Jump to content


Photo

5D Mark II


  • Please log in to reply
32 replies to this topic

#1 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 September 2008 - 02:10 PM

Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere, but I only saw something about the D90; the 5D Mark II has come out, also with a video mode; but with a few major differences to the D90:
-1080p
-h.264 encoding, around 40mbit/s
-Supposedly, barely any rolling shutter artefacts (D90 has a big problem with this)
-Audio input (admittedly not XLR, but better than nothing)
-Contrast Detection AF
Seems quite interesting; the people that have played around with it have been very impressed (some affiliated with Canon, others not), and the footage is meant to be near noiseless, even at ISO3200. What is most impressive is the compression - it should be better quality than the 25mbit/s Mpeg2 HDV codec.
  • 0

#2 Scott Fritzshall

Scott Fritzshall
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 584 posts
  • Other
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2008 - 03:41 PM

I guess I feel compelled to point out that h.264 is very much a delivery format that's not at all well-suited to production, though that hasn't stopped people before.

Also being noiseless is probably related to the compression, since h.264 throws out fine detail in order to squish the image down, which ends up having a de-noising effect.
  • 0

#3 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 21 September 2008 - 04:03 PM

I guess I feel compelled to point out that h.264 is very much a delivery format that's not at all well-suited to production, though that hasn't stopped people before.

Also being noiseless is probably related to the compression, since h.264 throws out fine detail in order to squish the image down, which ends up having a de-noising effect.


I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about compression, but will it still be the case at 40mbit/s? It's a very high bitrate (the bitrate used in bluray discs), and therefore shouldn't have much compression at all. I think that generally, h.264 codecs use a lower bitrate than their mpeg2 counterparts. For example, the Canon HG10, although a consumer camcorder, records 1080p with h.264 at 15mbit/s, yet maintains a very high level of detail, although less than the HV20.

Concerning noise, it's very likely that this is a feature of the Digic IV processor itself; the original sensor is 21.1mp, and can go up to ISO 25,600; when scaled down to 2.1mp (HD 1080p), a photo at around ISO 3200 would seam to have very little noise, considering that it is combining over 8 pixels to form a single pixel. Furthermore, this should create a very sharp image.

Regards,
Anatole

Edited by Anatole Sloan, 21 September 2008 - 04:05 PM.

  • 0

#4 Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin

Posted 21 September 2008 - 07:12 PM

It was really only a matter of time before still cameras started functioning as video cameras. I think its mostly marketed towards journalists to capture something on the fly, but I could see the 5D being a legitimate low end video camera for at least certain types of projects.

I think its safe to say the shutter and the AF/focus options would be the real deciding factors on if this camera can function in filmmaking. Motion seems like it could cause problems if there really is a a rolling shutter issue (but they seem to have taken that feedback from the D90) and I wonder how the camera would respond to motion, both within the frame and the camera itself, but I'm more interested in how it could handle focusing.

I assume that (by listening to them; I have no real basis for this), the motors in the lens are designed for quick snappy focusing, not so much slow and/or smooth focusing. Maybe that bluetooth follow focus thats been in development would solve the focus issues though.

Its definitely something to keep an eye on. Even if it doesnt work so well for filmmaking its still an amazing dslr and im pretty sure im gonna buy one.
  • 0

#5 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 21 September 2008 - 07:48 PM

Vincent Laforet's enthusiastic review only mentions 30fps, and Canon's own specs don't mention any frame rates at all. Is the camera able to shoot anything other than 30?
  • 0

#6 Christopher Arata

Christopher Arata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:02 PM

Nope only 30fps read this post, http://prolost.blogs...24p-please.html to see what some are trying to do to change that, although it is highly unlikely canon will change anything.
  • 0

#7 Patrick Neary

Patrick Neary
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 873 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Portland, OR

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:08 PM

Dang, looks like everyone will have to wait until Canon releases another completely new line of DSLRs, which could be as long as three or four days from now...:)
  • 0

#8 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 21 September 2008 - 08:41 PM

Could the H264 be easily transcoded to JPEG2000 or Cineform or something else for editing?

My main question is, how is the down-sampling being accomplished? Is this a true 1080p that will hold up, pixel for pixel?
  • 0

#9 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:31 AM

The 1080p comes from the entire frame, and is down-sampled to the hd signal; however, some are saying that the image doesn't look hugely sharp. Once it starts shipping, we'll have a better idea.

Concerning AF, it doesn't use the same AF as when taking photos - the mirror needs to be in place for this. Instead it uses contrast detection, and while it is better than nothing, it's quite slow. Rolling shutter is meant to be a near non-issue, and otherwise the only major bug is 30p, as opposed to 24p. I personally wouldn't care that much, but some do have gripes about it... if the reaction against this is big enough, I'm sure Canon will release a firmware update to allow 24p.

Edited by Anatole Sloan, 22 September 2008 - 05:34 AM.

