You're right. Instead they're seriously thinking of using the Nikon D90 D-SLR for cinema release, since it is indeed equipped with 24p.

If you are going to make a low/no budget feature length film with a Sony EX1 with a Letus, why not use the Mark II 5D? Better control, better low light, less noise at high gain. You would be recording the audio separately anyway. Used properly I can see this camera giving better results than an EX1/Letus combo.

Of course, you still aren't going to really need 24p, because seriously, what are the chances of needing to really go out to a film print?

Isn't 24p motion part of the cine look?

But Honestly I am one of the guys that can't see the emperors new cloths. I have never really *seen* 24p or any frame rate difference for that matter. But I know what looks like film and what doesn't.

Tyler, you must be joking?!!!

Idono I think tyler might be right. I never liked the ex/lex combo almost perfferd a stock hvx.

Maybe it was a little tongue in cheek, but look at what Vincent Laforet did with the camera for 72 hours (and he is a self proclaimed still picture guy only). Now take Vincent Laforet's deal and make it an hour and a half with a quality story and good actors. All the audio is recorded separately, not in camera. It would look better than at least 65% of the no/low budget indie films I've seen. There are folks making feature length indie films with EX1/Letus combos that chew up and eat light leaving you to have to shoot at f/1.4 where everything looks blurry if an actor scrunches their nose. So, maybe I'm not joking!

I've never done anything outside of the broadcast television arena, but I'm definitely shooting my first short once I get my camera.

"I've never done anything outside of the broadcast television arena, but I'm definitely shooting my first short once I get my camera."

same here.

I still think think recording audio straight into the camera wouldn't be that bad. Unless I was using a cineform then I would send the audio into the recorder.

Fascinating thread. I hope the PR & Business Dev. honchos at Nikon & Canon and reading it carefully- including between the lines.
Over and over I keep heading a scream in my ear- "The Hybrids are Coming!"

Have you seen the output of this camera full res Steve or are you just offering a blank opinion?

Of course this is a serious tool and of course it can be used for real production.

The specs a re real and the DOF and FOV are better than any adapter will deliver even very expensive P&S adapters.

Why wouldn't it be used to produce serious work...because it doesn't look like what you expect an HD camera to look like?

I said right at the start of my post that I hadn't seen much from you, I did admit that. But clips that I have seen have been dreadful. I wouldn't pay much notice to specs, there's much more to it than that. The way people are talking you'd think that the Sony and Panasonic broadcast engineers must be sitting at home kicking themselves for not coming up with a camera that could do all that there's can, but be a fraction of the size and price and have loads much advantages too! There's a reason why they haven't and it's because it ain't good enough to do a top-level job. It'll do top-level stills, same as a Motorola Razr will do top-level 'phone calls, 'cos that's what it's for. But it's just like your Motorola owner thinking, "wow, I won't need to carry a big expensive SLR around now 'cos my 'phone'll do it!"
But you are right, as I admitted right at the start, I don't know that much about it, and am prepared to be proved wrong - but I won't hold my breath!
Steve

I don't agree with your assertions except your last sentence.

Trust me you'll be proven wrong.

Lets see what the next Hollywood blockbuster or Planet Earth for that matter is shot on, get the feeling it may not a 5D. But why not, if it's as good, a fraction a price and very compact, for the nature work at least it'd beat the competition hands down.
Steve

Steve, I think you may be missing what we are saying. We'd all love a 5 or 6 million dollar budget to film our new movies with. So of course "hollywood blockbusters" or Planet Earth are never going to be shot on a 5D Mark II. However, there is a whole world of anti-hollywood (thank God) independent filmmakers out there with excellent stories to tell shooting with camera like the EX1 and XLH1. They throw 35mm adapters on them to try to improve the look of their art. THEY are the people I think this camera is going to open up new opportunities for.

And you say clips you have seen have been dreadful... have you seen "Reverie"? No it doesn't look like it was shot with an arri... but then again the whole camera body costs about as much as 2 minutes of film stock!

But Planet Earth was shot on lowly Varicam, and a lot of the talk seems to be putting this in at least that class, and it's quite obviously not (even without having the seen the images I'd put money on that).
Steve

This is my opinion of all thats been writen so far, not just on this forum.

I think the winner of all the buzz on the 5D is Vincent Laforet, and he will or could probably shoot his next work with cinema camera and a much more big budget.
Me I am not decided on 5D or D90, and I know that improved version of those camera is
almost ready to be shipped by Nikon and Canon.
Its an interresting time to be a member of dvinfo

I agree with all of you:

- Steve, because the 5D2 is functionally hobbled by the video-mode being a mere adjunct to the camera's main function, which reduces it to just a promise of technologies to come;

- Jim & Tyler, because the image-quality of the sensor, not to mention the universe of available glass, compared to other available video cameras render those objections irrelevant—to some …

… like me.

