TR Forums

Saw this at kenrockwell.com and dpreview:

http://www.canon.com/moon/en/index.html

I wonder when they will finally make the official announcement?

Interesting (or meaningless) how it looks taller and has a big blocked out chunk along the bottom.

mattsteg wrote:

Interesting (or meaningless) how it looks taller and has a big blocked out chunk along the bottom.

How the hell can you tell?

SpotTheCat wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

Interesting (or meaningless) how it looks taller and has a big blocked out chunk along the bottom.

How the hell can you tell?

Photoshop curves adjustments show all.

mattsteg wrote:

Interesting (or meaningless) how it looks taller and has a big blocked out chunk along the bottom.

Yeah, it looks like it will be similar in size as the 1D series, but like you said they blocked out a lot of the bottom, which is weird. I've been looking forward to this announcement, because chances are this will be my next camera...assuming it really is the new 5D

mattsteg wrote:

SpotTheCat wrote:

mattsteg wrote:

Interesting (or meaningless) how it looks taller and has a big blocked out chunk along the bottom.

How the hell can you tell?

Photoshop curves adjustments show all.

Ahhhh! I don't have photoshop here... but if I look at my TN monitor off-angle the shape clearly shows up! Finally, TN is worth something.

its here

The EOS 5D Mark II boasts a new 21MP CMOS sensor, an expanded ISO range of 50-25,600 and a wealth of improvements and new features including full 1080p HD movie recording, live view, 3.0" 920k dot LCD, DIGIC IV processor, increased battery capacity and sensor dust reduction. UPDATE: Body-only prices: US: $ 2,699

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091 ... markII.asp

for those who liked the Nikon D90 video... the 5D takes it up another notch:

Triggered from Live View Mode, HD video capture allows users to shoot uninterrupted at full 1080 resolution at 30fps – for amazing quality footage with outstanding levels of detail and realism.

I'm a bit suprised they didnt toss in dual digic 4 processors to up the fps a little.. 3.9 is kinda on the low side.. i guess they still want to keep their "high speed" camera seperate.

danny e. wrote:

for those who liked the Nikon D90 video... the 5D takes it up another notch:

Triggered from Live View Mode, HD video capture allows users to shoot uninterrupted at full 1080 resolution at 30fps – for amazing quality footage with outstanding levels of detail and realism.

The quality from the samples posted at dpreview looks very good. I wonder if it allows for other framerates other than 30fps and if it has full manual aperture and shutter speed control for video. I expect rolling shutter issues might be a problem with such a large image sensor.

All I can say is OUCH.. Sony just got a punch in the gut and Nikon........well......I almost feel sorry (I'm a Nikon user). I predict a D700 in a $2000 range soon.

Uh, not sure if anyone else noticed but they changed that shadow into the full pic.

Also that is a really hot camera, i think it'd be a pretty large step up from where i'm at now looking at the specs. Anyone planning on getting it?

Floored, impressed, and blown away. Et cetera. But this snippet from the press release amused me:

and immediate and fast review after shooting

So which is it? Immediate, or merely fast?

Wow...this will be my next camera. I didn't expect them to match the 1Ds' resolution with it, but it's a pleasant surprise.

Impressive.

crazybus wrote:

The quality from the samples posted at dpreview looks very good. I wonder if it allows for other framerates other than 30fps and if it has full manual aperture and shutter speed control for video. I expect rolling shutter issues might be a problem with such a large image sensor.

Apparently it's 30p only . Those budding film-makers going for the cine-look will be disappointed. Aperture can be adjusted but shutter speed is automatic. One thing it does have is external mic input, albeit with auto levels.

crazybus wrote:

albeit with auto levels.

I wonder if it's dynamically adjusting. Hopefully not because volume levels are easy to adjust with any decent video editing software.

crazybus wrote:

Apparently it's 30p only .

i'm fairly sure its 1080p.

danny e. wrote:

crazybus wrote:

Apparently it's 30p only .

i'm fairly sure its 1080p.

1080/30p is the proper designation.

Apparently it's 30p only . Those budding film-makers going for the cine-look will be disappointed.

Perhaps, but screw that; a hundred other things have much more an impact on the look of a movie than its framerate. I admit there's a nice affectation with 24p, but at least in my opinion it's hardly a significance.

SPOOFE wrote:

Apparently it's 30p only . Those budding film-makers going for the cine-look will be disappointed.

Perhaps, but screw that; a hundred other things have much more an impact on the look of a movie than its framerate. I admit there's a nice affectation with 24p, but at least in my opinion it's hardly a significance.

IMHO, the more framerate the better. Panning looks like crap in movies, both on TV and in the theater. Discovery HD Theater in 1080p looks so much better when panning. I remember Matrix Reloaded as being particularly bad in the alley fight scene.

SPOOFE wrote:

Perhaps, but screw that; a hundred other things have much more an impact on the look of a movie than its framerate. I admit there's a nice affectation with 24p, but at least in my opinion it's hardly a significance.

Well, to be honest, video recording on DSLRs is more of an afterthought at the moment so it will probably only be used by amateurs fooling around. All else being equal, a movie filmed at 30p will still stick out like a sore thumb compared to 24p. It's just what people are accustomed to.

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

IMHO, the more framerate the better. Panning looks like crap in movies, both on TV and in the theater. Discovery HD Theater in 1080p looks so much better when panning. I remember Matrix Reloaded as being particularly bad in the alley fight scene.

Sure, higher framerate is better for some material, but you don't want everything you record to look like a soap opera. As far as movies go, a lot of the jerkiness during panning that you see watching on a normal display comes from judder induced by the 24p->60p/i conversion. I don't want to get into an argument about framerates; it would just be good to have some choice.

crazybus wrote:

SPOOFE wrote:

Perhaps, but screw that; a hundred other things have much more an impact on the look of a movie than its framerate. I admit there's a nice affectation with 24p, but at least in my opinion it's hardly a significance.

Well, to be honest, video recording on DSLRs is more of an afterthought at the moment so it will probably only be used by amateurs fooling around. All else being equal, a movie filmed at 30p will still stick out like a sore thumb compared to 24p. It's just what people are accustomed to.

are you an art major? sounds like something an art major would say.
24fps looks like crap. not that 30 will look any different.
the more the merrier.

they should just start working on making all HD video cameras record 72 fps and then they can have software for the artsy folks that like the jerky look to pull out the extra 2 frames for every 3.

Seems like the other side of the fence (movie cameras) are converging from the opposite direction also. Of course specialised devices will always have certain advantages and who knows what sort of products will eventuate, but it's really just a matter of time before movies and still images can be competently achieved using a single device.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=18710

crazybus wrote:

Usacomp2k3 wrote:

IMHO, the more framerate the better. Panning looks like crap in movies, both on TV and in the theater. Discovery HD Theater in 1080p looks so much better when panning. I remember Matrix Reloaded as being particularly bad in the alley fight scene.

Sure, higher framerate is better for some material, but you don't want everything you record to look like a soap opera. As far as movies go, a lot of the jerkiness during panning that you see watching on a normal display comes from judder induced by the 24p->60p/i conversion. I don't want to get into an argument about framerates; it would just be good to have some choice.

I know about the judder. I'm say they still look horrible on the big screen, where I'm guessing it's at the native 24p.

Well, to be honest, video recording on DSLRs is more of an afterthought at the moment so it will probably only be used by amateurs fooling around.

Probably, but only because professionals have access to $50,000 cameras and, as everyone knows, More Expensive Equals Better.

All else being equal, a movie filmed at 30p will still stick out like a sore thumb compared to 24p. It's just what people are accustomed to.

No, you're wrong. Most people would only notice a difference if they were told there's a difference.

SPOOFE wrote:

Well, to be honest, video recording on DSLRs is more of an afterthought at the moment so it will probably only be used by amateurs fooling around.

Probably, but only because professionals have access to $50,000 cameras and, as everyone knows, More Expensive Equals Better.

