Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Canon's video roadmap confusing?  (Read 2960 times)
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2197


WWW
« Reply #20 on: April 14, 2012, 03:23:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice summary of why onboard video is terrible and looks set to be for some time.

My logic is that..

top DSLRs of 10mp or more can shoot at around 10 frames per second
I dont see why a 5mp DSLR could not shoot at 20FPS - especially with no mirror to move
..or a 4mp at 24/5 30 frames per second

Just add a connector like thunderbolt or an optical connection or whatever and then another 'box' that is the recorder that box would have 2TB hard drives onboard

I guess that is a Red..

S
Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
Petrus
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461


« Reply #21 on: April 14, 2012, 05:25:48 AM »
ReplyReply

Nice summary of why onboard video is terrible and looks set to be for some time.

My logic is that..

top DSLRs of 10mp or more can shoot at around 10 frames per second
I dont see why a 5mp DSLR could not shoot at 20FPS - especially with no mirror to move
..or a 4mp at 24/5 30 frames per second

Just add a connector like thunderbolt or an optical connection or whatever and then another 'box' that is the recorder that box would have 2TB hard drives onboard

I guess that is a Red..

S

I do not think video from these cameras look terrible, if it is watched as video, not grabbed still frames. It looks good, very good, it is actually better than 35mm cinema projection what comes to resolution and dynamic range. Compared to stills it is bad, but we do not notice it in moving pictures.

Yes, cameras could capture better quality, but there is no way to get the data to the card fast enough. Outboard recorders are the the solution, those are already available. Connector for getting out higher quality output (4:2:2 usually) is already there, called HDMI. So your wish has been partly granted. Getting full stills-quality streams out at video speeds is not possible yet with these reasonably priced cameras. Remember, they are stills cameras with mostly software video capabilities without much added cost. Adding the hardware to process full quality video fast enough doubles the price (Canon EOS-1Dc...) and makes stills photographers mad as this does not do anything for them.

First there were these great photo-only cameras. Then came the 5D2 with great quality video slapped on as an afterthought, practically free. Now people are, in practice, demanding full professional quality video, again practically free, while professional video cameras doing the same thing cost around $100000. There is a reason why full quality video costs a lot and can not be added to DSLRs just like that. Canon 1D is a good example: good HD video comes "free" with 1DX, if you want better quality 4K, it costs $9000 extra.
Logged
Morgan_Moore
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2197


WWW
« Reply #22 on: April 14, 2012, 06:28:07 AM »
ReplyReply

getting out higher quality ...called HDMI.

All fair points

I would argue that HDMI is not of any use - its just too flimsy - expecailly (and im not sure what the different models do) if you cannot record internally as backup and also (as is the case with the 5d2 and 7d) if the lead is removed/wobbles the recording is cut (that does not happen on the FS100)

As a stills photographer I am used with my gear working really well, by D3 has worked as advertised for years now in every situation, with filming the HDMI is one elelment that stops that happening

A BNC style port is what $3 maybe?

S


« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 06:32:19 AM by Morgan_Moore » Logged

Sam Morgan Moore Cornwall
www.sammorganmoore.com -photography
dreed
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1170


« Reply #23 on: April 14, 2012, 06:48:41 AM »
ReplyReply


What I found very interesting about the comments about the comparison here is that the extra detail in the video from the C300 that was apparent in the faces was not considered to be advantageous.

This might be why people have been happy to use the 5D Mark II to the lengths that they have and why Canon didn't perceive the need to increase video fidelity in the 5D Mark III?

But are these just the comments of folks that have grown up with film and moved on to digital and thus look for film-like properties in digital production?
Logged
mmurph
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 507


WWW
« Reply #24 on: April 14, 2012, 10:42:51 AM »
ReplyReply

We go through this WTF/Wow - I don't expect that dichotomy with every release cycle. It has been the same for computers, software - Adobe CS, etc.

There are two different paths that I see when something new comes out:

1) The items that take cutting edge memory & processing power will trickle down to lower priced tools within 2 years.

2) Features that are great "wows" - that don't cost much - like video on the 5 D2 - will either appear on the lower end cameras, like the 7D2, 70D, T4i. Or will be enabled on those through Majic Lantern type hacking.

Canon pretty much announced the path for the Cinema cameras last November. They said they were enabling 4K on the front end on the C300, but we're still limited on the codec and data out. From that standpoint, I am happy that they followed on quickly with the 1D C and C500. We get the best internal and external storage - respectively - that they could deliver at those price points. We also get the Raw Codec that we can - hopefully - get our hands on for HD via HDMI on the 5D3 or other lower end cameras.

I'm on my phone, so it is hard to jump around to compare write rates. I think our best hope is for an extension of the HD options on the 2-3 new cameras that Canon is likely to release this year - looks like the T4i is coming soon?

Plus additional, firmware enabled features that have no real cost, but round out the functionality. Along with any new pro camcorder crossover, I don't know what is in the horizon there.

The $45K Cine lenses announced with the C300 were a clear sign of the target audience. The newer $25K lenses are still a clear indicator that this isn't for the $3K crowd.

I know some of you are in those leagues and can realistically talk about the fit or non-fit for you. But the marginal value for me and most of us hete is between the $1K and $3K base units, down from the $8K Canon 1Ds2 days. That was the last time it made financial sense for me to go to the higher end for the marginal quality gains.

I think the 7D/T3i sensors still have a lot of potential, with a better codec, better down sampling or binning, and the newer Digic 5 processor, with true HD at 60 FPS and possibly higher. A version of the Canon raw codec with log files would open up great options at the Super Cine level. I think that is most realistic for the next 2 years.

Full disclosure - I closed my studio 4 years ago, after 16 years of designing & implementing high end ($1-$20 million +) digital imaging systems for Fortune 5 companies since 1991. Now it hurts to take photos to post on eBay, so I don't have a lot of skin in the game right now. A poseur of sorts, but hoping to get back to creative work by fall.  Huh

Michael

« Last Edit: April 14, 2012, 10:58:12 AM by mmurph » Logged
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad