digitalbug30d wrote:
let DPR and vimeo handle the vids...real photogs come here even the Nikon shooters
Vimeo is quite interesting. A very good example of 5D2 video there. The downtown shots of Bejing are deceptive. It is a Communist dictatorship but looks like any big city.
I've always thought that D/SLR have a very awkward grip where you have to bend your wrist compared to the natural grip of any compact video camera where you don't have to bend your wrist. If people want to shoot films with their DSLR, it's their choice I guess... just be aware of carpal tunnel.
The only lure is the ability to shoot film with high quality lenses. I personally look forward to future xxD or xxxD line to have video capability so I can shoot film with my MP-E 65mm lens at 5x magnification.
I shoot family stuff - photos and video. I have some nice gear, including a 5D and a nice Sony camcorder that shoots in widescreen (once you try it, you're hooked and it's the only way to go). I'm very interested in the video, not for the resolution, but to see how it works with my lenses. I'd love to try it with my 16-35 2.8 mark 2, and my 70-200 2.8 IS. You can't do that with any camcorder that's anywhere near affordable, as far as I know. The best I could do would to get a wide angle attachment to the camcorder, but that's not nearly as cool!
Maybe the wow factor will wear off of the cool lens thing too - just wanted to point out that it's not all about the HD!
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.
Exactly, that was going to be my comments as well. Video is real time whereas still photography is not. I shoot both and the techniques used for each are completely different.
I suspect the honeymoon will be over as soon as users see how much effort and $$$ it takes to properly edit HD. Add the fact that there is still no practical delivery mechanism for the average shooter (I don't consider $10-13 a disc for Blu-ray media practical) and they will understand why most still deliver SD content.
John Power wrote:
But frames from the video might make good prints
I think of that as more of a bonus for new photographers. Say someone is shootinging action shots at a baseball game. They dont know when to take the picture, so they can record a short video clip and later look at the still frames, pick an image they like, and see why they liked it. I see the whole video thing as a learning tool. And a fun extra gizmo to play around with when you get tired of taking pictures of brick walls or stuff on your coffee table.
John--G wrote:
I suspect the honeymoon will be over as soon as users see how much effort and $$$ it takes to properly edit HD. Add the fact that there is still no practical delivery mechanism for the average shooter (I don't consider $10-13 a disc for Blu-ray media practical) and they will understand why most still deliver SD content.
That's why the feature is only on the highend 5D line. Anyone who can afford it, should be able to afford a decent PC to process 1080p HD. Actually, they aren't that expensive anyway.
Thing is, the video people I know wish that it also shoots at 24fps.
As for storage medium, correct me if I'm wrong but I think a 9GB dual layer DVD should be enough for around 30 minutes of HD video, more than enough for short film.
John Power wrote:
But frames from the video might make good prints
4x6 maybe. A full HD frame is only 2 megapixel. That's pretty much the reason we haven't all dumped our SLR's in favor of HD video cameras. (well, one of the reasons anyway) :-)
n0b0 wrote:
That's why the feature is only on the highend 5D line. Anyone who can afford it, should be able to afford a decent PC to process 1080p HD. Actually, they aren't that expensive anyway.
Thing is, the video people I know wish that it also shoots at 24fps.
As for storage medium, correct me if I'm wrong but I think a 9GB dual layer DVD should be enough for around 30 minutes of HD video, more than enough for short film.
A fast PC with lots of storage is just the beginning. Even doing quality video work in SD required a lot of expensive software. Premiere Pro, Encore, etc.
I assume you are referring to burning Blu-ray content to standard DVD media. This still requires a Blu-ray player and there are compatibility issues. I'm not sure I would want to distribute HD content on DVD to my clients. However, it is a viable Blu-ray alternative for home use. Again, assuming you have a compatible Blu-ray player.
John--G wrote:
A fast PC with lots of storage is just the beginning. Even doing quality video work in SD required a lot of expensive software. Premiere Pro, Encore, etc.
I assume you are referring to burning Blu-ray content to standard DVD media. This still requires a Blu-ray player and there are compatibility issues. I'm not sure I would want to distribute HD content on DVD to my clients. However, it is a viable Blu-ray alternative for home use. Again, assuming you have a compatible Blu-ray player.
Well, I'm sure Canon will bundle a software to process those videos. Remember pros will have those pro softwares already while the amateurs/hobbyist will only need some basic functionalities.
I was talking about normal 9GB dual layer DVD, nothing to do with bluray. With maybe around 70-80% compression with the H264 or the open source version x264, you should be able to fit quite a lot of HD videos in a 9GB dual layer DVD.
I do agree that you can't just play it in any standalone player but with a PC with Vista or XP SP3, the Window Media Player should already have the codec necessary to play the video easily. If your client has a Mac, use the MPEG format and play it with QuickTime player.
You probably already know all that but others here might not.
caleb condit wrote:
Funny that people think videography and photography are so different. They have different conceptual values and a different process but I think that understanding different mediums isn't bad. Printmaking and painting may be different than photography but in the end it all relates. And the fact that its being added to our dslrs is fantastic. I'd rather have more tools than less. You don't have to play with video if you don't want, but it's there when you get curious.
Honestly, most DPs for films are pretty incredible stills shooters...It takes the same ability to make a good composition, light well, and tell stories with multiple frames in both video and stills. And sure camcorders have been out for ages, but none of them have the low light ability and lens selection that a d90 or 5dmarkII have for the price. These whiney wet blanket sort of reactions are pretty funny but a bit unnecessary. Imagine all the negative posts that would have come out if the 5dmarkII didn't have video and the lowly d90 did.......Show more →
Video and Photography are totally different skills and the approach of shooting is totally different.
Personally I would have preferred they focused more on the photography features and less on video. Everybody is talking about the video on the 5dmk2 like it's the second coming. I couldn't care less about it.
I would take multiple bracketing shots (more than 3), or better AF, or better EV compensation range or dual cards or better metering before I look at video.
In photo you capture a moment in time, an expression, a feeling for me video will never have the same impact as a well taken photo.
The same way as a film will never have the same impact as the original book it was based on.
I shoot family stuff - photos and video. I have some nice gear, including a 5D and a nice Sony camcorder that shoots in widescreen (once you try it, you're hooked and it's the only way to go). I'm very interested in the video, not for the resolution, but to see how it works with my lenses. I'd love to try it with my 16-35 2.8 mark 2, and my 70-200 2.8 IS. You can't do that with any camcorder that's anywhere near affordable, as far as I know. The best I could do would to get a wide angle attachment to the camcorder, but that's not nearly as cool!
Maybe the wow factor will wear off of the cool lens thing too - just wanted to point out that it's not all about the HD!
Canon's XL series has always been able to take their SLR lenses with an adapter and I think the XL2 retails for about as much as the 5DII with a form factor more conducive to shooting video. And it has industry standard jacks for dedicated video accessories, a viewfinder that isn't a giant light source like the 5DII's screen, and an included L-series lens that's as optically good as any of the SLR lenses. And it can shoot stills (though not anywhere near 21mp).
My passion is photography not multimedia, I don't want to paint or draw or do videos I want to take photos!
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.
Sure video and stills are different mediums but a lot does translate between the two. Honestly the basics transfer: lighting, composition and concept. These 3 things are necessary to make both mediums work. The exectution is different, the editing tools are different, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many people that will find the new video feature very useful on the 5dmkII. Its not the second coming, its just canon finally coming around and innovating again. Videographers/cinematographers have been using adaptors on camcorders to get a short depth of field with little success (color casts, extra bulk, and loss of light come to mind) and all my friends that shoot video as well are stoked. Most of us shoot both stills and videos.
Most my friends who assist or are digital techs are also well versed in the RED camera as well as the Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, canon, nikon cameras. The industry is changing, the manufacturers are changing to keep up and stay relevant, and its just how it is.
You don't have have to have videography as a hobby. BUT please don't complain when you get more for less from Canon or that we have a video function because it's filling a huge void in the market. 21 megapixels, better high ISO and full HD video for 2700? People would have called you nuts if you would have suggested such a thing a year ago...
freaklikeme wrote:
Canon's XL series has always been able to take their SLR lenses with an adapter and I think the XL2 retails for about as much as the 5DII with a form factor more conducive to shooting video. And it has industry standard jacks for dedicated video accessories, a viewfinder that isn't a giant light source like the 5DII's screen, and an included L-series lens that's as optically good as any of the SLR lenses. And it can shoot stills (though not anywhere near 21mp).
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
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.
Sure video and stills are different mediums but a lot does translate between the two. Honestly the basics transfer: lighting, composition and concept. These 3 things are necessary to make both mediums work. The exectution is different, the editing tools are different, but that doesn't mean that there aren't many people that will find the new video feature very useful on the 5dmkII. Its not the second coming, its just canon finally coming around and innovating again. Videographers/cinematographers have been using adaptors on camcorders to get a short depth of field with little success (color casts, extra bulk, and loss of light come to mind) and all my friends that shoot video as well are stoked. Most of us shoot both stills and videos.
Most my friends who assist or are digital techs are also well versed in the RED camera as well as the Phase, Leaf, Hasselblad, canon, nikon cameras. The industry is changing, the manufacturers are changing to keep up and stay relevant, and its just how it is.
You don't have have to have videography as a hobby. BUT please don't complain when you get more for less from Canon or that we have a video function because it's filling a huge void in the market. 21 megapixels, better high ISO and full HD video for 2700? People would have called you nuts if you would have suggested such a thing a year ago...
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?