The uber-high end will probably always be the realm of purpose specific machinery, but you may be underestimating the potential of video-enabled DSLRs. As has been said, there's a convergence occurring in the photo/video market where cost is actually an issue. Hence the product coming out of RED, etc. If a DSLR can output quality HD video with full manual controls that serious users expect, then I think it will take off. Keep in mind that the sensor area on the 5D mk II is significantly larger than even that of normal 35mm film stock. This generally means better control over DOF and greater sensitivity.

SPOOFE wrote:

All else being equal, a movie filmed at 30p will still stick out like a sore thumb compared to 24p. It's just what people are accustomed to.

No, you're wrong. Most people would only notice a difference if they were told there's a difference.

I don't know about that. Unless you intentionally shoot at exposure times that minimize the perceived difference (ie. faster shutter with 30p and slower with 24p), I find it extremely easy to tell the difference. Whether or not the average person would consciously know the difference is debatable, but sub-consciously I think most people would notice something strange about the image. That is of course if the production quality is high enough and the subject matter something that would traditionally be shot on film (or at least at some point transfered to film).

I know it's not a scientifically accurate but if you try one of the frame-interpolation techniques employed by high-end TVs and some movie playback software you may better understand what I'm saying. While it's not completely analogous (the interpolation schemes can introduce artifacts, especially during high motion), a lot of people will notice that the video looks uncannily smooth. At some point expectations will no doubt change, but for now, 24fps is where it's at for most professional video production, and most people with cinematic aspirations are interested in replicating that look.

One more thing, 30p is no good for anything that may need to be displayed on PAL displays. 24p is easily sped up to 25fps, but converting 30p requires special techniques (ala Optical Flow in Shake).

[/IMO] I'm no expert, so please don't berate me too hard -- I am definitely not trying to say that 24p is better, just something that should be available.

Sorry if I've totally diluted the original purpose of this thread. I imagine most folks are more interested in the still photo capabilities of the 5D mk II .

The uber-high end will probably always be the realm of purpose specific machinery, but you may be underestimating the potential of video-enabled DSLRs.

Oh, make no mistake, I tingle with excitement. I consider the convergence almost inevitable; all the hardware and specialized tweaking of still image quality is similar to that required for video. My comments about the limits of the feature are specifically to these first few examples. While I'm sure the D90 or 5D mkII can be excellent video cameras, within their own limitations of course, these are the first ones out the gate and there's bound to be lots of room for improvement.

Unless you intentionally shoot at exposure times that minimize the perceived difference (ie. faster shutter with 30p and slower with 24p), I find it extremely easy to tell the difference. Whether or not the average person would consciously know the difference is debatable, but sub-consciously I think most people would notice something strange about the image.

They would make their own subjective judgments about the media viewed, but I'd wager money that the vast majority of the population would never think "Ah! 24p!" (ie- "stick out like a sore thumb"). Crappy shots are crappy shots; crappy acting is crappy acting; crappy lighting is etc. etc. etc. All those have a much greater impact on the overall aesthetic than framerate. That's all I'm trying to convey. Certainly one can have his or her own preferences, but it's hard to call either generally "better" than the other.

It's easy to say that 30p is technically better than 24p and that either is much better than telecine juddering. Hooray for the technology that is bringing 120Hz displays to the living room to eliminate the telecine problem.


Now that some actual images are trickling out, the high-ISO performance of the 5D Mk. II is impressive, especially considering the 21 MP resolution.

It's easy to say that 30p is technically better than 24p

Technically true. Talk is, indeed, cheap. However, it's hard to say it and be right, in general. Eyes of the beholder, and all that rot.

SPOOFE wrote:

It's easy to say that 30p is technically better than 24p

Technically true. Talk is, indeed, cheap. However, it's hard to say it and be right, in general. Eyes of the beholder, and all that rot.

It's amazing that there are always fools who will believe that inferior technology is "more buttery" or some other BS. That insanity doesn't much relate to discussion of this wonderful new camera.

A few preview type reviews are popping up:
http://www.dprguru.com/?model=530927760

The high-ISO performance actually looks pretty good. I'd like to see a side-by-side comparison against the D700 and A900 testing noise, AF performance and dynamic range.