be good enough) the 5D mkII videos DOF control trumps "real video cameras" ability to clamp on other lenses.

You are correct in what you say though. You can exchange the lenses, it just doesn't have the same effect that it would with a DSLR.

Note: I own the XL2 and I have only taken the kit lens off once (when I sent it in to be repaired). I've had it for about 2 years and I am a video professional.

BTW: I'm not attacking your post, just adding points to it. :D

[osv]

i agree, and i see an advantage with the 5d when it comes to shooting film-style, where you might need extreme dof in certain circumstances... it would also make nice b-roll at high-end weddings.

but shooting film-style means all of the attendant headaches with dedicated focus pullers and such... does the 5d have in-body stabilization like my pentax does? do the short canon primes that will be used in that situation have stabilization in the lense?

Primarily I guess we'll all agree the 5D mkii is a still camera first, video camera later.

There are applications I think it may (MAY, who knows at this point) trump a dedicated video camera (special shots, low light etc.). But usually, a proper video camera is a better option (XLR anyone?). :D

I personally see it as a compliment to my XL2. The XL2 is a SD video camera (here in Hong Kong HD isn't as big/needed as it is in the States) so something like the 5D mkII will be a good specialist camera (special shots that is). NOT a very good event video camera (I mean filming an event). Unless it doesn't have problems with overheated sensor and it can connect to a computer to capture.

I don't need HD all that much (which is why I said it would compliment my XL2) so when I do need to do something in HD (ie a talking head or something) it might be better than the XL2 in that case. Because I could blur the background more and make it look like film (in terms of DOF) and keep the colour saturation that is popular in the asian culture (the "film look" isn't so popular here).

Well that's my hope at least.

[Stealthy Ninja]

hey, i'm impressed that there are actually video people on this forum :-) i've owned all of the canon cameras up to and including the xl1s, and i just jumped off the deep end for this vixia hf11... rolling shutter issues and all, lol, gotta start checking out hi-def sometime.

with a 7x multiplier effect, the dof will be shallow, because of the length... and there is no light loss, so you would still get the fast 1.4.

i would also point out that you can't begin to touch that amount of zoom when you are shooting video on a 5d.

I'm not sure how much the x7 crop factor effects DOF. (I could be wrong again). Wouldn't the DOF effect at different focal lengths be more determined by the aperture than the crop factor? I know longer lenses give you the illusion of shallower DOF (because - what I call - "distance distortion" makes distant OOF elements appear closer) but the DOF from a 50mm lens, for example, at the same aperture should be the same regardless of crop factor (am I right?).

I was thinking more on the lines of reasonable focal lengths (ie MCU shots without getting 1/2 kilometre away). LOL

For wildlife it would be very interesting. I would really like to try shooting some video with my 200mm f/2.8 stuck on it. I wonder what it would be like (well I guess like a 1400mm lens)?! I guess even walking around the tripod would give it the shakes.

Apparently the 100mm 2.8 (macro) as a very good video lens.

[osv]

Are you saying the D90 has bad wobble becuause it is 24fps and the 5D II is better because it shoots in 30fps?

24fps is a disaster when it comes to any kind of movement anywhere.

no doubt the canon will have 24fps in the near future, so we'll be able to compare like to like.

[osv]

run it through this dof calculator, i don't know enough about canon to pick aps-c over full frame:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

i do know that for any given camera, more length equals less dof.

[FlyingPhotog]

I'm not sure how much the x7 crop factor effects DOF. (I could be wrong again). Wouldn't the DOF effect at different focal lengths be more determined by the aperture than the crop factor? I know longer lenses give you the illusion of shallower DOF (because - what I call - "distance distortion" makes distant OOF elements appear closer) but the DOF from a 50mm lens, for example, at the same aperture should be the same regardless of crop factor (am I right?).

I was thinking more on the lines of reasonable focal lengths (ie MCU shots without getting 1/2 kilometre away). LOL

For wildlife it would be very interesting. I would really like to try shooting some video with my 200mm f/2.8 stuck on it. I wonder what it would be like (well I guess like a 1400mm lens)?! I guess even walking around the tripod would give it the shakes.

Apparently the 100mm 2.8 (macro) as a very good video lens.

