Messages

1

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: May 05, 2013, 07:30:20 PM »

This thread is hilarious, watching everyone make mountains out of anthills (not even big enough to be a molehill). And I'm not sure what's meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p", is that because they use 442242 compression instead of 442444 or 444224?

No, it is about the bad downscaling. The 1080p video files have a true sharpness that is a lot lower - closer to 700 lines of resolution or roughly what proper 720p is (and less than that HDTV's downscaled Full HD can display). Improved processing could no doubt get these cameras to deliver some extremely sharp 1080p video, and I think that is far more of a priority than 4K

Look at 1080p from a 5dmkIII side by side with 1080p from a Canon C100 and you will see what is meant by "canon dslrs cannot even shoot true 1080p."

You say that it all doesn't really matter because consumers just want to see flashy images - while I agree that audiences are often easily impressed, and that they have incredibly short attention spans - they are not the only people you have to impress. Clients, marketing managers, producers, broadcasters - all sorts of people along the production pipeline scrutinise your image quality to the highest degree, and if it doesn't pass their test, then your easily impressed audience will never get to see it anyway, which equates to lost income.

What If I said to you that most people are only viewing photos on the web at about 1200x800 pixels, therefore your DSLR's only need to shoot 1mp photos? Would you agree with that?

We can always use more resolution, for stills and video, and it is just a matter of finding the balance point between what is possible and what is necessary. At this stage, for most working professionals, proper 1080p is necessary, and for many consumers, who have bought the best TV they can afford, proper 1080p in these cameras will deliver a noticeable IQ difference at the ideal viewing distance. However, in the past 5 years Canon have not made any improvements to the soft video in their DSLR's.

2

EOS Bodies / Re: Why not higher resolution video?

« on: April 30, 2013, 02:15:36 AM »

There's plenty of reasons why we haven't got 4K video in (non "C") Canon DSLR's yet.

- They want to keep that as a high-end feature, to keep selling the 1DC at $12000.
- Most people don't need it yet, and very few really want it too badly (keeping in mind most DSLR owners don't even care if their camera has a video mode at all)
- It requires more expensive hardware = lower profit margins or higher cost for the consumer.
- They are primarily still cameras - they are not built from the ground up with 4K video in mind.
- The negative feedback would be a PR disaster - look at GoPro's situation as an example. They've delivered quasi-4K video, 2.7K video, and 120fps video in a consumer device, but have copped all sorts of complaints from people who do not own a fast enough micro-SD cards, or whose computer is too slow to even play back the footage. The same would happen if Canon started delivering 4K video to customers who do not yet understand the demands of 4K video.
- Very few CF cards can handle the demands of 4K video (see previous point).

And, most importantly:

- They are selling more cameras that anybody else is right now. Why change what's already working? When sales drop, they lose sales to a competitor who is offering 4K video in DSLR's, then perhaps they will too.


Personally, I would rather see the video improved so that they offer proper 1920x1080 video (or perhaps even 2K - for that little bit of extra res for slight framing adjustments). The C100 footage is a whole lot sharper, as is the GH2 - especially hacked - and I wish Canon would at least attempt to get their DSLR footage up to this level. It is just frustrating that, aside from the moire-free (albeit softer) video of the mkIII, Canon has done absolutley nothing to actually improve the processing and image quality of their DSLR video performance since the mkII came out all those years ago.

Personally I would love to see proper, clean 1080p at 50/6060 &  proper, clean720p at 100/120fps in h.264 format (with increased bitrates to accommodate the extra frames), and an option for 24/25p 2K recorded to a better codec like Cineform RAW or Cinema DNG. That would offer a significant increase in IQ, while still keeping it well within realistic confines of the average persons recording/editing/playback workflow.

3

EOS Bodies / Re: Bye Canon?

« on: April 23, 2013, 05:37:59 PM »

Pictaker, perhaps you could tell us exactly which Nikon camera you plan on switching to that will give you weather sealing and good video AF? There's not one that I can think of, especially not in the same price range as the 60D/7D. The closest would be the D7100 which still does not offer proper video AF.

You might want to take a look and the Panasonic GH3 though.

4

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Which camera brand you actively use, other than Canon?

« on: March 15, 2013, 03:22:07 AM »

GoPro!

Hero 3 Black and Hero 2 - They go everywhere with me. If Canon implemented a video mode that had the similar features as the Hero 3 Black (720p120, 1080p60, 2.7k, different FOV/crop modes, Protune-style mode) on their next DSLR's, or even in an EOS-C or EOS-M camera, then I would pay 1DX money for it, even if it was a Rebel series camera shooting h.264.

5

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: How did they make this vid?

« on: January 16, 2013, 05:21:29 AM »

Looks like it's possibly a dolly - It doesn't have that floating feel that steadycam gives, though it could just be an incredibly talented operator. No focus puller required because (a) they have shot with a fairly deep DOF and (b) the camera stays roughly the same distance from the actor in all the steadycam/dolly shots.

6

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: To keep or not to keep (60D)... that is the question

« on: January 07, 2013, 08:38:35 AM »

I'd say sell it, but to be honest the used prices for 60D's are quite low. If you never think you'll need the reach or you don't shoot critical events (eg weddings) where you should always have a spare body,  then sell it, but don't expect too much return from it.

7

Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8

« on: January 07, 2013, 04:40:38 AM »

Those sort of lenses are in broadcasting. I once saw a 18-300 (I think...) f 1.4!!!

These lenses are designed for 2/3 inch cameras outputting 1080p, not FF DSLR's resolving upwards of 20mp. It's much easier to design a lens for a smaller sensor.

8

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]

« on: January 07, 2013, 04:27:56 AM »

Well, it would be a whole lot more useful than the C100.

9

Lenses / Re: 28-400 2.8

« on: January 06, 2013, 08:10:23 PM »

I think everyone is severely underestimating the size, weight and price of such a lens.

The closest lens to compare to is the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 (three feet long, one foot wide, 15kg, $25,000), which has a bit more on the long end but is still only less than 1/5th of the zoom range of a hypothetical 28-400mm. It's also priced in Sigma dollars from the mid-90's so compare that to current Canon prices and the price would be a lot higher for the hypothetical lens (ie hundreds of thousands).

Plus there's a few other issues too - a lens that big needs a lot of gears and motors to drive the zoom mechanism which makes AF a lot slower. My guess is that, like the Sigma, it would also need it's own independent battery as well.

And even if you had this lens, how are you going to shoot with it? You'll probably need a geared industrial head mounted on some very sturdy sticks (so add another hundred grand to the equation).

All things taken into account, it's easy to see why they do not make such a lens. A 30kg + lens that costs more than your house and requires a three-man team to set up and operate? No thanks!

10

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]

« on: January 04, 2013, 06:15:15 PM »

If it's not going to have 4K then it better have some other benefits!

RAW is not a necessity for me but it would be very nice to have on certain occasions. ProRes is no good for me and anybody else working on a PC, but some other (proprietry?) high bitrate intraframe codec would be nice.

2.5K would be good as it would downscale to produce very sharp 1080p. True 1080p would be very nice, and to achieve that you'd most likely need a sensor designed from the ground up with video as a primary consideration.

Canon has been very slow to add fast frame rates to any of their cameras (not a single camera with 720p120, compared to Sony & Panasonic who have several) but, if it lacks 4K maybe Canon will adorn it with a higher fps instead? 1080p 60 is a must, 1080p96 would be delightful, and 720p120fps (with proper 720p, not the soft mush most Canon DSLR produce) would put it on par with Scarlet in terms of higher frame rates.

Of course the 30 minute limit would need to removed (very annoying for interviews), and it should include some video specific features such as zebras, waveform, peaking, zoom while recording for focus confirmation, as well as audio levels and manual audio control, headphones etc as on some of the newer models.

If Canon was able to deliver all this in a 7D/5D style body then I'd gladly pay $6000+ for it.

11

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: New to video...advice needed

« on: December 27, 2012, 09:22:56 AM »

Oh, one more thing...

Remember that you can only shoot video in landscape orientation! 

Sometimes I worry that, with the technology becoming available to the masses and the massive amount of convergence happening within the industry, My services as a videographer will soon become redundant. Then I'll see a tourist shooting video with their camera sideways, and I realise that everything is going to be fine!

12

Lenses / Re: Nikon AI-S primes or two good zooms?

« on: December 27, 2012, 09:17:59 AM »

Dump those Nikon lenses and go Canon asap. I was the same as you when I started shooting DSLR video - had a collection of Nikon Primes that I adapted to Canon, and used full manual the whole time.

It was a good way to start, but once I upgraded to Canon glass (& 3rd party Canon mount glass) I was so much happier. I could use AF for stills when I wanted to, I could see my aperture value on the rear and top LCD screens & I could adjust shutter speed or ISO and Aperture simultaneously with one hand. Much easier and nicer to use.

If you do go for the 2.8 zooms, then consider adding a 50mm 1.4 for those times you really want to shoot in the dark (like wedding receptions). I use 2.8 zooms for 90% of what I shoot, and love it.

13

Lenses / Re: Any plan for 50mm pancake?

« on: December 27, 2012, 09:07:28 AM »

I don't know much about the physics and science of optics, but the responses above sound pretty logical!

Also from a marketing standpoint, the pancake lens goes hand-in-hand with the smaller APS-C cameras, (ie an almost-pocketable DSLR!) and on a 1.6x crop camera, 50mm is too long for many people as general purpose lens. 40mm, on the other hand is a nice compromise between a standard view on both APS-C and FF.

14

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 60D Stock Levels Getting Low?

« on: December 27, 2012, 08:58:17 AM »

The t4i has one stop higher ISO and the touchscreen, but looses the controls on the top right. Personally, I find those controls way more usefull than having to go to the back display. Also, the t4i and even some of the newer point and shoots are using digic5. I would expect a new high end APS- C body to beat those specs.... Isn't it about time to see a digic6 and jump from 14 bit a/d to 16 bit 

When you say the t4i has one stop more ISO, do you mean that it is cleaner at the same ISO as the t2i/t3i/60D, hence gives you a 1-stop higher usable ISO, or simply that the maximum ISO is one stop higher than on the other models (along with a corresponding increase in noise).

I suppose at this end of the market a touchscreen would be a big selling point for many. It's what people are used to these days - but us stubborn camera folk refusing to accept change see it as just a gimmick!

15

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: my new hero3 black, why is it better then my 7D?

« on: December 27, 2012, 08:46:03 AM »

Different beasts. The 7D is three years old now, in modern tech terms that's ancient. When the 7D came out, 120fps was not even on anybodies radar as a digital shooting format - except with the Red One, which would've set you back quite a bit more than a 7D.

There's all sorts or things that effect what a camera is or is not capable of, including heat dissipation, sensor read-out speed & refresh rate, sampling method, processing power, buffer size, etc, etc. My guess is that the (relatively) ancient 7D is lacking a lot of what is required to shoot proper 720p at 120fps.

The Hero 3, on the other hand, is brand spanking new and has been developed as a special-purpose tool. Action sports is it's primary market and the guys at GoPro have worked hard to deliver a product that meets the needs of the target market. Of course it comes without all the bells and whistles that even an ancient 7D has, like a large sensor, interchangeable lenses, 18mp RAW stills at 8fps, manual everything, etc, etc.

I can only dream, though, that the next generation DSLR's do have 720p at 120fps. Panasonic have introduced it on several of their cameras, and I'm considering buying a FZ200 for that feature alone. If a Canon 70D or 7DmkII shot nice, clean 720p at 120fps, it would definitely make my RED Scarlet dream redundant, at least until clients starts asking me to shoot 4K.