dSLRs in general, some opinions please
 

Been thinking about upgrading my old canon dSLR and i'm interested in the video side of things but so far as i can tell there's no real dSLR out there that really isn't handicapped. This is how i see things at the moment but please correct me, that's why i'm here :)

(I have an EX1 but i'm looking at a dSLR for form factor and size and access to different lenses)

The canons have awful line artefacts because of the way the sensor is binned, which is a shame as a 7D would be ideal.

Not sure about the nikons in the same way but i don't think they're 1080p, but the rolling shutter is quite bad, worse than usual?

The GH1 and 4/3s suffer from poor compression but in someways offer the best features but a smaller sensor

The Pentax seems to tick an awful lot of boxes. Good compression ratios, only 720p though and only 30fps.

I have an LX3 which does really nice 720p in mjpeg, if that had manual control it would be very useful (tiny form factor and wide lens)

So there isn't really an obvious choice, no 1080p 24/25fps and any HDMI outs on the above don't output the full resolution.

Is that pretty much the state of things at the moment?

cheers,
paul

Very much depends on what you need to shoot. I also have an EX1 and am about to buy a 7D (or something similar) in 2010. It's nearly ideal for what I want. I'm hoping for a few tweaks in 2010 with it, but I'd gladly take it as it is.

But these are NOT video camera replacements. They are like film cameras that shoot on CF cards. If you think of them in that way, you'll be much more in line with what they do and don't do.

Just to clarify, the two Pentax options are:
K7: 1536 x 1024 (3:2 aspect) or 1280 x 720 (16:9) at 30fps
Kx: 1280 x 720 (16:9) at 24fps

The K7 will resize to 1080P quite well ... but as you say, its not 24fps.

Perrone,

Looking at the original 1080p download from for example, it's my humble opinion that the video output from the 7D is unacceptable for anything other than family snaps (which to be fair to canon is probably what it's for). The compression artefacts are incredible (i'm assuming this is direct from camera), the complete lack of colour tonality, people become just like watercolour paintings. This is something i see from most low bit rate AVC style compression, including the GH1.

In this case the little LX3 actually produces better video at 720p mjpeg, which can be up-rezzed and still look better than this 7D example.

So right now, there's little point in upgrading my dSLR as it still takes great stills!

the dSLRs seem so close, but they fail at the last stage - compression. Perhaps it's intentional while the likes of canon prepare next generation video cameras. Maybe 2010 will see some improvement.

I've yet to find full res examples of the Pentax. Thanks for the clarification Graham

Seeing websized example really makes everything look much better, difficult to judge from them

cheers
paul

Well in all fairness, you're looking at a 2Mbps recompression (Vimeo) of a 48Mbs capture from the 7D.

The 7D is fully capable of capturing footage that will equal or exceed my EX1 in "look". That is why I am buying one. The differences technically are there, and that cannot be ignored. But judging the cameras by what you see on Vimeo makes little sense.

Raw footage from the Pentax K7 can be downloaded here: Pentax K-7 Review: 21. Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

And for the K-x here: Pentax K-x Review: 20. Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

Note that the reviewers did nothing to limit shutter speed so some of the bright light clips look nasty in terms of motion - but IMHO the colors and tonality are acceptable.

Am i? I downloaded the source movie (126MB Quicktime .mp4), i'm under the impression that's the original file vimeo use to compress with. Please tell me if i'm wrong because i would love a 7D. (When you register with vimeo you can download some of the original video files if the original poster allows for that)

I have not seen anything out of these cameras that can come close to an EX1, especially with regards to resolution. I think there are some more scientific tests out there with resolution charts that show how poor the 5D is and i suspect the 7 would be similar.

cheers
paul

Vimeo erases the source files after 1 week. All that is left is the conversion file they've done that is left for download. I've been a Vimeo user nearly since they started. Migrated there when Stage6 was winding down.

I own an EX1 and am currently grading a film shot with a 5D and was on set doing the dailies with that 5D. Trust me, the images under many circumstances are nearly identical. The DSLR slaughters the EX1 in any scenario where the EX1 would need to come off -3 gain.

Yes, the resolution of the EX1 is better. And depending on the shot this will make a difference. I've seen the charts for the 5D and the 7D. I understand the moire patterns, chroma noise in the details, etc. Again, it's not perfect. But the Canon's are very, very good in how the look on many real world subjects. I've looked at the output on my 72" plasma, and on a 40ft screen. It's good enough.

If you take a frame (say from the video 3) you see colour moireing over the grey areas indicating downsampling problems with the debayering. Also the compression is really quite harsh too, the people look very pixellated, the person with the red top looks like the colour sampling way lower than the resolution (even at 4:2:0).