There was a link (check the Bird Section) to video shot on the MkII using a 600mm f/4L IS + TC...

Pretty good stuff considering the amount of glass involved and then the compression to get it on the web. IIRC, it was shot on an overcast, rainy day to boot...

As for distance and FOV, you rarely ever hear of a videographer having to add a lens for getting tighter but wide angle adaptors are quite common... TV Camera lenses have built in extenders but 99 out of 100 times, if you need to go wider, you add an adaptor or reach for a purpose-built wide angle lens.

[NickJushchyshyn]

um, not quite... the xl-h1 has a factory eos adapter for mounting 35mm canon glass... as did the canon l1, l2, xl1, xl1s, xl2, etc... the adapter has been around for years.

so canon video cameras with removeable lenses can use the exact same 1.4 glass that canon still cameras can use.

since the ccd block has a smaller footprint than a 35mm frame size does, there is a multiplier effect that's similar to what happens with aps-c cameras... xlnt for long distance like wildlife shooting, but not so good if you want wide angle shots.

Exactly.... you seem to be advocating my point rather than contradicting it so the "um, not quite" doesn't quite fit your post to me. :-)

The xlh1 is not less than $3000 ... especially when you add the cost of adding on the EOS adaptor.
It's small sensors your point out make shallow depth of field more difficult to attain, not to mention makes use in smaller areas a challenge due to the issue of getting wide angles that you mention.
And we haven't even mentioned that the h1 only shoots 1440x1080 rather than 1920x1080 coming from the 5d II.

It's an entirely different (and higher priced) tool than the 5D II.
I also think this is why Canon is "safe" in offering these features in the 5D ... the 5D's new features DON'T do the job of the xlh1. It's a different tool for a different style of shooting. Period.

It (the 5D II) also happens to be stepping into a niche that many people have been desperately hoping would be filled. These are not necessarily the same people that the find the characteristics (other than the ability to shoot in HD) of the xlh1 (or any existing HDV camcorder) particularly compelling ... nor would it be expected that those with needs that are addressed by HDV cameras would be particularly fond of the motion shooting characteristics of the something like a 5D II.

Long before anyone was shooting digital, there were NUMEROUS formats of film photography ... even in motion film there were several formats from 8mm to 35mm ... and each of these has multiple variants. Each variant with it's own advantages, disadvantages, nuances and characteristics. Gradually, we are beginning to see more and more of this same kind of variety available in the digital realm with virtual certainty that there is far more variety on the horizon.

Good times ..... gooooood times. :-)

[Stealthy Ninja]

There was a link (check the Bird Section) to video shot on the MkII using a 600mm f/4L IS + TC...

Pretty good stuff considering the amount of glass involved and then the compression to get it on the web. IIRC, it was shot on an overcast, rainy day to boot...

As for distance and FOV, you rarely ever hear of a videographer having to add a lens for getting tighter but wide angle adaptors are quite common... TV Camera lenses have built in extenders but 99 out of 100 times, if you need to go wider, you add an adaptor or reach for a purpose-built wide angle lens.

Unless you're videoing a lion with a temper. I totally agree. That's why there is a good WA lens for the XL2. It's also why I spent $3000 HKD on a piece of glass to stick on the front of my XL2 kit lens (WA adapter).

Part of the Reverie video was done with a 400mm lens I'm sure.

[Stealthy Ninja]

run it through this dof calculator, i don't know enough about canon to pick aps-c over full frame:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

i do know that for any given camera, more length equals less dof.

Not less DOF actually. It's an illusion of less DOF. I get your point though, in all respects you might as well say "less DOF".

Check this out:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

[osv]

no, i was directly contradicting you: "The interesting thing is that the "video" from a 5D with a f2.8 or faster lens will look DRAMATICALLY better (for a film-ic production) than just about anything the xl-h1 can shoot natively."