Single sensor that has to be de-bayered. Also, how do they get down to 1920 res, if they window it you won't get your 35mm DoF anymore, if they down-convert then that has quality implications too. How good is that rolling shutter? Didn't look good from the (admittedly limited) shots I've seen.
If it's as good as a Sony 790/PDW700, or a Panasonic Varicam/HPX3000 etc. then I'd buy one (or several) straight away, but if it's not then it can't be considered a top-notch video camera. If it's as good as an XL-H1 then it may be considered a pro-sumer quality video camera, but I'm sure it won't even be close to that. How could it be, and just think how many XL sales Canon would be robbing themselves of.
Steve

However much they mask the frame the dof remains the same Steve. If they reduce the focal lengths to match the smaller gate then yes, the dof tables will be turned.

If you've got a smaller frame and the same angle of view you'll have more DoF. So for any given shot, say a head and shoulders, if you're 35mm frame say on an 85mm, at S16 frame you'd need around a 30mm lens and you'd have more DoF.
Steve

You're saying what I'm saying Steve. If you have the 'same angle of view' with a smaller frame, then you've reduced the focal length.

Or another way to look at it is that with the same lens on, to get the same shot size you'll have to move back from say 10 feet when shooting full frame to 30 feet shooting windowed to 1080, again, more DoF.
Steve

So in other words, you ARE losing your 35mm DoF that a lot of people love and seem to be thinking they'll get from this camera.
Steve

I don't think so, I think that would have been mentioned by this time by Vincent or several other people that have had it hands on. Plus, the video shot is evidence enough that depth of field control is remarkable. Have you downloaded the raw straight from camera "Reverie" clips yet, Steve?

I'm assuming the camera is using the entire sensor area and downsizing the image much in the same way that it uses the entire sensor area even when you take a JPEG image at it's smallest size with the camera.

Also, again I don't think anyone on earth is thinking this $2700 DSLR camera is going to kill or even be equal to a F900 or Varicam!

"I don't think anyone on earth is thinking this $2700 DSLR camera is going to kill or even be equal to a F900 or Varicam" - why not, spec's as good plus you get 35mm DoF apparently, and much cheaper.

If it's reading the whole sensor area then down-scaling surely this has implications for the compression scheme, as it'll be working with vast amounts of data? This is why the RED can do 120 fps in windowed mode and only 30 in 4k mode, 'cos it's about the same amount of data (120 x 2000 x 1000 vs 30 x 4000 x 2000 roughly?)
Steve

Well, one reason I don't think it will kill the F900 and Varicam is because the pros that can afford to own an F900 or Varicam aren't going to be able to wrap their heads around this little thing. :)

Besides, I think the Red already killed them.

As for scaling down. Digital SLR cameras have been doing it just fine for.... well, ever. They have menu settings to change the size of the photos taken from RAW to large, medium or small JPG. They can even take a RAW + a medium or small JPG. So it shouldn't be an issue. I admit though, I don't know all the technicalities behind it.

The exiting moment will come when Canon throws the stuff in the 5D Mark II into a proper video camera body with proper video camera controls. NAB maybe... hopefully!

I believe that the 5D is ganging neighboring pixels together with simple addition. That keeps the full frame, and reduces the data to the processor/compressor. Unfortunately, it introduces aliasing artifacts. If you downscale to 720p or below, that will help deal with the aliasing to some degree.

In a professional environment, specs and even price take a second seat to reliability, proven workflow and compatibility. Right now, if an organization hires a local shooter in a distant city to shoot on HDCAM or DVPROHD, they pop in the tape and start working as both are mature media. The RED workflow is constantly evolving and still showing growing pains.

I haven't yet heard of anyone shooting with a B4 mount on the their RED, but there are certainly many projects currently being shot on the 2/3" systems that would require the flexibility and speed of a 2/3" zoom lens--even a Super16 lens on the RED in windowed mode would not have the same range.

For feature and narrative style shooting, I would probably want to go with a RED over the other two formats at this point, although I'd want to make sure we had two bodies to insure against issues on set (which, frankly, there are still quite a few being reported with the RED, from overheating to mystery crashes).

Bottom line is that when time=money, the camera gear has to be as bulletproof as possible and also have the appropropriate form factor/ergonomics etc. to get the job done efficiently.

You sure are sure of a lot of things.

I'm a full time producer using both Canon and JVC HD and both Letus and P&S adapters.

I've seen the output of the 5DII in a pre-production model as have thousands of other photographers, and film makers and videographers and every one else who's seen the straight footage from Reverie (that I've heard from) was blown away by the quality and, in fact, several HD shooters compared it directly to top HD output.

You're really making a lot of noise with no visual reason to do so - just supposition.

There's very good reason to expect that the 5DII output could exceed HDV output.

THe DOF and FOV make it superior as a film making tool to any current HD/adapter system.

I think we understand that you doubt it - that really doesn't mean anything to people who've already seen it's early quality.

So what's your point?

I'm not making a lot of noise, just a little bit - putting forward my thoughts and opinions, kind of the point of a forum, no?
I've no axe to grind, it's not a camera that I'd ever buy, nor is shallow DoF, drama work etc., what I do, I'm just surprised at how much interest this seems to be generating, and really would be shocked to find out that it rivals even Z1, XL-H1 etc., let alone top-level cameras.
Steve

I guess it depends on what you mean by 'rivals' - in terms of sheer image quality you just need to watch Laforet's behind-the-scenes of Reverie to see back-to-back shots of the XHA1 and the 5DmkII under the same lighting conditions... based on that I wouldn't use the term 'rivals' as it tends to imply that they are close when in fact the gap between the two is huge (in the 5D's favor).

If you are referring to ergonomics and standard features on pro video cameras then it's a different story - the 5D doesn't really rival the cameras you mentioned as it's lacking several important features.

The question is really whether the gains in image quality are sufficient to outweigh the inconvenience of missing pro features, and that depends a lot on the type of video you shoot. I think the biggest market will be those who are currently using 35mm lens adapters on various cameras. For those using them on things like the HV20 it's a no-brainer, as you're already working under the same limitations as the 5D in terms of controls... if you're using an adapter on something else (HVX200, EX1, etc) losing some of those controls may be worth the tradeoff to eliminate the cumbersome adapter and gain significant low-light sensitivity.

I talked to a photographer who shoots with an early version 5D (not sure which one), and he said you really need "L" series lenses to get the full benefit of the 21.1 mpixel sensor on the Mark II.

Those aren't cheap. The difference in a 50mm L and regular 50mm is $1,200.00

Can anyone confirm whether you need that level of quality in glass.

L Series glass is amazingly nice, but in no way necessary to achieve great photos. The L Series is about more than just higher quality glass. They have better insides, better focusing, tougher build, ect. However, Canon makes great mid range glass that looks really nice.

I've read in more than a couple reviews that people have mentioned that Canon's 50mm f/1.8 lens that costs $79.95 tested as taking more detailed photographs than their 24-70mm f/2.8 L series lens set at 50mm. Granted it's a plastic lens and doesn't focus as fast. Reading that made me go out and get one. Here's a photo from a shoot I just did a couple weeks ago with it.

http://www.sybilludingtonmovie.com/i...ast/micah1.jpg

My point is, no, you in no way need to spend $20,000 on L glass to make great pictures. However, the nice thing to know is that when you do drop a couple grand on a lens, it's for life as you'll use it for years and years.

You do to impress other photographers David, but you most certainly don't to impress clients. For that you need skill, imagination, experience and the ability to get the job done, on time and within budget.

tom.

That's the answer I has hoping for.

Thanks

And you definitely don't need L-Series glass for video. 1080p is roughly 2MP.

While I am probably not going to buy the 5D, I am interested to see how the innovation filters down into Canon's video line. It would be great to see them improve upon the chips, work on some of the issues such as rolling shutter, and put it in a video camera body. That is what really got me excited when I heard about the new 5D (and the D90). It will be exciting to see what happens the next year or so.

Nicely put ;) Actually, the whole resolution is king argument is as old as Ansel Adams Vs The lyrical impressionist photogs of his time.
I've written about it ad naseum.

Based on some of the not so great art I've seen made with reeelly Hi Def Cams, I can beat many with my cellphone cam set on 'Video'.

The best gear just gives the best production an edge for the BIG screen.

Don't forget you can rent these lenses too. My local shop runs from $15-$100 a day for L series glass, with the vast majority of lenses running about $30/day. Friday afternoon to monday morning is a 1 day charge, and a week is a 3 day charge, so you're not looking at a lot of money to pick up 2 or 3 good lenses for a shoot.

I ordered the kit lens as a general purpose walking around lens, and I'll probably pick up the 50mm 1.4, but beyond that I expect to just rent whatever I need for each specific shoot.

You certainly won't have to use L lenses for good video on the 5D MKII, but they can help. L lenses typically have outstanding contrast, great color transmission, great bokeh, low distortion, and minimal CA...things that will show up in either HD or DSLR resolutions.

Pat

well i don't if they would show up I mean hd is only 2mp while those lenses are designed to do 20 something mp.

Does anybody know how the whole 24p thing is going with canon?