I've included a crop example (the original is mjpeg so each frame is self contained and i saved it with jpg maximum to preserve it).

This is not 1500 x 1024 resolution in anyones book, a decent 720p has far more resolution than this.

I really hope i don't sound like i'm trolling here, but i see a nice active forum with people using dSLRs and it makes me wonder what i'm missing! These cameras produce wonder stills and have great sensors, the compression and downsampling from native resolution is killing them.

I'm going to put together a comparison image with the 7D, Pentax and the little LX3 to try and show what i'm seeing.

cheers
paul

As i just said i'm not look to incite anyone but looking for real world examples.

Good news that the 126MB cannot be the original.

The canons are certainly excellent for shallow DOF shots - most of the detail is blurred which gets compressed very easily leaving more compression room for what's in focus. It's on detail - from the sea, leaves, grass, wide shots, clothing - that the real test is.

So, what i'd love to see if something from the 7D (or even 5D) that you'd consider a good example of what the cameras can do? Can you point me to any places with source footage?

You say you're grading the footage, do you have any examples showing the kind of range you're seeing.

Thanks Perrone, it would be really useful!

[i just want to add that i did find some source (women throwing a frisbee) and yes the compression is substantially better then the other examples i've found, although the source was seriously sharpened - i'd love to see more, it's quite difficult finding the original files!]

cheers
paul

For me, at least, a better comparison is my K-x ($500 on EBay) versus my Canon HF100 ($500 on EBay). The HF10 is sharper, useable for 'run and gun', can record for hours and is fairly resistant to moire. The K-x provides interchangeable lenses, far more DoF control (more 'filmic') and has better low-light capabilities.

For $1000 I now have both - life is good!

(Incidentally, that K7 clip does look bad - that subject material is poorly suited to the camera's abilities. Check out the K-x clips of the soldiers, and the fish .... they were OKish and encouraged me to buy the camera).

EDIT: Also, it's important to be aware of this: http://prolost.com/blog/2009/12/3/yo...elieve-me.html

Here is an ungraded snap from one of the scenes. This is straight out of the camera, handheld shot (well shoulder mount).

Perrone,

Yes, that looks great by comparison to what i've managed to find myself. That's a really positive image and suddenly i'm interested again.

This is from a 5D?

So bearing in mind you probably have a lot of footage from this where would you say the footage doesn't work? What are the problem areas from your experience?

cheers and many thanks for this
paul

Yes, untouched screengrab. Shoulder mount was a RedRock We were going to do it on the Fig Rig, but changed our minds at the last moment..

http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/v...Break_D197.jpg


http://i666.photobucket.com/albums/v...Break_D290.jpg

If both the camera and the subject are moving, you need to be careful. If they are moving in opposite directions, you're in trouble. The camera does not do well when it's moving quickly. Keep it on sticks, a dolly, a slider, etc., and you'll be fine.

>If both the camera and the subject are moving, you need to be careful.

Is that because of rolling shutter or compression artefacts or the way the sensor is subsampled (binned)?

In a locked off shot, for example the one you showed (i'm assuming it's locked off), how is the fine movement from frame to frame on the guys glasses? A concern would be that the aliasing due to the binning of the sensor would show up in subtle movements. Is that a problem too?

thanks
paul

All the DSLRs have drawbacks...but considering that they are just add-ons for the main function of producing still images, some of the cameras are well capable of also producing pro-class video results if placed in the right hands. Have a look at this stunning clip from the 5D Mk II:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-eo...wonderful.html

I suppose it all depends on your own requirements and needs. I'm sure that more positive 'video' controls and enhanced built-in handling options and frame rates with less compression/moire/artefacts etc., will be available in the upgraded models during the next couple of years...but the present options from major companies already offer viable alternatives to normal video cameras for use in certain situations.

To be honest, I laugh to think that in the real world, the majority of TV programs in 2010 are still broadcasting in SD and even all the HD programs and feature films are compressed to lower rez before the viewer actually watches them on their large flat-screen HD TVs. The same of course can be said about almost everything viewed on the internet.

Tony,

Some very pretty pictures undoubtably. Although all of these cameras look great down-sampled to that resolution. I've just been trying to quantify for myself what the actual real capture quality of these cameras are like right now and whether i consider any good enough to get. The answer is possibly although i would love to see full res source at it's worst first!

cheers
paul

I've posted several examples of that here in the past. Not sure which part of the forum though. If I get a chance, I'll look for it today.

that shot I posted earlier, that you presumed was locked off, was not as I alluded to in my posting. That shot was taken on a shoulder mount.

