« on: March 02, 2014, 10:02:27 AM »
My most favorite thread on this forum.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
I use 2 seconds time with mirror lock up. No problem of blur so far though I haven't experienced live view photo yet.
This. Sounds like you don't have mirror lock up enabled. I shot a ton of architectural stuff for a few years and results would suffer if I didn't do mirror lock up and wait a second to two to trigger the shutter after the mirror had settled into position. The tripod in this situation can actually magnify the vibrations of the mirror slap causing slight motion blur in otherwise sharply focused images. The effect lessens with faster shutter speeds or really long shutter speeds. When the shutter is between 1/60th and say a sec or so it's particularly troublesome.
Irregardless of live view, make sure mirror lock up is enabled and that you allow time for the mirror to settle before triggering the exposure.
The point is I wouldn't hire any wedding photographer who was also offering to shoot video unless he had dedicated stills and video shooters with him/her.
Why, when you can theoretically shoot the whole thing in 4K video and then just pull printable stills from the video footage.
Theoretically? We can theorize until the cows come home. Care to share real-world examples of this being done successfully?
Aye, only in theory. This has never been proven. The thing people who believe this notion don't understand is that a camera is ALWAYS moving. Given that the standard frame rates are 24, 29, 30, and maybe 60fps (the latter is less likely unless your doing something special), even the smallest amount of camera shake will result in more than enough blur to render every single RAW 4k video frame unacceptable from a "still" photography standpoint.
The "dream" of being able to shoot video then pull out crisp, clear 4k frames as "photos" is really just that...a DREAM. The needs of video and still photography are very different. They always have been different, and with the exception of high speed filming (which is still also very different), the chances of anyone ever actually being able to pull out full sized crisp, sharp frames from 4k video is highly, highly unlikely, regardless of how good the technology gets. The entire point of 24fps is to ensure you end up with a certain amount of blur. You WANT the blur in video. You DON'T want the blur in a still photo.
These people are just showing their dynamic range.
And since we're Canon users, it's not much ...
Now Panasonic comes out with 4K video at 24 frames per second... still not fast enough to do anything beyond very slow moving objects
4k video at 24fps is not fast enough for ... anything?
Someone better tell Hollywood that the frame rate they've been using for decades in nearly all of their movies is too slow for motion!
They also have a lot more skill at movie making than I do... a LOT more...
My movie making has been recording musicians (slow), scenery while paddling (slow), and birds and a hyper kitten (very fast). 30fps is fast enough for the first two, and 120fps isn't fast enough for the second two...
Your still thinking like a photographer. When it comes to video, it's always 24fps, or 29fps, or 30fps. Those are the standard cinematic frame rates. They don't change. Doesn't matter what your filming, you always use those key frame rates. Video is quite different from stills in this respect...one of the things that is great about these lower frame rates is they are slow enough to exhibit motion blur, which is actually quite a desirable thing for cinema.
The Hobbit movies were filmed at 48fps. That lead to a lot of complaints from many movie goers. The lack of motion blur results in it being a LOT easier to spot the propishness of props, it results in movement that is too crisp, panning that is too sharp, etc. Hollywood cinematographers are going to have to discover a whole new batch of tricks to hide the fakeness of movie scenes with higher framerates. At 60fps, which is coming down the pipe, it will be even harder to conceal than at 48fps. And the stark kind of motion-without-blur will become even worse.
I think 48fps and 60fps may be a little ahead of their time. They are CERTAINLY ahead of the post-processing tools. I think a lot of the means cinematographers have to hide the fakery at 24fps is ultimately going to end up being done in post. I think motion blur, achieved by cross-blending certain parts of sequences of frames, will also ultimately be achieved in post, if higher frame rates are really the way of the future for cinema.
For anyone who isn't a professional cinematographer, however, 24, 29, and 30fps are pretty much the staples. Even if your filming birds.
When Canon debuted 1080p video with the 5D Mark II, would you have said that this was intended to be a niche product or main stream?
When the 5DII was announced, HD TVs and media were widely available. The market had matured to the point that the 'format war' (BluRay vs. HD-DVD) was over.
Can I walk into Target and buy the LOTR box set as 4K movies? Can I buy them on Amazon? (Don't try to sell me on '4K Mastered for optimal up scaling and a near-4K experience.) No, I didn't think so. That's why 4K is niche, not mainstream.
You've addressed the point of the format on TV, not that of the video feature in the camera.
Using a DSLR to create worthwhile video - even at 1080p resolution - takes its use out of the "mainstream" and into "niche". If I needed to create a 1080p video of a wedding or some other event, I wouldn't use a DSLR of any kind because they're just not built for it. The people to whom the 1080p in the DSLR has appealed to are those looking for another alternative to expensive bodies used in video rigs. Thus the amount of care required to bring video originating from a DSLR moves it well and truely out of mainstream. That plus the amount of editing required.
So if you're doing video on a DSLR you're thus not mainstream, that would put you in a niche that would correlate well with the people that will want to use 4k video for production.
Whereas Canon created the market for "indi" 1080p production with a quality and look that matched professional, if they make no attempt to deliver 4k in their next round of xD cameras (at least) then it would seem to me that they've decided they no longer want to be a part of a market segment that they created.
I am also not sure all that many people truly understand the value of having 4k video, especially when the output is still going to be 2k or 1k for years to come. Those who do, probably also understand the value of having a more dedicated video system, like Cinema EOS.
You don't need Cinema EOS to understand the value in shooting 4K now. Shooting 4K now allows you to deliver 1080p video now and in n years time, remaster your video and all of a sudden you can offer people 4K content in addition to 1080p content.
There you go again. You COMPLETELY INVERTED my statement. I never said you needed Cinema EOS to understand the value of shooting 4k. I said if you understood the value of 4k, you would have a better appreciation for Cinema EOS. You LITERALLY INVERTED my statement. Good god..when do you stop twisting words and obfuscating facts, man!
No but you implied that Cinema EOS is needed for 4k.
No. I said that a full understanding of 4k implies the need for something better, like Cinema EOS, to fully take advantage of it.