25p: what's more likely new model or firmware upgrade? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 23rd, 2009, 03:51 PM   #16
Starway Pictures
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Studio City
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Maller View Post
Despite being a happy 5D Mark II owner, I sadly believe that the true realization of the camera's potential is going to come in a true video camera, not in a firmware update. It just doesn't make business sense for Canon to cannibalize their entire video product line (or at least the high end of it) with a still camera body.
I agree with you. A lot of people think of Canon as one monolithic company. And they aren't. They have a photo division. A lens division. And a consumer electronics division.

The photo division, quite frankly, is laughing at those who are trying make 5D's into movie cameras. The video division is scratching their heads wondering what the hell all this means and how it impacts that massive order of 1/3" chips they ordered from the foundry 18 months ago [/speculation]. And the lens division...is....well....doing their thing. LOL!

While I really hope Canon makes a proper full-frame video camera capable of using its full arsenal of SLR lenses, I have to stop and remind myself that my wants and needs are a very small niche compared to Canon's bigger business. And, unfortunately, that still might mean 1/3" and 1/2" sensors for another couple of years.

Now, Canon could very easily make a "loss leader" product. A camera that's expensive to produce and sells at a loss with a mall market. BUT it would be their flagship camera. The one that gets put in all the trades and on all the glossy print ads. They take loss but reap the PR rewards.

Factor in the world financial meltdown and the future of full-frame video gets even bleaker, IMHO.
Robert Sanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 04:18 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Voorheesville, NY
Posts: 433
I want to pose an additional question. If Canon does put out a "25p only" model of the 5D2, will people in NTSC countries buy it, instead of the existing 30p model, because 25p can be more easily converted to 24p in post?

There also may be a third possibility for new firmwares (in addition to a new 30p+25p firmware, or just a new 25p only firmware/model). Canon may offer a 25p firmware upgrade, only if you send the 5D2 back to their service center. Providing a 25p firmware as a user-installed upgrade, may allow hackers to figure out the 5D2 firmware more rapidly.
Jay Bloomfield is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 05:37 PM   #18
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
While Canon may have divisions, I can't believe that they have absolutely nothing to do with the other. In fact, this camera is clear evidence that they are working in concert. Otherwise, why would a professional camera being shot by users who are supremely aware of the benefits of manual fstops, shutter selection, and ISO, be dumbed down on the video end. Even the lack of 25p is evidence. Canon knows that if the camera had 25p, we would all shoot it in 25, and here in the states slow it down.

The 5D was clearly designed so as it might be impractical for us to manipulate- at least in the way professional are used to. The video aspects of this camera has less control than my HV20, which was designed with similar impairments. With the HV20 many of us found ways to control it nicely. Canon learned from that, and I don't think you can attribute the lack of control to poor design, lack of insight, or any other misunderstanding of the market. I think it is an understanding of the market that caused this camera to be put out here the way it was.

And I do have to laugh a bit about a line like, no professional would use this camera. With the lines of professionalism blurring ever more, and the fact that films made with and VX2100 or P170 have made it to market in the past, I think a statement like that doesn't recognize the inventiveness and imagination that is out there. I for one have climbed on the train, because the promise of "real" 35mm size imager is the "holy grail", and at this price, I have to take a flyer at trying to get control of the beast. I may be sorely dissapointed, but it won't be for lack of trying...
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 06:24 PM   #19
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay Bloomfield View Post
I want to pose an additional question. If Canon does put out a "25p only" model of the 5D2, will people in NTSC countries buy it, instead of the existing 30p model, because 25p can be more easily converted to 24p in post?
Yes, filmmakers would absolutely buy the PAL version (years ago, there were a few American feature films were shot on the PAL version of Sony's PD100 and PD150, because both the temporal and spatial resolution of PAL was better for a film-out). Personally I don't expect Canon to ever add 24p to the 5dMkII, but 25p seems like a much more realistic proposition.

I doubt they would market separate PAL and NTSC versions of the camera -- unlike their counterparts in the video division, the photo division of Canon can mass-produce one single model and sell it worldwide, which I'm sure is cheaper to do.

