First 1080p film with Canon EOS 5D MkII

[Taity]

Not sure if anyone else has posted about this, but this is suitably impressive..

http://www.vincentlaforet.com/

[Adamora]

500 years old :D!

nah just kidding, its been talked about alot before. this thread wont get much attention :).

[BenJammin]

haha, A little behind but it's ok.

[Calicajun]

Looked at it but didn't impress me, the video is jerking while playing.

[gooble]

Looked at it but didn't impress me, the video is jerking while playing.

Yeah, it must be a problem with the camera or the maker of the video. :rolleyes:

I guess I'm not sure what your're trying to say. It didn't impress because it was jerky or it didn't impress and it was jerky? Just so you know it plays fine on my computers and I thought it was impressive on many levels.

[wu_wei0]

Played perfectly on my computer. If my business could afford the purchase, the camera could be an asset.

[lowrider]

Looked at it but didn't impress me, the video is jerking while playing.

The jerkiness you saw was not the film, but your computer, browser, ISP or a combination of all three. It played fine for me on my Mac. And, I was impressed. Shooting HD video and audio from a still camera blows me away. Humongous memory needs I bet.

Lou

[Youridin]

Did that camera really record that film? I didn't know that professional photography cameras could record hd videos that comes out that good.

If that is the case why should i buy a 50d and not a 5d??

[kona77]

For a camera that size it packs a nice punch. But it is far from the 1080p a normal video person would shoot. Having compared the raw clip to the final version some serious post production was used. It may have it's merits but I would not buy it because of the video portion the same way I would not buy a video camera for stills.

[Calicajun]

"The jerkiness you saw was not the film, but your computer, browser, ISP or a combination of all three." lowrider.

So you saying that if I get a new 5DII, I'll need a new computer, browser and ISP, I can live with that.:) Good to hear that it was me and not the camera, as I like the idea of having video in the camera.

[Collin85]

The jerkiness you saw was not the film, but your computer, browser, ISP or a combination of all three.

Yep. Playing 1080p videos can be quite demanding on your computer.

[gooble]

For a camera that size it packs a nice punch. But it is far from the 1080p a normal video person would shoot. Having compared the raw clip to the final version some serious post production was used. It may have it's merits but I would not buy it because of the video portion the same way I would not buy a video camera for stills.

If you read Vincent's blog he states many times because people keep accusing him of shennanigans, that abosolutely no post production was done short of editing the clips together. That means no change to the look, color, contrast, grain, WB or whatever was made. You can believe him or not but I do. He's not some amateur he's a highly successful and accomplished photographer that has had his work published in many publications.

[FlyingPhotog]

If you read Vincent's blog he states many times because people keep accusing him of shennanigans, that abosolutely no post production was done short of editing the clips together. That means no change to the look, color, contrast, grain, WB or whatever was made. You can believe him or not but I do. He's not some amateur he's a highly successful and accomplished photographer that has had his work published in many publications.

From a video professional point of view, it's actually kind of hard to tell for sure what may have been done and what may not.

I've now seen "Reverie" and I've see the raw clips posted on CLC and the CLC raw clips are much noisier than the finished version of "Reverie."

However, the full res, full frame version of "Reverie" has not yet been released (that I know of) so maybe the noise is actually there in the final edit. AFAIK, there is only the version available through Vincent's Blog...

Vincent also states he's not a film maker or editor so he may not be entirely aware of what can be done on the quick and dirty even if the edit didn't take very long. There are noise reduction plug-ins for NLEs just like there are for Photoshop.

[gooble]

From a video professional point of view, it's actually kind of hard to tell for sure what may have been done and what may not.

I've now seen "Reverie" and I've see the raw clips posted on CLC and the CLC raw clips are much noisier than the finished version of "Reverie."

However, the full res, full frame version of "Reverie" has not yet been released (that I know of) so maybe the noise is actually there in the final edit. AFAIK, there is only the version available through Vincent's Blog...

Vincent also states he's not a film maker or editor so he may not be entirely aware of what can be done on the quick and dirty even if the edit didn't take very long. There are noise reduction plug-ins for NLEs just like there are for Photoshop.

Wouldn't reducing the video size reduce noise just the same as reducing a still? I'm not a video geek either but it makes sense.

[Michael]

This video looks good. I think I would get one with a Steadicam Merlin and have a nice video setup...

[FlyingPhotog]

Wouldn't reducing the video size reduce noise just the same as reducing a still? I'm not a video geek either but it makes sense.

Yes. But there's also actual compression at work that is resampling on the fly.

"Pixel Peeping" video actually makes more sense than doing so with a still because video has a finite native size due to the fact it's contained within the raster and has a fixed dpi.

You can't "up-rez" video to fit a bigger screen...

1080 is 1080 and that's all you'll ever get whereas with a still, you can increase the dpi to accomodate using it for a larger print.

[Youridin]

When does it actually come out?

I'm anxious to buy a dslr asap and i've been waiting for the 50d so how long would i have to wait for the new 5d mk2?

[gooble]

Yes. But there's also actual compression at work that is resampling on the fly.

"Pixel Peeping" video actually makes more sense than doing so with a still because video has a finite native size due to the fact it's contained within the raster and has a fixed dpi.

You can't "up-rez" video to fit a bigger screen...

1080 is 1080 and that's all you'll ever get whereas with a still, you can increase the dpi to accomodate using it for a larger print.

There're DVD players that upsample to all the way up to 1080p.

[Adamora]

you lose quality if you upsample it.

its like smearing butter over your len's and say its sharper this way.

[vegasboy]

Amazing video.