  • 0

#10 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 22 September 2008 - 12:56 PM

The 1080p comes from the entire frame, and is down-sampled to the hd signal; however, some are saying that the image doesn't look hugely sharp. Once it starts shipping, we'll have a better idea.


Does anyone actually know what type of process is being used to downsample the images?

In theory, this could create beautiful 1080p images, downsampling from such a huge sensor.

I also wonder if a 1080p 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 feed could be pulled off the HDMI port?
  • 0

#11 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 September 2008 - 01:32 PM

Does anyone actually know what type of process is being used to downsample the images?

In theory, this could create beautiful 1080p images, downsampling from such a huge sensor.

I also wonder if a 1080p 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 feed could be pulled off the HDMI port?


We can dream...

I'm afraid that Canon may have too much to lose if they produce a killer video product in the form of a still camera - sales of their video cameras will fall, perhaps quite dramatically. Much of what they're doing is just to one-up the D90 (resolution, skew, mic input, ability to take photos at the same time as recording). Pulling the feed off the HDMI port as you describe would mean that people would have little reason to get a Canon HD camera instead, other than for the ergonomics and better controls (people will figure out some form of rifle holder, almost certainly, and audio is better recorded off camera anyway). It does have an HDMI port, but they'll probably cripple that particular function.
  • 0

#12 Anatole Sloan

Anatole Sloan
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 47 posts
  • Director

Posted 22 September 2008 - 01:49 PM

I got this off http://www.reduser.n...ad.php?p=289323

The site is controversial, I know, but this is of particular interest (regarding whether you can pull uncompressed HD off the HDMI port)

"I've already seen this demonstrated with the 5D mark 2. That will at least give you 4:2:2 8-bit uncompressed, a little better than 4:2:0 AVC."

I guess I was wrong.
  • 0

#13 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 22 September 2008 - 05:43 PM

I'm posting on that same thread at Reduser and I have yet to see anyone give any evidence of whether a high-quality 1080p feed can be pulled from the HDMI port, or not. I would be awesome, though. Of course, then you would need to always have it tethered to some kind of external drive, perhaps recording to Cineform? But it might be worth it in some cases.

What do you guys think about the quality of the 1080p samples posted at DPReview (at the bottom of the page)?

http://www.dpreview....on_5dmarkII.asp
  • 0

#14 Christopher Arata

Christopher Arata
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 83 posts
  • 1st Assistant Camera
  • Los Angeles

Posted 22 September 2008 - 11:01 PM

Here it is everyone the first short film from the 5D Mark II pre-production model that Vincent Laforet was able to test out. Link to his blog http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/ & to canon site http://www.usa.canon...;articleID=2086 . Enjoy!

Edited by Christopher Arata, 22 September 2008 - 11:03 PM.

  • 0

#15 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11944 posts
  • Other

Posted 23 September 2008 - 01:19 AM

I'm afraid I don't know a huge amount about compression, but will it still be the case at 40mbit/s? It's a very high bitrate


Ah, no, that's a very low bitrate, the same as DVCPRO-HD uses at 24fps.

h.264 is very considerably cleverer than DV100, though.

P
  • 0

#16 Chi Ying Chan

Chi Ying Chan

    New

  • Basic Members
  • Pip
  • 8 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 September 2008 - 02:57 AM

Still looks very video.

Chan Chi Ying
HK
  • 0

#17 Mike Simpson

Mike Simpson
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Austin

Posted 23 September 2008 - 07:42 AM

I think it looks pretty good. Im most impressed with the light sensitivity i suppose.
  • 0

#18 Sam Wells

Sam Wells
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1751 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 23 September 2008 - 11:31 AM

Could the H264 be easily transcoded to JPEG2000 or Cineform or something else for editing?


I guess, (and you could use use ProRes also) -

But it's backwards ! Cineform, MJPEG2000, type codec is what the _camera_ should be using !


-Sam (I downsample my Nikon RAW converted to TIFF in Shake and output ProResHQ)
  • 0

#19 Mitch Lusas

Mitch Lusas
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 99 posts
  • Director
  • Los Angeles, CA

Posted 23 September 2008 - 07:21 PM

A quick rabbit trail:
Has anyone used a good portable solution for capturing HDMI?
  • 0

#20 Tom Lowe

Tom Lowe
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1211 posts
  • Director
  • somewhere worshipping Terrence Malick

Posted 23 September 2008 - 07:51 PM

haven't used it yet, but Cineform Recorder looks like a good bet.
  • 0


Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Aerial Filmworks

Abel Cine

Visual Products

rebotnix Technologies

Metropolis Post

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Glidecam

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Paralinx LLC

Opal

CineTape

CineLab

Ritter Battery

The Slider

Willys Widgets

Rig Wheels Passport

CineTape

Tai Audio

Abel Cine

The Slider

Aerial Filmworks

Broadcast Solutions Inc

rebotnix Technologies

FJS International, LLC

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Visual Products

Opal

Technodolly

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Glidecam

Paralinx LLC

Ritter Battery

Wooden Camera

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS