Video Shmideo

osv wrote in post #6457801
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.

gooble wrote in post #6457724
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.

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

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

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #6457846
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.

osv wrote in post #6457637
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.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #6457889
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.

osv wrote in post #6457885
run it through this dof calculator, i don't know enough about canon to pick aps-c over full frame:
http://www.dofmaster.c​om/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/tutorial​s/dof2.shtml

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?

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.

NickJushchyshyn wrote in post #6457909
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.

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.

Stealthy Ninja wrote in post #6457921
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/tutorial​s/dof2.shtml

osv wrote in post #6459873
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?

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.

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.

Forget sound, just in terms of image quality how would the 5D Mk II stack up against this?

http://www.canon.co.uk …nition_HD/XH_A1​/index.asp

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.

Zepher wrote in post #6488345
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.

Longwatcher wrote in post #6487124
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?