If Canon offers a 25p firmware update, most of us will gladly pay the fee. This is a $3,000 still camera that just happens to take gorgeous (albeit flawed) full-frame video, and another few hundred bucks for a firmware upgrade to get 24/25p does not make it any less of a bargain.
Ryan Koo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 06:30 PM   #20
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 2,222
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Koo View Post
If Canon offers a 25p firmware update, most of us will gladly pay the fee. This is a $3,000 still camera that just happens to take gorgeous (albeit flawed) full-frame video, and another few hundred bucks for a firmware upgrade to get 24/25p does not make it any less of a bargain.
Competitive pressure from Nikon D90's 24p mode may help. I'd really like to see some crop video modes, both in camcorders and DSLRs, that use a smaller part of the sensor without requiring downsizing (an aid in telephoto imaging) as well as reduce rolling shutter artifacts.
Gints Klimanis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 07:10 PM   #21
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Koo View Post
I doubt they would market separate PAL and NTSC versions of the camera.
I agree. Since video takes a back seat to photos, it would be odd to make separate models based on video frame rate. The current model can drive both NTSC and PAL monitors, so it's clear that they want a single model for both markets.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 08:38 PM   #22
Starway Pictures
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Studio City
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos View Post
While Canon may have divisions, I can't believe that they have absolutely nothing to do with the other. In fact, this camera is clear evidence that they are working in concert.
I didn't say they didn't work together. I know for a fact that the video division was "slightly" involved in helping the Photo division work on the DSP chip. But that's about it. The video division had nothing to do with the design of the camera or the idea of enabling certain video functions.

Quote:
And I do have to laugh a bit about a line like, no professional would use this camera.
Again, I never said that. Point to where I said no "professional" would use this camera. What I said was that Canon is amused that people are trying to turn this into a "movie" camera when that was never their intention.
Robert Sanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 09:42 PM   #23
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sanders View Post
What I said was that Canon is amused that people are trying to turn this into a "movie" camera when that was never their intention.
Seems like it's time for the right hand to check out what the left hand is doing over at Canon.

Filmmakers have always been a pretty resourceful bunch, especially at the lower end of budgets (the very existence of 35mm adapters being a good example). Anyone who couldn't foresee that a camera with a Vistavision-size sensor that records 1080p to CF and takes interchangeable 35mm SLR lenses -- and only retails for $2,700 -- would be aggressively used as a "movie" camera clearly knows nothing about the video market. 'Tis why they're employed in the photo division.

It's as if someone stuck a jet engine and wings on a car, and then were "amused" when people tried to make it fly. What'd they think was going to happen?!
Ryan Koo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 09:59 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bethel, VT
Posts: 824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Koo View Post
Seems like it's time for the right hand to check out what the left hand is doing over at Canon.

Filmmakers have always been a pretty resourceful bunch, especially at the lower end of budgets (the very existence of 35mm adapters being a good example). Anyone who couldn't foresee that a camera with a Vistavision-size sensor that records 1080p to CF and takes interchangeable 35mm SLR lenses -- and only retails for $2,700 -- would be aggressively used as a "movie" camera clearly knows nothing about the video market. 'Tis why they're employed in the photo division.

It's as if someone stuck a jet engine and wings on a car, and then were "amused" when people tried to make it fly. What'd they think was going to happen?!
That's a great analogy.
Jim Giberti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 10:21 PM   #25
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Elk Grove CA
Posts: 6,838
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst View Post
I agree. Since video takes a back seat to photos, it would be odd to make separate models based on video frame rate. The current model can drive both NTSC and PAL monitors, so it's clear that they want a single model for both markets.
By the way, this raises the question. Why not capture to the CF chip, then off load by play back using HDMI cable to an HDMI capture card, using the Pal feed. Won't that get you 25p conversion out of the camera... Again, I am afraid I might be showing my technical ignorance...
__________________
Chris J. Barcellos
Chris Barcellos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 23rd, 2009, 11:22 PM   #26
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos View Post
By the way, this raises the question. Why not capture to the CF chip, then off load by play back using HDMI cable to an HDMI capture card, using the Pal feed. Won't that get you 25p conversion out of the camera... Again, I am afraid I might be showing my technical ignorance...
While this works - and takes care of the crushed blacks and whites, proper gamma and provides audio - it doesn't necessarily do an ideal conversion to 25p. The recording was still at 30p. It will just drop every sixth frame, causing a stutter.

There are a few ways to convert frame rates, none of them perfect:
1) Drop (or repeat) frames,
2) Mix frames, when you really want one in-between,
3) Perform some intensive math that predicts motion and creates brand new images, or
4) Do a combination of all three, depending on motion and other factors.

If there's very little motion, 1 or 2 are fine. If you're looking at random, blurred stuff like a waterfall, 2 works great.

Solution 3 can look excellent when it gets it right and horrid when it gets it wrong. And it takes forever. There are, however, some very expensive hardware boxes that implement solution 4 in real time.

Funny story: they used an early prototype of one of these fantastic boxes for the Olympics a couple decades ago. For the most part, the results were great. Every once in a while, however, the gymnast's leg would come off for a moment and then re-attach itself. Back to the drawing board... ;)
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 05:43 AM   #27
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: auckland,New Zealand
Posts: 26
I am just wondering wether the request of 25P is high enough to make canon make the move. It looks like more ppl actually asking for the full manual control over the 25/24p. As for me, I really want 25P, so I can edit my JVC and A1 footage with 5D2.

I have no idea how is the distribution of 5D2 in other Pal lands, but in New Zealand the whole country is out of stock since early Jan, and no where to buy battery. So I guess it will take some time for the 5D2 actually widely reaches the Pal Land ppl. And until then, don't think they will really care about the 25P. And for now, let's just join the NTSC ppl to demand for full manual control. 25P will follow, once 5D2 widely spreads outside US and JP.

pardon my english...
Aaron Huang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2009, 08:44 PM   #28
Starway Pictures
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Studio City
Posts: 581
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Koo View Post
Seems like it's time for the right hand to check out what the left hand is doing over at Canon.

Filmmakers have always been a pretty resourceful bunch, especially at the lower end of budgets (the very existence of 35mm adapters being a good example). Anyone who couldn't foresee that a camera with a Vistavision-size sensor that records 1080p to CF and takes interchangeable 35mm SLR lenses -- and only retails for $2,700 -- would be aggressively used as a "movie" camera clearly knows nothing about the video market. 'Tis why they're employed in the photo division.

It's as if someone stuck a jet engine and wings on a car, and then were "amused" when people tried to make it fly. What'd they think was going to happen?!
I agree with you on principle. I just want people to get their heads out of the clouds wrt to how far backwards they expect Canon to bend just to cater to a couple hundred ultra-low budget filmmakers. Hell, I would love it if Canon did everything I asked and built everything I wanted. If they did we'd already have a full frame sensor with SLR camera mounts mated to a proper video body with full controls for half the price of RED.

I guess all I'm saying is that our community of "filmmakers" tends to take a tool NEVER intended for their purpose, like the HV20 (my god, it has 24p, what did they expect us to use it for? Idiots!), and then proceeds to bitch and moan about how it doesn't operate properly. And then proceeds to bash the manufacturer with a "tsk tsk" attitude, non-stop. It makes no sense.

I understand people want everything, they want it now, and they want to spend zero money on it. I get it. Independent filmmakers are starved beasts with zero cash who want to shoot Lawrence of Arabia.

Sometimes, though, it feels like we're a bunch of novice carpenters and we need to build a house and all the furniture inside it. But we can only afford one hammer. And then complain that the tiny little hammer we bought for assembling the furniture is inadequate to build the house itself. And then start a thread about how the folks at "Craftsman" are a bunch of idiots.
Robert Sanders is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 12:32 AM   #29
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 92
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Sanders View Post
Sometimes, though, it feels like we're a bunch of novice carpenters and we need to build a house and all the furniture inside it. But we can only afford one hammer. And then complain that the tiny little hammer we bought for assembling the furniture is inadequate to build the house itself. And then start a thread about how the folks at "Craftsman" are a bunch of idiots.
Ooh, battle of the analogies!

No, you're totally right -- we bought a $3 hammer and then we mope about it not performing as well as a $400 nail gun. Or however much nail guns cost.

It's just frustrating since, in this case, our $3 hammer came with a powerful compressed air system. What a great feature, and at such a good price! Unfortunately, the hose connected to the tank only allows through 1/100th of the air the tank is capable of providing. So we sit there staring at the air tank, knowing how well we could build this house, if only we could harness the power of our miracle $3 hammer... but Craftsman (Canon) won't sell us a better hose, since they have their nail gun (video camera) market to protect.

So then we get on the nearest internet message board about hammers, and commiserate.
Ryan Koo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2009, 12:58 PM   #30
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
To continue the hammer story...

And because of the small hose, we buy the other guys nails. And our growing nail collection makes us lean toward the competition for our hammer upgrade.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:05 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network