"DRAMATICALLY?" "just about anything"? you didn't know that i have been able to shoot 2.8 or faster lenses for years now... in fact, the factory glass that comes with the xl1/xl1s/etc is rated at 1:1.6-2.6.

so the look that you are so excited about has not much to do with the speed of the lens at all, rather, it's the size of the sensors involved that gives the 5d the shallow dof.

i do agree that hdv sucks, which is why i never bought into the format... but you need to realize that you are comparing a vapourware 5d to an old xlh1 model that is in the process of being re-designed by canon... hey, how about if we compare the 5d to my old canon l1? :D

i am playing the devils advocate out here because most of these people don't know much about video, and speaking in general, the fanboi ferver for these new 35mm cameras is overwhelming common sense, in forums all over the internet.

there are a bunch of still guys out there who think that buying a 5d is going to allow them to become event videographers overnight... that's not going to happen with a camera that requires you to shoot in film-style mode.

Exactly.... you seem to be advocating my point rather than contradicting it so the "um, not quite" doesn't quite fit your post to me. :-)

The xlh1 is not less than $3000 ... especially when you add the cost of adding on the EOS adaptor.
It's small sensors your point out make shallow depth of field more difficult to attain, not to mention makes use in smaller areas a challenge due to the issue of getting wide angles that you mention.
And we haven't even mentioned that the h1 only shoots 1440x1080 rather than 1920x1080 coming from the 5d II.

It's an entirely different (and higher priced) tool than the 5D II.
I also think this is why Canon is "safe" in offering these features in the 5D ... the 5D's new features DON'T do the job of the xlh1. It's a different tool for a different style of shooting. Period.

It (the 5D II) also happens to be stepping into a niche that many people have been desperately hoping would be filled. These are not necessarily the same people that the find the characteristics (other than the ability to shoot in HD) of the xlh1 (or any existing HDV camcorder) particularly compelling ... nor would it be expected that those with needs that are addressed by HDV cameras would be particularly fond of the motion shooting characteristics of the something like a 5D II.

Long before anyone was shooting digital, there were NUMEROUS formats of film photography ... even in motion film there were several formats from 8mm to 35mm ... and each of these has multiple variants. Each variant with it's own advantages, disadvantages, nuances and characteristics. Gradually, we are beginning to see more and more of this same kind of variety available in the digital realm with virtual certainty that there is far more variety on the horizon.

Good times ..... gooooood times. :-)

[osv]

thanks for the link, it's very interesting, but if you are saying that the math behind the dof calculator is wrong, i'd have to disagree?

i'd like to believe that the math is right, dof does change with lens length, and the illusion is with the examples given in that link.

Not less DOF actually. It's an illusion of less DOF. I get your point though, in all respects you might as well say "less DOF".

Check this out:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/dof2.shtml

[NickJushchyshyn]

no, i was directly contradicting you: "The interesting thing is that the "video" from a 5D with a f2.8 or faster lens will look DRAMATICALLY better (for a film-ic production) than just about anything the xl-h1 can shoot natively."

"DRAMATICALLY?" "just about anything"? you didn't know that i have been able to shoot 2.8 or faster lenses for years now... in fact, the factory glass that comes with the xl1/xl1s/etc is rated at 1:1.6-2.6.

so the look that you are so excited about has not much to do with the speed of the lens at all, rather, it's the size of the sensors involved that gives the 5d the shallow dof.

i do agree that hdv sucks, which is why i never bought into the format... but you need to realize that you are comparing a vapourware 5d to an old xlh1 model that is in the process of being re-designed by canon... hey, how about if we compare the 5d to my old canon l1? :D

i am playing the devils advocate out here because most of these people don't know much about video, and speaking in general, the fanboi ferver for these new 35mm cameras is overwhelming common sense, in forums all over the internet.

there are a bunch of still guys out there who think that buying a 5d is going to allow them to become event videographers overnight... that's not going to happen with a camera that requires you to shoot in film-style mode.
Fair enough.
Agreed in regards to the substance you've posted here. :)

[Longwatcher]

A couple of comments.

1. I have a 1DsMkIII and an XL-2 w/the EF adapter

2. At a given distance there is no difference in DoF if the lens is on my 1DsmkIII or my XL-2, but I don't see as much of the shot on my XL-2 (because the sensor is far smaller).

3. The big advantage to my XL-2 is audio capability and it is designed to be used as a handheld video camera, including all of the above mentioned advantages (smooth zoom/focus, XLR inputs, etc...)

4. The advantage to the 5DM2 is that it looks like superior image quality, a wider field of view at a given DoF and I no longer have to mentally convert what my lenses do from DSLR to Video (or so I believe - won't know until I get my hands on one or read a manual).

5. I mostly shoot stills, but have an occasional need for video. For most of the videos I shoot, audio is not an important factor. Also since my video camera is usually sitting on a tripod, manual focus is not a serious issue.

6. So far my biggest worry is the fact the video comes out of the camea in a .Mov format, otherwise the 5DmkII sounds great as a backup to my 1DsMkIII. But since it will be after the first of the year before I can consider getting one, I will probably wait until March to see what if anything comes out then.

[neil_r]

Forget sound, just in terms of image quality how would the 5D Mk II stack up against this (http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/XH_A1/index.asp)?

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Camcorders/High_Definition_HD/XH_A1/index.asp

[Zepher]

The 5D MkII is perfect if you are shooting a movie, music video, pretty much anything that doesn't require a long shot.
If they make it do 24FPS when it comes out, my friend is going to get it.

Now, for general shooting of long format stuff, like a dance recital, then you use a standard camcorder.
This is my opinion.

[gooble]

The 5D MkII is perfect if you are shooting a movie, music video, pretty much anything that doesn't require a long shot.
If they make it do 24FPS when it comes out, my friend is going to get it.

Now, for general shooting of long format stuff, like a dance recital, then you use a standard camcorder.
This is my opinion.

Yes, but you can take a picture during a video clip which starts a new video file after the still is taken. If you're the only shooter then you could splice the clips together but you'd have a second gap or so.

However if you're doing this professionally and had two shooters you could simply jump to the other camera and avoid any interuptions.

[gooble]

A couple of comments.

1. I have a 1DsMkIII and an XL-2 w/the EF adapter

2. At a given distance there is no difference in DoF if the lens is on my 1DsmkIII or my XL-2, but I don't see as much of the shot on my XL-2 (because the sensor is far smaller).

3. The big advantage to my XL-2 is audio capability and it is designed to be used as a handheld video camera, including all of the above mentioned advantages (smooth zoom/focus, XLR inputs, etc...)

4. The advantage to the 5DM2 is that it looks like superior image quality, a wider field of view at a given DoF and I no longer have to mentally convert what my lenses do from DSLR to Video (or so I believe - won't know until I get my hands on one or read a manual).

5. I mostly shoot stills, but have an occasional need for video. For most of the videos I shoot, audio is not an important factor. Also since my video camera is usually sitting on a tripod, manual focus is not a serious issue.

6. So far my biggest worry is the fact the video comes out of the camea in a .Mov format, otherwise the 5DmkII sounds great as a backup to my 1DsMkIII. But since it will be after the first of the year before I can consider getting one, I will probably wait until March to see what if anything comes out then.

I'm not a video expert but what's wrong with the .mov wrapper? Is there also something wrong with h.264?

[bieber]

Yes, but you can take a picture during a video clip which starts a new video file after the still is taken. If you're the only shooter then you could splice the clips together but you'd have a second gap or so.

However if you're doing this professionally and had two shooters you could simply jump to the other camera and avoid any interuptions.
Assuming that you wanted to be at that camera angle at the time in question.
I'm not a video expert but what's wrong with the .mov wrapper? Is there also something wrong with h.264?
Video compressed like that is simply unideal.

[Collin85]

Agree 100%. Get a point and shoot camera if you want video/pictures.

This is such horrendous advice one can't help but wonder if you're kidding or not. It certainly didn't look like it.

So here, we have an excellent dSLR which also happens to do excellent movies (BETTER than many dedicated camcorders) due to the larger sensor and interchangeable lenses.. and you're telling me to go buy a P&S? :lol:

[gooble]

Assuming that you wanted to be at that camera angle at the time in question.

Video compressed like that is simply unideal.

How much is too much compressed? Isn't all video compressed to some degree or another? Isn't h.264 very good at compression? Isn't it less compression then is used on DV tapes?

[c2thew]

i think that by bridging dslrs and video cameras you create a new niche. one that has been dieing to be opened since the pocket xacto hd camcorders were first introduced. Effectively, canon and nikon are being the dominant leaders and stepping up to consumer demands, realizing the need for video and still image recording that offer more flexibility to professional photographers and as a result: better, sleeker, more wow images. the 5d mk2 will definitely be hard to top in the current market, however i think that as both nikon and canon become more confident in their videoing capabilities; they will ultimately feature Auto focus in their camera/lens abilities.

[gooble]

i think that by bridging dslrs and video cameras you create a new niche. one that has been dieing to be opened since the pocket xacto hd camcorders were first introduced. Effectively, canon and nikon are being the dominant leaders and stepping up to consumer demands, realizing the need for video and still image recording that offer more flexibility to professional photographers and as a result: better, sleeker, more wow images. the 5d mk2 will definitely be hard to top in the current market, however i think that as both nikon and canon become more confident in their videoing capabilities; they will ultimately feature Auto focus in their camera/lens abilities.

The 5D II has AF during video recording.

[osv]

I'm not a video expert but what's wrong with the .mov wrapper?

from a post i made a couple of pages back: "5dmkII mov container... google "quicktime gamma shift", there is a thread on dvinfo.net about this with 5dmkII video."

i'll try to make it relevant to this forum... how would you like to be shooting stills that always had a gamma shift in 'em? what if you had to shoot everything in raw, to make sure that there was no permanently lost picture info, like you get with jpegs? is this gamma shift issue only a problem if you are editing video on a pc?

as for af, can it do continuous autofocus while recording, like a video camera does? ...not that a pro shooter would want to use autofocus, unless absolutely necessary.

[gooble]

from a post i made a couple of pages back: "5dmkII mov container... google "quicktime gamma shift", there is a thread on dvinfo.net about this with 5dmkII video."

i'll try to make it relevant to this forum... how would you like to be shooting stills that always had a gamma shift in 'em? what if you had to shoot everything in raw, to make sure that there was no permanently lost picture info, like you get with jpegs? is this gamma shift issue only a problem if you are editing video on a pc?

as for af, can it do continuous autofocus while recording, like a video camera does? ...not that a pro shooter would want to use autofocus, unless absolutely necessary.

I don't know if it has continuous AF or not but it does AF during shooting.

As for the QT gamma issue, like I said I'm not a video expert. I read a little about this issue and don't know enough about it to know what problems it would cause 5D II users but I do know that h.264 is not tied to QT. The camera just puts the files in a mov wrapper. You can change the file extension to m4v from mov and open it up in any player that plays mpeg4 video and I assume in any video editor that supports mpeg4 video. You don't ever have to touch Quicktime as far as I can tell so is the problem for people playing back a finished video in Quicktime?

[osv]

all good points... the thread made it sound like there had to be a proper conversion from .mov to .whatever, fwiw... i have a simple software utility that allows me to convert sd video from .avi to .mov without re-encoding, so there must be something out there for hi-def.

taking a different tack... according to steve jobs, don't be looking to author hi-def dvds on your mac with that 5d mkII video any time soon:
"Straight from El Jobso's mouth at today's notebook keynote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace." Phil chimed in with "We have the best HD movie and TV options in iTunes."
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/steve-jobs-calls-blu-ray-a-bag-of-hurt/

another good reason to dump the .mov container... and the mac, while you are at it.

[gooble]

all good points... the thread made it sound like there had to be a proper conversion from .mov to .whatever, fwiw... i have a simple software utility that allows me to convert sd video from .avi to .mov without re-encoding, so there must be something out there for hi-def.

taking a different tack... according to steve jobs, don't be looking to author hi-def dvds on your mac with that 5d mkII video any time soon:
"Straight from El Jobso's mouth at today's notebook keynote: "Blu-ray is just a bag of hurt. It's great to watch the movies, but the licensing of the tech is so complex, we're waiting till things settle down and Blu-ray takes off in the marketplace." Phil chimed in with "We have the best HD movie and TV options in iTunes."
http://www.engadget.com/2008/10/14/steve-jobs-calls-blu-ray-a-bag-of-hurt/

another good reason to dump the .mov container... and the mac, while you are at it.

Quicktime's .mov is not a video compression standard it's a wrapper only. You don't convert from mov to whatever. You can't convert from mov to anything; .mov is not a codec. It just so happens that the 5D II wraps the h.264 compressed mpeg4 file in a mov wrapper they could have just have easily put the .mp4 or .m4v extension on them and they'd work just the same in software that supports them no conversion necessary.

[osv]

wrong, you can't just change the name to another container type, and always maintain full compatibility.

that's like telling us that you can make a .jpg into a .tif or .tga by simply renaming it.

[gooble]

wrong, you can't just change the name to another container type, and always maintain full compatibility.

that's like telling us that you can make a .jpg into a .tif or .tga by simply renaming it.

Well I took Vincent Laforet's Reverie (all he did to my knowledge was open in a video editor and export to the same type of file as he started with) which I pulled out of the cache which had a .mov extension. I changed it to .m4v and .mp4 and played it in Quicktime and the Zune software no problems. Changing the file extension like I did did not tell the software that its a different type of file which is what happens if you change an image file extension so you're just flat wrong.

[osv]

you don't have a clue how those apps interpreted what you did... and you sure don't know if renaming the file affected the gamma shift problem, much less what caused it in the first place.

if renaming the file extension worked like you claim it does, there would have been no need for qt pro to have a export dialog choice called passthrough, which allows you to do an export to mp4 without re-encoding the data streams.

[gooble]

you don't have a clue how those apps interpreted what you did... and you sure don't know if renaming the file affected the gamma shift problem, much less what caused it in the first place.

if renaming the file extension worked like you claim it does, there would have been no need for qt pro to have a export dialog choice called passthrough, which allows you to do an export to mp4 without re-encoding the data streams.

Yeah, I don't know and I don't give a rat's a@# about Quicktime or Apple so it matters little to me.

My main point was that although the 5D II files had a .mov extension this does not tie you to Quicktime in any way. The videos are encoded in mpeg4 h.264 which is an industry wide standard that is not exclusive to Apple or anyone else.

[osv]

no, if the .mov container farked up the gamma at the time that the video was recorded, it can't be fixed by simply renaming the file... and without a proper conversion, you are indeed stuck with quicktime.

but don't take my word for it, here it is on the red forum:

"Ok, I know there is not one single answer to the Quicktime Gamma Issues, and I know everyone has heard this a thousand times and the Red Forums aren't specifically the place to vent - but when looking at my screen my mind nearly just snapped.... And seeing as there are some movers and shakers in the post world who frequent here I figure maybe SOMEBODY will be able to point out the following insane contradiction to Apple and get them to fix this stuff.

So, I have a Quicktime output from AVID (using Same as Source on an Avid 1:1 timeline) that I move it over to my Mac - surprise surprise, QT Gamma shift issue crops up, blacks are grey, everything is washed out."
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18513

[osv]

here, this guy thinks that he has a fix for it, but i doubt it:

"Using mp4 or h.264 when compressing through QuickTime can make the final video look washed out."
http://www.videocopilot.net/blog/?p=197

77 responses, look at the last post:
"This tip didnt work for me at all. Im rendering my reel out of final cut using compressor. All the other codecs work, but h.264 gives me the gamma shift. I use this tip, close and save. Opening up the file again, and it still looks exactly the same, washed out compared to the same video with a motion jpg export. I am on a mac using QT Pro 7.5. Any other solutions that work?"

[Stealthy Ninja]

6. So far my biggest worry is the fact the video comes out of the camea in a .Mov format, otherwise the 5DmkII sounds great as a backup to my 1DsMkIII. But since it will be after the first of the year before I can consider getting one, I will probably wait until March to see what if anything comes out then.


.mov using h.264 is fine if you're using a mac (as for the gamma shift thing, it's really true. But if you can't fix it in FCP then you shouldn't be editing) ;) :p

I can see how it would be annoying if you're using a PC. Though, if you're going to compress HD (face it, you sort of need to when shooting on cards). H.264 (AVC/Mpeg 4 Part 10) isn't too bad a way to go (and a lot of editors use Macs).

Though I do wish they would come up with a HD format that has a good bitrate, good compression and is lossy.

Oh well. I still do 100% SD stuff so i doesn't bother me at the moment.

I am confused at Apple's lack of Blu-ray support... weirdos.

Another thing. With video, I never got into the tech side that much (apart from what I needed to know). I concentrate on making the best videos I can (art).

Now, I just need to do the same thing with photos... :lol: