Beni wrote:
I have the same NVIDIA.

The 7600 or the 7300? I don't think either does h.264 decoding... just curious about the model.

7600 if I'm not mistaken.

hmmm these play nicely on my lowly macbook

Expecting 1080p @ 30fps to run smoothly on any computer is just simply being naive. This is HD video and you do need a nicely specced computer to play these kinds of files, that's just the nature of full HD video. Why would it be any different with HD files coming from a DSLR?

You can also try these files (the 1080p ones) and see if they do play properly on your computer. I'm sure the 1080p ones on there are just as tough on your system than the ones coming from the 5D MKII.

Works smooth on my Macbook Pro 17". Despite Aperture and 12 other programs running at the same time.

I don't see any problem with imac 2.8 extreme, 24'', and ati 2600HD video card.

It seems to be a PC problem with .mov files.

Beni wrote:
It seems to be a PC problem with .mov files.

extremely doubtful.

2.4 dual core + 2 gigs of ram + Nvidia 8800 (320 ram) and it runs perfectly via quicktime.

Mine 3.0G dual core + 4GB Ram + Nvidia 8600GTS runs perfectly too on QT

My iMac 20" Core2Duo 21.6 GHz with 128 MB graphics card and 3 GB of RAM has no problems playing these clips.

The key factor here appears to be whether the video card supports h.264 decoding or not. If it does (and if the playback software recognizes such), playback is smooth on pretty much any modern hardware, including something as old (in computer terms) as a 1.25 GHz dual G4 system. However, if the video card doesn't support h.264 decoding, that means the main CPU(s) must do the decoding in addition to everything else. In that case, the cutoff is probably around 2.66 GHz... below that, there is likely to be some amount of stuttering. 2.66 GHz and above, it appears to be alright.

No problem playing the clips on a PC.

How much RAM have you guys got that are having problems?


The first clip is OK, nothing to write home about.

The second clip, the low light one, looks terrible.

The third clip in decent light looks pretty damn good.


Huge number of dead pixels.

Mike V wrote:
The first clip is OK, nothing to write home about.

The second clip, the low light one, looks terrible.

The third clip in decent light looks pretty damn good.

Huge number of dead pixels.

Are you sure you're looking at the same clips? All three are stunning compared with any dedicated video camera on the market, especially the night scenes.

My lowly, budget HTPC runs this just fine with an entry level AMD x2, 2 GB of ram.
The key is I bought a motherboard with an integrated graphics chip that can play HD-DVD and BluRay without tasking the CPU. It's an AMD 790 chipset with ATI graphics.

Most add on cards from ATI or Nvidia designed recently will decode HD codecs just fine.
If you have a question if it does this or not, just look up your model number on Nvidia or AMD/ATI's website.

moondigger wrote:
Are you sure you're looking at the same clips? All three are stunning compared with any dedicated video camera on the market, especially the night scenes.

Maybe you are just used to seeing images from really bad video cameras?

3 yr old macbookpro, 1gb ram
plays MINT on here or tethered to my plasma.
Also converted in visualhub for my ps3, took couple minutes, gorgeous file on ps3 as well.

Can't wait to get my 5d2

Plays just great on my quad core with GeForce 8800 Ultra

mine runs fine on a duel core PC only uses 43% cpu full 30fps and thats using nasty quicktime.

all you need is a 8500 or greater card and these can be had for £40 or less.

Mike V wrote:
moondigger wrote:
Are you sure you're looking at the same clips? All three are stunning compared with any dedicated video camera on the market, especially the night scenes.

Maybe you are just used to seeing images from really bad video cameras?

No... I'm used to seeing how poorly dedicated video cameras handle low light shooting, and how much better the 5D II is.

Check out Laforet's "Behind the Scenes" video. Most of the footage was shot with a Canon XH A1 3CCD camcorder (a $3500 video camera in its least expensive configuration, and supposedly one of the better cameras for low light shooting). But interspersed with the XH A1 footage are some of the clips taken in the same light by the 5D II. The difference in quality between them is pretty astonishing, and embarrassing to the video camera, given the fact that video clips are really just an add-on feature for the 5D II. Of course, the XH A1 does a lot of things better than the 5D II. (It was designed specifically for shooting video, after all.) But for low light captures, the 5D II is clearly superior. Here's a link:

http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/#378608891_Jd2CT-A-LB

More to the point: If you know of a video camera that can handle low light better than the 5D Mk II demonstrates in these clips, name it. There's been an awful lot of discussion on this topic over the past week, and nobody seems to be able to point to something better for night shooting or very low light. Even the $20,000 RED camera comes up short -- and until the intro of the 5D II, it was considered one of the best.

Plays back and edits fine here,
but any one else find the RAW video looks overly compressed, with smeared details?

Even tried rendering to 720p in Vegas and extracting a few frames,
actor's skin just looked smeared, like a low bit rate Satellite feed?

Mike V wrote:
No problem playing the clips on a PC.

How much RAM have you guys got that are having problems?


The first clip is OK, nothing to write home about.

The second clip, the low light one, looks terrible.

The third clip in decent light looks pretty damn good.


Huge number of dead pixels.





Please back up your "opinions" with some facts.

Runs smooth and looks great with my Q6600, 3GB RAM, and Nvidia 8500 GT card.

But I'll let the geeks sort out the performance bits & bytes .. my overall impression is what a great first time video from a photographer !

moondigger wrote:


No... I'm used to seeing how poorly dedicated video cameras handle low light shooting, and how much better the 5D II is.

Check out Laforet's "Behind the Scenes" video. Most of the footage was shot with a Canon XH A1 3CCD camcorder (a $3500 video camera in its least expensive configuration, and supposedly one of the better cameras for low light shooting). But interspersed with the XH A1 footage are some of the clips taken in the same light by the 5D II. The difference in quality between them is pretty astonishing, and embarrassing to the video camera, given the fact that video clips are really just an add-on feature for the 5D II. Of course, the XH A1 does a lot of things better than the 5D II. (It was designed specifically for shooting video, after all.) But for low light captures, the 5D II is clearly superior. Here's a link:

http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87/1/#378608891_Jd2CT-A-LB

More to the point: If you know of a video camera that can handle low light better than the 5D Mk II demonstrates in these clips, name it. There's been an awful lot of discussion on this topic over the past week, and nobody seems to be able to point to something better for night shooting or very low light. Even the $20,000 RED camera comes up short -- and until the intro of the 5D II, it was considered one of the best.


I made the same point about how bad the XH A1 looks compared to the 5DII on a video forum last week and no one responded. Not just in noise but in the richness of the image. I don't know if I would say the 5DII looks like film, but the XH A1 sure looks like "video" in low light. The richness and quality of the 5DII in low light will open up a lot of creativity in lower budget ventures.
I'm very interested in Canon's next step. It seems to me they will introduce a mid price point video camera with a single large CMOS next. It's a rather weird situation that the best low light video is from a DSLR. The DSLR form factor is not going to be acceptable to most video shooters.

Mike V wrote:
No problem playing the clips on a PC.

How much RAM have you guys got that are having problems?


The first clip is OK, nothing to write home about.

The second clip, the low light one, looks terrible.

The third clip in decent light looks pretty damn good.


Huge number of dead pixels.



Looks terrible compared to what? There's plenty of recent feature films that the low light work doesn't look that good. So I'm wondering about the comparative reference.

Runs beautifully on a Mac Xeon Pro 3GHz.