What intrigues me, Douglas, is just where we are heading! Truly very very exciting times ahead.

Liked the pun!!!! I too REaD in between the lines.

Yes of course it ISN'T a vidcam, but it is this whole "Darwinism" natural selection process that is unfolding in front of our very eyes that is captivating. Be it digital vid or moving pictures on the WWW or sigange or cell phones . . the word, again, is of course, "convergence". In more ways than one too!

And the capturing machines have started to wake up to this.

The next thing will be a colloid lens that bends and flexes, like our own, making the option for shallow or deep DoF a "single item solution". This last one is my own fancy.

Grazie

ah, progress eh....

i'm all for it, when it runs smoothly. i hate the speed bumps at the start though. eg. avchd.

now yes, slr <> video sounds pretty good, BUT what are we going to need to edit such formats on?

i know from bob's (farss) posts the grunt needed to handle RED, sdi, and the like. so the equation has to be at what point, given hd lcd's frame size, do we as humble tv producers need to go? features is another matter, but shooting the sort of stuff we (the majority of independents that is) do warrants the jump to yet another 'bloated' format?

oi vey, enough already.

leslie

That is gorgeous

Grazie, this one of many "full frame" DSLRs that is going to effect the mid-range cameras. With ...soo.... many lens out there, these new DSLRs permit a smooth trans to video without additional gear for some pro's.. And if Canon and others can put these ics in DSLRs, the screams in video market should force 2k-4k+ gear sooner to market, we hope.

One thing that you have to be aware of with video on an SLR is there currently is a lot of motion skew or rolling shutter effect. It can be pretty for locked down still shots without a lot of motion, but it still has a ways to go before you could think about using it instead of (rather than to augment) a regular video camera.

The other issue is lenses. Lenses made for use on still cameras don't have the mechanics of lenses made for moving images.

Bob.

I don't think the excitement is so much that an SLR can shoot video but that for the first time 35mm DOF video capture with interchangeable lenses is now possible within an afforable price point.

Question becomes, why can't a video camera do that?

Like Laurence said there's terrible skew due to the rolling shutter. Here's a video from Nikon's D90:
http://s477.photobucket.com/albums/rr134/jamesmel9/?action=view&current=DSC_0012.flv

The Canon video didn't seem at all to exhibit what I saw from the Nikon?.. & there were lots of motion shots...

I wouldn't complain. It's like a nice HDV camera that takes crappy stills. It's a nice SLR that takes video. Right now it's an extra feature. :) use it when it's appropriate, IE as a still cam. Does turning the shutter up help or is the shutter locked when recording video?

EDIT: plus you have the zoom & focus on the ring. I don't think there's any HD camera @ that price that can do that.

"The other issue is lenses. Lenses made for use on still cameras don't have the mechanics of lenses made for moving images."

Bob (or anybody else) could you follow up on this? What makes a lens better for video and/or better for stills?

Does this affect people who use stuff like Red Rock on the front of their fixed lens video camera?

kairosmatt

One could use a video lens for taking stills, well a HD one or you could use a lens made for a 35mm film camera for taking stills, heck of a waste though.

Things you need on a cine lens:
Repeatable focussing. Very difficult to follow focus without it. Don't need this for stills lens. Also cine lenses need accurate focussing, measure the distance(s) and set the lens to that distance or mark it on the follow focus gear. For this reason cine lenses typically have 270deg rotation over the range of focus.
Matchable color. Swap prime lenses and you don't want the colors to shift. No so much of an issue for stills lenses. Gets to be even more of an issue now with 3D where two sets of lenses have to match exactly.
Cine and moreso video lenses are built with large zoom ratios. A stills guy can swap lenses. Some video lenses have built in doublers, don't know if there's ever been a stills lens made with that feature.
Breathing. Focal length should remain fixed as you change focus. Not an issue on a stills lens.
Tracking. As you change focus or zoom the centre of the frame shouldn't shift. Not an issue on a stills lens.

Even the mounting systems used for cine lenses is different to that used for stills lenses. To keep backfocus constant with changes in temperature special metals are used in the mounts.

Not to say that one can't make a movie using stills lenses, just this is where the money gets spent on the expensive cine and video lenses.

Bob.

Thanks Bob, that is really informative. I hadn't realized that the lens could have so much effect on the color as well.

Unfortunately I've noticed breathing on my cameras, luckily I don't have to do rack focus at all. I haven't noticed tracking yet, but I'll test it out and see what happens.

A few threads ago you where talking about how the built in lens on the EX1 wasn't up to a job you had, but the EX3 with the interchangeable lens would be. I believe that was because at low light, with the aperture wide open, there was some distortion? I guess with expensive glass that wouldn't be an issue either.

Cheers,
kairosmatt

Here's some video samples from the Canon EOS mark ll

Pretty stunning! Have a look at the depth-of-field. It seems to me that this is a MUCH better direction to be heading rather than this silly avchd phase .

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2127

The quality is incredible. As was mentioned having a stable shot such as on a tripod is important. If it wasn't nearly $6,000 I would buy one to replace my current digital camera. Then the video would be an extra I could use in case I didn't have one of my video cameras with me.

Thanks for sharing the links.

"I believe that was because at low light, with the aperture wide open, there was some distortion?"

No distortion, just that it gets a little soft. I'm realistic though, the whole camera with a zoom lens cost way less than a single 35mm prime lens.

Bob.

I gotta say, for talking head and the kind of video that person makes and has a lot of control over, this solution really has some potential I think. $2,600 for camera, and a couple K for some lenses and CF cards, say maybe 5K for a functioning ( they may not be fantastic lenses, but a cheaper still lens is likely better than a video camera lens HD or not, I would think ).

maybe not the best solution, but I'd say it's got potential.

Dave

Well sure it's a video camera. Sure it doesn't have all the features of a typical professional HD video camera. I still want it!

I'd like to hear from people who have and use pro HD cameras what they think of the samples now available. No arguing about specs please, just judge what samples exists! And please no comparison to Nikon D90 ;-)

I'd like to hear how it compares to the image quality of a Sony EX3, just the image quality, not a feature comparison.

Read the blog, Mr. Floret is quite frank about what he did with the pre-production sample provided to him.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008/09/27/f2-is-the-sweet-spot-in-low-light/#more-1278

I have a Canon 20D digital still camera and a Sony HDR-SR7 camcorder. I use both sources with Sony Vegas.

Nedski

P.S. Just imagine, as someone else suggested here, what a killer product Canon would have if they make a pro HD camcorder with this sensor!

I grabbed one of the 5Dmk2 video sample files; the helicopter shot "MVI_0795.MOV" (82 MB) available from:
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2127

My PC isn't fast enough to play 1080p H.264 files smoothly. However, I know my PS3 can do it, because I've made some 1920x1080p MP4 files that play fine on the PS3. However they have to be AVI or MP4 container, not MOV. I generated a MP4 file from the sample H.264 Quicktime (.mov) with Quicktime Player 7.4.1 using "export to MP4" and setting "pass through" video format. The original had 44.1/16 uncompressed audio, but the QT player crashed trying to export that, so I didn't include the audio.

GSpot v2.70a says this about the original MOV file:
-------------------------------------------------
Codec: avc1 Name: H.264 Len 0:17.100 kbps 40249
Pics/s: 30.000 Frames/s 30.000 pic (w x h) 1920 x 1080
Container: File Type: QuickTime (.MOV) Display Size: 1920 x 1080
Audio: Codec sowt: 16-bit signed little-endian 44100 Hz

and this about the resulting MP4 file:
-------------------------------------------------
Codec: avc1 Name: H.264/MPEG-4 AVC Len 0:17.100 kbps 38837
Pics/s 30.000 Frames/s 30.000 pic (w x h) 1920 x 1080
Container:
mp42: MP4 v2 [ISO 14496-14] - mp41: MP4 v1 [ISO 14496-1:ch13]
Recommended Display Size: 1920x1080
(no audio)

Unfortunately, the PS3 doesn't recognize it, although several PC players can play it fine, if slowly (eg. QT player, VLC) and the quality looks good to me (much nicer than my Sony FX1 HDV camera). I wonder if 30.000 fps instead of 29.97 fps is a problem? Has anyone else managed to convert this file to something the PS3 can play?

By the way, here's a more extreme test showing whip pans:
http://vimeo.com/1815853?pg=embed&sec=1815853
The rolling shutter effect is definitely visible if the movement is fast enough, but it is not as severe as the Nikon D90.

Edit: another note: if you look at the water droplets frame-by-frame on the actor splashing his face at the sink (Clip 3, 1080p 77.42 MB) you see that the shutter angle is nearly 360 degrees. Eg. almost 1/30 sec exposure at 30 fps. That gives you the best light sensitivity, but more blurry motion, than a standard 180 degree shutter.

"When is an SLR a VidCam?"

How about Nov. 2008. (ship date for new 5D Mark II

I'd say the Canon 5d Mark II will be a HUGE success.  There is NO doubt in my mind. I also think it's why Red canceled their new camera and are re-engineering it.

Make no mistake, this is a big event. Call it convergence, game changer, whatever you want, but it's significant.  Just like desktop publishing and Photoshop etc. were.

I don't think a Digital SLR that does HD video is going to replace the video camera real soon, but it's going to be a camera that is going to be used in video production  The ability to control your depth of field is HUGE. The low light capabilities with fast lenses is also a big deal. The HD Video quality that's in the initial samples from a prototype camera are impressive.

Playing the full sized 30 second HD samples that were released Friday night on a 46” 1080p LCD, convinced me. It wasn't perfect, but it's darn good. I'm guessing there will be a whole lot of new gizmo's being developed to help steady the camera for hand held video which will be a challenge, but it's really just something new that some will get used to and some won't. It's just a matter of time before we have some form of Compact flash or other medium that will be large we won't even be talking about amount of time we can record.

I remember when Canon came out with the XL1. There was internal grief between the pro and prosumer departments over the less expensive product cutting into the higher end sales. This is probably the same. The XL1 also was a camera whose functions were largely derived from some user groups. I remember some pro's I took the camera too, said nice camera, but they wouldn't use it as long as they had the betacams. I watched many of em start using it over a short period of time. It was light, convenient, and the quality worked for their clients.

Same thing will probably happen here.. You'll end up getting some external amp/xlr adapter for your audio and away you'll go. Folks may resist at first, but there is too much interest for this to go away. I'm certainly pumped.

Canon may resist putting manual controls and 24 frame capture on the 5D Mark II to protect their higher end video cameras. However, based on the responses they are getting from their sample footage, I think they would be crazy not to change the firmware to add the features if it's possible. There is a huge wave of enthusiasm they might not want to ignore. But, we don't really know their internal reasons, so I won't assume they will add manual controls and 24 frame capture, but I certainly hope so.

As far as issues with lens characteristics being different, I don't have a clue. Common sense would tell me there MIGHT be some issues, but I doubt they will be show stoppers. Again, the quality looked good on the samples.

I'm excited enough that I'm canceling my plans for another video camera, selling my Nikon D40 and ordering the Canon 5d Mark II. I can't see much downside. The camera is worth the value as a Digital SLR, the video is gravy.

well, there are some issues ( you need to have some lenses for it, and as you can see the one big vid was shot with a LOT of lenses ). Those lenses are likely not back focused, so every time you change your focal length you'll likely need to re-work your focus. You will need to do something with regards to audio ( buy a zoom H4 or something of that sort ), and you will probably need to do something with regards to the editing ( transcode and proxy edit with gearshift or just convert into high quality editable video ).

you're going to have to re-do the frame timing as was listed above. But, that being said, I'm seriously considering it myself. I've got years and years of photo exp. behind me, and I've got quite a few years of video now too. I will do several things avail. to me with this that I did not have before. I'm thinking about selling my D80 and all in one lens, and DVX and going into the HD tapeless market with a 5D Mark II and a zoom H4 (which I already have). I'd need to buy a lens or two, and that can always be expensive, but I can probably go tapeless and have a smokin still camera that will let me run second camera for photog's locally as well bringing in extra income since I don't make enough right now ( who ever does :P ) and have my first baby due in about a month.

I've been thinking about it, and there are some drawbacks to workflow as well, like the fact that you're going to have to sync your audio, and then if you adjust your video to time stretch, you'll have to apply the same thing to your audio. Not to mention that ND filters will be a slight pain. The fact is that this is likely the cheapest HD camera with interchangeable lenses out there, and though you'd have to crank your iris down to a very high number to be able to shoot and incorporate a push, you have still got to admit, this gives a very low price point to enter the HD interchangeable lens camera market and lets you work as a still photog as well.

I have a Nikon DSLR, so too will have to buy new lenses. I spent some time researching lens from Canon. There are some good ratings on some of their primes in the f 1.8 range The "L" series is more expensive, but one can buy 2-3 primes for the cost of 1 "L" and get a decent lens.

I'll go the route of one prime to start my testing and if I need more lenses, they are readily available to purchase.

I'm hoping (fingers crossed) that I'll be able to capture straight off the HDMI port into my computer negating the need to convert the files. Since their literature says video out via HDMI to your HD monitor, I'm assuming that's an uncompressed data stream (for live shooting ) for us to do as we please. Keep your fingers crossed on this one.