caleb condit wrote:
and that is fantastic. What bothers me is why some people think that others that are interested or do both are crazy or that Canon is clueless adding this silly feature. People also resisted autofocus at first. Some people still only like to manually focus most of the time.
I think the biggest gripes stem from the frustration in knowing that instead of Canon spending the extra development dollars improving AF or image quality of this "STILL" camera, they chose to instead to waste it on adding a video capability. I know everyone keeps saying the feature was there all along but Canon still had to spend considerable development dollars putting the feature into production.
John--G wrote:
I think the biggest gripes stem from the frustration in knowing that instead of Canon spending the extra development dollars improving AF or image quality of this "STILL" camera, they chose to instead to waste it on adding a video capability. I know everyone keeps saying the feature was there all along but Canon still had to spend considerable development dollars putting the feature into production.
Exactly!
If they improved the AF, offered better options like 7 shot bracketing, more than +- 2ev compensation, better metering, 5fps and than added video I would have no problem with it.
If they spent even $300 of the total price on video instead of using it to improve the above issues I have a problem with that.
As mentioned above I would prefer a dedicated video camera for the same price than a video function in a DSLR.
jerrykur wrote:
I feel the same way and the option to do a little video is one reason I went with the 5DMK2.
I am also looking at getting some video editing software. I am leaning toward the package produced by Adobe since buying the suite gives you a discount. Any comments?
Which package? Premiere Elements or CS4 Production Premium Suite?
I've been using CS3 Production Premium since it was released. The applications I most use are Premiere Pro, Photoshop and Encore. I have mixed feelings about the package. I don't use all of the bundled applications but there is a cost savings compared with buying the apps individually. In fact, the cost savings is such that if you only use two of the apps you're probably saving money.
Premiere Pro and Photoshop alone sell for $799 and $999.
John--G wrote:
Which package? Premiere Elements or CS4 Production Premium Suite?
I've been using CS3 Production Premium since it was released. The applications I most use are Premiere Pro, Photoshop and Encore. I have mixed feelings about the package. I don't use all of the bundled applications but there is a cost savings compared with buying the apps individually. In fact, the cost savings is such that if you only use two of the apps you're probably saving money.
Premiere Pro and Photoshop alone sell for $799 and $999.
I am leaning toward CS4 Production Premium. I suspect my mix will be the same as yours. My daughter can get me products at the educational price which is about 40% of retail. Still a lot of money, but at least tolerable.
John--G wrote:
The XL2 is not a HD camera. It is a SD camera which records to MiniDV and costs around $3400. The HD equivalent is the Canon XL-H1a which costs more like $6000. There is also a XL-H1s which adds HD-SDI output and costs $8000
You're right, but the poster to whom I responded said it had more to do with the use of Canon's lenses than it did resolution. And 3.4k (actually 3.1 with the current rebate) includes a 20x IS L lens, where the 5DII will run you 3.5k with a 4x lens. And it will be a lot easier (and cheaper) to upscale the XL2's 30 or 24p output to HD than it will to retrofit a DSLR to be a quality video camera.
And then there is the inexorable annual upgrade costs per application. I stopped at PP and Encore 2.0. They do everything I need and a 10000% more. Now PS, well, what's a photographer gonna do
freaklikeme wrote:
Honestly, though, I think once the "wow" factor wears off, people will realize the DSLR is the wrong form factor for a video camera, regardless of resolution.
---1
So many people who shoot stills just don't understand professional video. Professional video cameras are still fairly big and bulky, and many would like something smaller with more flexibility.
We are not talking about consumer camcorders here - which don't even do 1080p properly (they may shoot 1920x1080 but when it gets compressed to tape it ends up as 1440x1080 with a 1.33 pixel ratio) - we are talking professional 1080p in 4:4:4 mode. That sort of kit is still easily in the (high) 5 figure range. Most of the consumer camcorders shoot in 4:2:2 or 4:2:0, and you can't easily do things like green screen because of the loss of color information. If you don't know what all these numbers mean, then it's a reasonable assumption that you have no idea what a professional videographer is looking for.
Most people who have used professional video equipment are looking for something that is the size of a DSLR with interchangeable lenses. For me that is maybe the 5D3 (not 5D2) because I want alternatives to 1080/30p, and a little more control while shooting.
I want 24p and 25p for a start. 50p and 60p are also high on the wish list too! 200p (even at 1280x720) would be awesome for slo-mo stuff
So many people who shoot stills just don't understand professional video. Professional video cameras are still fairly big and bulky, and many would like something smaller with more flexibility.
We are not talking about consumer camcorders here - which don't even do 1080p properly (they may shoot 1920x1080 but when it gets compressed to tape it ends up as 1440x1080 with a 1.33 pixel ratio) - we are talking professional 1080p in 4:4:4 mode. That sort of kit is still easily in the (high) 5 figure range. Most of the consumer camcorders shoot in 4:2:2 or 4:2:0, and you can't easily do things like green screen because of the loss of color information. If you don't know what all these numbers mean, then it's a reasonable assumption that you have no idea what a professional videographer is looking for.
Most people who have used professional video equipment are looking for something that is the size of a DSLR with interchangeable lenses. For me that is maybe the 5D3 (not 5D2) because I want alternatives to 1080/30p, and a little more control while shooting.
I want 24p and 25p for a start. 50p and 60p are also high on the wish list too! 200p (even at 1280x720) would be awesome for slo-mo stuff
So professional videographers are seeking a solution that, in order to hand hold, has to be held out away from the body in order to see the viewfinder? They're seeking a solution that is its own source of ambient light during low light shoots (because you need the three inch screen to be bright so you can pull focus)? They're seeking a solution that lacks compatibility with any of their current sound gear?
freaklikeme wrote:
So professional videographers are seeking a solution that, in order to hand hold, has to be held out away from the body in order to see the viewfinder? They're seeking a solution that is its own source of ambient light during low light shoots (because you need the three inch screen to be bright so you can pull focus)? They're seeking a solution that lacks compatibility with any of their current sound gear?
Some fair points, except I was not so much extolling the 5D2 (because I don't think it's ready for prime time - even though some will use it very well), but some future versions that are DSLR/Video mixed. For instance, what stops them having an over scan 8" monitor (often used already) connected via the HDMI port for viewing. Adapters for pulling focus in the traditional way are already being readied for market even on the 5D2. Agreed this somewhat negates the usefulness of the size reduction, but it does mean that you can have some people using traditional mounts, and others using the screen if they really wanted to.
As for sound, many people already record sound on separate devices.... so they can continue to use those.
Many people already have L lenses they could use, but lack a digital camcorder that lets you change lenses (i.e. XH-A1) without using third party adapters which are clumsy at best. Using a native mount lens is be far the preferred solution, but it's just not been available at this price point.
The likes of Sony, Panasonic & JVC, and perhaps even the video arm of Canon have to be watching this stuff very closely and even planning their own reply. Some thing is going to 'give' in the next couple of years, and it's going to be interesting to see where it all shakes out.
So many people who shoot stills just don't understand professional video. Professional video cameras are still fairly big and bulky, and many would like something smaller with more flexibility.
We are not talking about consumer camcorders here - which don't even do 1080p properly (they may shoot 1920x1080 but when it gets compressed to tape it ends up as 1440x1080 with a 1.33 pixel ratio) - we are talking professional 1080p in 4:4:4 mode. That sort of kit is still easily in the (high) 5 figure range. Most of the consumer camcorders shoot in 4:2:2 or 4:2:0, and you can't easily do things like green screen because of the loss of color information. If you don't know what all these numbers mean, then it's a reasonable assumption that you have no idea what a professional videographer is looking for.
Most people who have used professional video equipment are looking for something that is the size of a DSLR with interchangeable lenses. For me that is maybe the 5D3 (not 5D2) because I want alternatives to 1080/30p, and a little more control while shooting.
I want 24p and 25p for a start. 50p and 60p are also high on the wish list too! 200p (even at 1280x720) would be awesome for slo-mo stuff ...Show more →
Heh, you don't need to be a video pro to know about 1080p/720p, pixel ratio or frame per second, any video enthusiast would know. Heck, I'm not even a video enthusiast and I know most of what you just said.
The pros don't look for cheap alternative, they look for the best. You don't see a professional pianist using keyboard with piano sound sample now do you? Pro videographers aren't gonna go out of their way buying DSLR with a bunch of L lenses if they don't have it already.
I really don't think it'll affect the video market much, if at all. Canon's not targeting the video pros with it, it's just a little bonus for the photographers.
BenV wrote:
No, video and imagery will always be different. Its almost like 2 completely different arts. And lets face it, nobody wants to sit through a 3 hour professional video of a wedding, the would rather pick up the book on the coffee table, skin through it, and be done with it. Or your sons first baseball game, nobody wants to watch the entire thing, you just have your still camera for the highlights of the game.
Yup. I hate how news sites are moving towards video clips. I'd far rather skim an article than watch a video, and skimming takes far less time.
n0b0 wrote:
Heh, you don't need to be a video pro to know about 1080p/720p, pixel ratio or frame per second, any video enthusiast would know. Heck, I'm not even a video enthusiast and I know most of what you just said.
At no time did I say you needed to be a pro to know this stuff !! What I said was that if you didn't know this stuff then you were unlikely to know what a pro would be looking for. That's completely different. And, perhaps I didn't make it clear, but I was not actually referring to the 1080p/720p when I referenced the numbers (those are clearly in the consumer domain through advertising), I was actually referring to 4:4:4, 4:2:2 and 4:2:0. How many people here (even minor video enthusiasts) can tell you exactly what those mean without having to look them up? There will be a few, but by no means the majority.
n0b0 wrote:
The pros don't look for cheap alternative, they look for the best. You don't see a professional pianist using keyboard with piano sound sample now do you? Pro videographers aren't gonna go out of their way buying DSLR with a bunch of L lenses if they don't have it already.
Right and wrong at the same time. It all depends on the budget. Not every one has hollywood budgets. There are also a lot of people that do both stills and video, and and already have L lenses. I personally know people who do corporate videos who are VERY excited about the developments that are happening. Currently they are using Sony/Panasonic/Canon camcorders (e.g. Canon XH-A1 and Panasonic DVX200 etc) that are longing for the shallow DOF and other things that they can't currently get without buying clumsy 3rd party adapters.
Unfortunately, the current 5D2 is not going to do them much good in Europe where they want to record in 25p, and not 30p. Sure they could convert, but it loses quality.
n0b0 wrote:
I really don't think it'll affect the video market much, if at all. Canon's not targeting the video pros with it, it's just a little bonus for the photographers.
Canon may not be targeting the top level pros (no one using a Sony F35 @ $250K + glass is going to replace it with a 5D2), but there are a lot of low end pros watching this space very carefully. If Canon (or Nikon) can get this stuff right, there could be a big shift in what people can do. Visiting video forums would show that there is a lot of excitement over the 5D2 amongst the indie film producers!
Remember, 'pro' does not mean the best or most expensive. There are still a lot of pros out there using Canon 10D and 20D bodies day in day out and producing excellent results. Not all 'pro' videographers want to spend another $5K-$10K - let alone $50K-$250K kitting out for just video when they can get 'both' by buying a DSLR with high quality HD.
So, while today a lot of you are trashing the idea (most of you because you have no interest in video), please consider that others do things that you don't and visa versa. Remember a lot of people are trashing the idea of needing 21MP at all, yet many here are clearly salivating at the thought. The same goes for the video part of the spec. Tt's going to be an interesting couple of years.....
I have to agree there. The High 4:4:4 profile is something that I had to look up and even now I'm still not sure what it's for.
Like I (and yourself) said, unless they already have a bunch of lenses and into photography as well, it's very unlikely they would spend thousands of dollars buying those lenses and the DSLR.
I've also mentioned in my post prior to yours that the videographers I know also want to shoot at 24fps. I guessing it's something to do with not wanting to lose frames which would make the video a bit jerky.
Another thing is the grip. I've always wished that DSLR would have the grip of a camcorder. It's hard enough to shoot stills handheld sometime, specially when you have heavy lens. I don't know what it's gonna be like shooting videos with a DSLR.
While I don't really find it appealing at the moment, I personally think it's a good idea and again, in my post last page, I'm looking forward to having video capability in the xxD or xxxD line so I can shoot macro videos with my MP-E 65mm lens at 5x magnification. I think that's when it will start being more appealing to video people, when the camera body itself doesn't cost more than three grand.
Greg Schneider:
I hate how news sites are moving towards video clips. I'd far rather skim an article than watch a video
This is exactly my problem with news Web site these days. Is such a waste of time. I do not watch video clips. As a matter of fact I do not even have a decent TV set and may spend no more than 1 h a week watching TV. The last thing I need on the Web is video.
Video is the future. Video will, or has the potential to sweep away your current DSLRs. It's only a matter of cost/size/speed/mass production ~ the technology has existed for a while already and it'll probably spring on the market ~ to everyone's surprise, when it does.
n0b0 wrote:
I have to agree there. The High 4:4:4 profile is something that I had to look up and even now I'm still not sure what it's for.
4:4:4 means that every pixel has every piece of information needed to process it fully. It means that all the color information is there and you are not relying on stretching a 'squeezed' color map , i.e. color mapping is 1:1 in stead of 2:1 or 4:1 etc. Anything less than 1:1 makes green screen stuff very hard to do well. Think about (say) the later Star Wars movies that were all shot on massive green screen sets, then the background graphics added later. You would have been pretty unhappy with green streaks down the side of people like you get on the TV when people are presenting the weather, or are giving interviews against a fake background (i.e. the White House). News and weather broadcasts drive me nuts because all I can focus on is the poor green screen lighting, or the subject is too close to the green screen and there is light fall off, or they are using video gear that simply isn't up to it and you get a huge green halo around them.
n0b0 wrote:
I've also mentioned in my post prior to yours that the videographers I know also want to shoot at 24fps. I guessing it's something to do with not wanting to lose frames which would make the video a bit jerky.
24p is what Hollywood records movies at. This goes back to the time when film was expensive, and 24fps was considered the slowest you could get away with to keep film costs low. It set a standard for movie theaters and it's never changed.
Some people cling to 24p as 'the' standard because it can have a slightly different appearance, especially in scenes with a lot of movement. True 30p will capture movement slightly better, but it has a different 'look'. Many videographers are (rightly or wrongly) looking for that 'film' look, instead of it looking like 'video'. The glass has a lot to do with this too, which is one of the major reasons that people want the 5D2, so they can match the fast optics to the camera (something not possible on most lower end pro camcorders because they have a fixed [zoom] lens system).
In European countries, the TV system is 25 frames per second instead of the 30fps in the USA (Europe has a 50hz instead of 60hz electricity supply). This is why most people outside of the Japan / USA are not as enthusiastic about the 5D2 for 'general' video. If it had EITHER 24p or 25p it would have probably been OK - but it missed both. Incidentally, Japan uses NTSC @ 30fps, so clearly they saw the Japan and USA as a big enough market for the first cut at this.
In Europe, movies recorded at 24p are simply played back at 25p instead, so movies play something like 4% faster in Europe. In the US, they convert the 24p to 30p to play on the TV, by manipulating the frames. This is one of a number of reasons why the PAL version will often look better than the NTSC version - because it's using only the original frames. There are other differences in the TV system that contribute too this too, but lets not get in to that here...
Any one wanting to know more about the 4:4:4, 4:2:0 etc... look here.
gbee wrote:
Video is the future. Video will, or has the potential to sweep away your current DSLRs. It's only a matter of cost/size/speed/mass production ~ the technology has existed for a while already and it'll probably spring on the market ~ to everyone's surprise, when it does.
Erm no, sorry. Still photos are a different thing entirely to moving video. Irrespective of price, size, quality etc, there will still be a market for, and interest in, stills photography - it is simply a different thing.
Did wedding videographers replace stills photographers? Nope, and they won't. There is a healthy interest in both aspects, and if anything (in the UK at least) more people go for photos rather than video for their wedding.
