Messages

166

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)

« on: June 16, 2011, 06:22:38 PM »

 

Since I always show my math (5184 pixels / 300 dpi = 17.28" L  and 3456 pixels / 300 dpi = 11.52).  Basically in essence you would get as good print results printing at 150 dpi to get than upsampling and have photoshop guess at the pixel information.

Oppssss. I could be wrong. Sorry if I am. I've never been a print photo guy, but always video. When we refer to a 2K image, it means roughly 2000 pixels by 1000 pixels. So I just assumed that 12 megapixels = 12K image in video, which would be about 12000 pixels across, which = 40 inches at 300 DPI.

But like I said, I'm probably not correct.

But yeah, please split the 5D / 3D into a video DSLR and a stills DSLR. It's the best thing that could happen. Video is moving so fast these days, Canon needs a split video full frame model they can update more frequently to keep up with Sony and Panasonic who are starting to kick Canon's rear end really bad. Canon needs to act soon.

167

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)

« on: June 16, 2011, 01:51:12 PM »

To me, the 3D name implies that it's a video skewed DSLR (just in name, and not in the sense that it will be a 3 Dimensional camera).

That would be the smartest thing Canon could do. Make the 3D like the Full Frame Nikon D700. Limit it to 12 megapixels, which is about the max to co-exist with good video. Have better high ISO. Make it the performer camera, and leave the megapixel war to the other Full frames.

12 Megapixels is still a huge image. At 300 DPI, you can make a 40" by 26.6" print, which is still pretty huge. For me being a video guy, that's far more than adequate.

And of course, make it a great video camera. 4:2:2 in camera with RAW to recorder option. Flip Screen. 3x Crop Mode. Electronic EVF and mirror-less  so it could take PL mount (something I doubt would happen).

The 3D should be the Full Frame video camera, while the 5D3 is for stills guys. That way both camps can be happy.

With DSLR video, you cannot make both camps happy, so it should be split. Flip screens, EVFs/mirrorless are things that many stills guys hate, but video guys like. It's time for a divorce. Everyone will be happier.

168

EOS Bodies / Re: EOS 7D mrk. II

« on: June 16, 2011, 12:06:36 PM »

7D2 will probably be a while. Canon can't even do a 1D update, which is 1 year overdue. So, I wouldn't hold my breath.

169

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)

« on: June 14, 2011, 01:36:21 PM »

Summer 2012 for the 5D3? It's barely summer of 2011! Has Canon just decided to stop releasing anything new? They're just moving at a glacial pace at this point. Ridiculous.

Just a rumor, friend.

Yeah, you're right Eyeone. Nobody knows for sure, probably not even Canon at this point. I guess for us video guys who bought too many Canon lenses, we're a lot more desperate than the stills guys, because as a stills camera, the 5D2 is very good, but as a video camera, we really need some up-grades.

But dang.... it needs to come out soon.

170

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D (Again) & 5D Mark III (CR1)

« on: June 14, 2011, 11:48:55 AM »

Summer 2012 for the 5D3? It's barely summer of 2011! Has Canon just decided to stop releasing anything new? They're just moving at a glacial pace at this point. Ridiculous.

171

EOS Bodies / Re: 3D and 5D3 rumors at Northlight images say: No 5D3 until next summer?

« on: June 14, 2011, 01:03:38 AM »

All I know is that Digic 4 came out in 2007. If they make people wait till 2012 for Digic 5, that is 5 long years. That is a serious disgrace if that's happen, especially since their pro body cycle is suppose to be 3 years.

Canon has already milked everyone dry at this point. How much more can they milk people? I mean, how long it's taking Digic V is already in really bad taste. Are they really going alienate even more customers by making them use 5 year old tech? I guess I wouldn't be surprised at this point.

Moral of the story is, DON'T BUY any Pro Bodies unless you need one. That's the only way to get them to release anything.

172

EOS Bodies / Re: Movie Post Production

« on: June 13, 2011, 12:42:51 PM »

I compress movies for clients all the time because I work in TV.

a 23mb file size sounds about right for a 2 minute movie.

Somethings to remember.

For Vimeo, it's best to use Compressor (part of Final Cut Pro Suite), as opposed for exporting from Quicktime. I noticed that whenever I export from Quicktime for Vimeo (Not a regular webpage), the sound goes out of sync. This is only for Vimeo. If you're doing it for a normal webpage, quicktime works fine.

Also, since H264 is the most common web format and what most people use, you have to remember that you will lose color saturation. So what I do is re-import the final movie into After Effects, add about +15 using the Hue Saturation filter, re-export the extra saturated movie and then convert that to H264 using Compressor.

By adding the additonal +15 Hue Saturation, it will compensate for the loss of saturation in H264, and look closer to what you originally intended the colors to be.

Just keep the H264 quality at High (not Best because it's huge), DO NOT check interlace and you should be fine. Vimeo.com has a good web export advice. Just look it up on line.

Hope that helps.

173

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac software to backup one external hard drive to second externaln hard drive

« on: June 07, 2011, 06:33:54 PM »

Time machines does do that I think. You can specific any drive, internal or external that is attached to the machine to be backed up. Or at least, I'm certain it can back up to an external drive.

174

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac software to backup one external hard drive to second externaln hard drive

« on: June 07, 2011, 05:05:58 PM »

The app is called Time Machine.

It's built into the Mac operating system. It does exactly what you described and works very well. It should just be on your computer. I think it came out 3 versions ago, so if you are on at least Leopard, you will definitely have it.

175

PowerShot Cameras / Re: PowerShot Info

« on: June 06, 2011, 03:58:02 PM »

Power shot rumors? ZZZZZZ......

Shouldn't this website be re-named "www.canon5D3rumors. com?" Isn't that the only camera anyone really cares about (and the new 1Ds, sorta)??

Hehe...

176

Lenses / Re: 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II with a 25mm extension tube

« on: June 04, 2011, 02:32:24 AM »

Extension tubes are very, very limiting. I would just shell out the money and get a real macro. Trust me, it will save you a LOT of frustration.

When you use an extension tube, you Minimum and Maximum focus range is extremely, extremely limited. For example, I tried to used an extension on the Canon 50mm f1.4. I can't remember the exact distance, but basically, the camera could only be about 7 to 9 inches from the subject to be in focus. If you veer from the 2 inch range of focus, it is absolutely impossible to get correct focus.

To put that into perspective, on the 50mm without the Extension tube, the camera can be anywhere from 15 inch to as far back as you want to go to achieve focus (Infinity). Now imagine, that you only move 2 inch forward and backward. If you move more than 2 inches, it's impossible to get anything approaching correct focus.

So yes, just buy a real macro. You will be much happier and less frustrated.

177

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 06:34:09 PM »

... the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END ... Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.

Out of curiousity, where does that blurry line fall?  Canon's XA10 ($2000) and XF100 ($3300) professional camcorders use a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor.  As a dad, I shoot my home movies with a Vixia HF M41 (which I'd call relatively tiny - it's bigger than my PowerShot S95, but a lot smaller than my 24-105L).  The Vixia HF M41 also uses a 1/3", 2.37-megapixel CMOS sensor, presumably the same sensor as used in the two pro camcorders mentioned above.  Sure, the pro models have more aperture blades, handles with XLR connectors, etc., but if you compare the top 'consumer' camcorder (HF G10) to the bottom 'pro' camcorder (XA10), they are essentially the same camera except for that handle with the XLR connectors...

I think for most people, a 2x crop in the Panasonic GH2 and the AF 101 are considered a "Large" sensor. A 1.6x APS-c crop is even better IMO because it's the same crop as 35mm motion picture cameras. A 5D Full frame has a special, really shallow focus look that's new to video.

I think the definition of "Pro" video is rapidly changing. A few years ago, a 1/3 sensor was considered Pro because there was no APS-c or Full Frame video that was affordable. But since the 5D / 7D come out, the definition of Pro has been elevated a bit, at least for TV commercials, music videos and indy film where aesthetics are really important. I think for something like broadcast news or local news, a smaller sensor would be better because it's so run and gun and focus is obviously a lot easier with smaller sensors. SO there will be a market for those types of cameras also, especially when it's about speed and not aesthetics.

Now that large sensor video is affordable, nobody want to go back. If someone gave me an XA10 for free, it would be an expensive paper weight.

178

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 03:26:45 PM »

And how many professionals are using camcorders with 2/3", 1/2" and 1/3" sensors. There seem to be an awful lot of models listed at B&H under "Professional Video". Just how small does a sensor have to be to be considered "small"?

Bob, I hate to break this to you, but the small sensor video camera era is rapidly, and thankfully coming to an END. I work in TV commercials and promos in Los Angeles, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that the professionals I know DON'T want to use cameras with small sensors anymore. Everyone I know always uses a RED (large sensor) or on budget projects, the Canons.

Comparing a 5D to a tiny consumer camcorder is.... well... basically, one the 5D can be used for professional work (even more so when the new one comes out hopefully) and the consumer camcorder is for dad's home movies. Big difference.

179

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 01:37:24 PM »

The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.

That's just it.  Canon seems to lag quite a bit behind in their evolution.  Not that they're using stone knives and bear skins, but they don't have a history of 'skating to where the puck's going.'  I think they put video into the 5DII and were caught by surprise at the outcome.  Three short years is not enough for them to catch up to the crest of that wave (or quite likely, they'll not want to risk doing so).

I totally agree with you. Canon is tragically conservative. The success of the 5D2 was basically an accident because of the video. Canon totally didn't anticipate it.

They are the major camera company now, but if they don't start innovating again, they are going to lose to Sony and Panasonic who are very hungry and coming up with many modern and innovative products.

Not so sure on my history, but wasn't Nikon the dominate company back in the 80s? Wasn't it then a hungry and innovative Canon overtook Nikon? Same thing could very easily happen, especially with Sony since they are now making sensors for other companies and coming out with progressive products.

180

EOS Bodies / Re: The Future of the 1Ds & 5D Lines [CR2]

« on: June 01, 2011, 01:13:55 PM »

It so obvious from reading these comments that the 5D3 need to be SPLIT into a regular edition with some video, and a optimized video edition. People can't really seem to meet in the middle. It's like Democrats and Republicans.

Think of it this way. A video editor and a 3D animator both buy the newest Macintosh. The video guy is probably going to buy a graphics card optimized for video and video capture and export (very expensive cards). The 3D guy is probably going to buy a graphics card that is optimized for 3D. The same computer, but optimized for different disciplines. It's really no different with cameras.

A big part of why the 5D2 was so successful was because of the video. I work in TV in LA, and everyone I know (and there are many), bought the 5D / 7D mainly for the video.

The market is evolving, and Canon needs to change with it.

Still photographers don't want the video and Video people don't need a huge mega-pixel count because it causes aliasing and line-skipping. As a video guy, I would be happy to have a 5d3 that took great video and good stills, but I don't need a 30 mega pixel image. That's way over kill for me. The opposite probably applies to a Still photographer.

As for the argument of "just go buy a video camera," that is such and OLD and DATED way of looking at things. That just sounds like something my Dad would say. Look at the new RED Epic, it's pretty small and not like a convential video camera. Try shooting cameras like the Red or the Panasonic AF 101 handheld. It doesn't work very well as it always needs some type of support because the size and ergonomic are terrible for hand held.

The small size of the DSLR's are it greatest strength. If you wanted to, you can use a cage and attache a monitor, a good mic to a good recorder, a matte box, a different handle, etc.... But if you want it just the bare basic camera for those stealth Subway shots in Black Swan, it's good for that too. It's as big as you want and as small as you want. Something that just CANNOT be done with current video cameras that are huge and have everything built in.

The DSLRs have their place in video for sure, especially when you need a small, portable camera which is great if you are shooting solo or with a small crew. James Cameron said in a recent interview that he's shooting an entire feature using 5Ds. So yeah, DSLR video is here to stay.

I think the Red Epic and the Scarlet and the DSLRs, all small cameras, are the way of the future. Who wants to film with a giant video camera when you can eventually have something that would do the same thing, but fits in one hand? I certainly don't.

But it's obvious that Canon cannot make both camps happy, so they should just do 2 versions of the 5d3.