Paul,
It sounds like you're doing a lot of research on these - certainly more than I did before picking up a 5d2, and I don't know what your situation or application is.

You should rent one and try it out. Most of the time I'm still blown away by the images I get. However, there are scenes where aliasing artifacts persist (horizontal blinds, striped shirts) etc.

I'm not sure what you're filming. But I tend to treat the 5d2 like a film camera, which is mostly on a tripod, rarely if ever hand held, though I've used it more lately with a glidecam, with good results.

These cameras are by no means perfect, and for the price I wouldn't expect it. I have more issues with audio than with the image quality, but then I now record audio seperately (again, just like film). I just ordered an variable ND filter as well as I tend to blow out highlights when striving for bokeh.

I think you really need to consider your application, and rent one and try it out in that situation. If this crop of DSLR aren't good enough yet, then certainly in the next few years things will improve... and there's always the Scarlet.

7D video compression
 

Hello Paul, i am the author of this video. The original file have aproximately 800MB this is a mp4 compression format that i upload to vimeo, and have a grong color corretion, (testing filters in magic looks) for tests purposes. The original footage is superior than my EX1 sure. I will post some comparision tests EX1 vs 7D later.

Any questions feel free.

Cortez

Cortez,

That's very kind of you and would be fantastic to see some source samples.

I may still get a 7D because the form factor is ideal for a particular type of work my wife would be doing.

After a bit of research, the main concern is the very low real resolution due to the line skipping (and line skipping a debayer too) and how the compression affect things in the real world.

- shimmering due to the relatively low line resolution of the camera.

- how the compression deals with slow moving detail.

To test this i'd love to see a range of source frames sequentially, a second or so in their original format from this sequence.

Also AVC compression tends to turn subtle details into a watercolour effect, i don't think the level of compression for the 7D is too bad and i can see from Perrones sample that flesh tones seem pretty good however any wide shots with people and detail in would be a real test.

If you get the time for some EX1 vs 7D side by sides then some wide shots with detail and subtle movement would be a fantastic test!

Thank you so much,
paul

honestly, it depends on what you intend to shoot...

I used a 5dMKII for a rave and it fell on its face. The CMOS failed so bad it isnt funny. The footage is usable however when analysing it, i personally do not believe it lives up to the hype.

Combing effects from huge LED panels, strobe lights and scanners as well as simple motion and panning break the imagery to a point of dissapointment.

I had it running at 1/125 with a high ISO to alleviate the issue of slow shutter blur.
For the most it was fine, but when it came to hiting the lights, forget it

by all accounts, the canon 1DmkIV is getting pretty close.... very little jello, selectable frame rates, amazing low light capabilities... but it still falls down when it comes to aliasing/moire/sound and actual resolution.

The fact is, the vDSLRs are not there yet... within 2010 though, I expect some outstanding releases that fix alot of the problems.

I think the resolution/moire issue is the biggest hurdle. I've seen a handful a nice pieces but a lot of examples that really don't look HD at all. The shallow DOF hides that very well sometimes.

I don't really see why they can't scale down in hardware, i wouldn't have thought that it would be that much extra processing. Even a simple scaling algorithm.

Makes me wonder how intentional it is - after all canon make some nice prosumer video cameras too. If dSLR did actually produce real 1080p images with an APSC sensor and lens options it would surely kill off the prosumer line. Afterall that's most peoples holy grail.

So i'm not so sure we'll see that much improvement unless of course canon put these sensors into their prosumer cameras - canon don't have a high end to protect unlike sony and panasonic.

cheers

Let's not forget, they have never come out and said "this video feature is Pro/Broadcast quality"..... it was tagged on to some great DSLRs and the chips were not designed for pro video. They do amazingly well considering.

I think the next set of chips may well be built with pro video (as well as pro imagery) in mind. The Digic V chip is said to have video specific processing power... Sony have also said that IF they do get on board, it will be when the video they can output is pro standard.

I'm sure they will put this technology into a video camera body too... as you suggest. It is a logical move and would also steal some thunder from RED if Scarlet launches this year.

I think they will keep progressing with video DSLRs too though.... the demand for B cam/small format video cameras seem pretty big.

If someone released a 7D type camera that outputs: raw/great codec... s35/FF, 1080p/1fps-72fps.. no jello/moire/aliasing/good sound/hdmi out.... $5000 or under and just about everyone in the industry would snap one (or ten) up.

These steps all seem doable within the next year. Maybe in the form of a video add-on, so that photographers don't go crazy.

Next year, possibly... this year, no. Here's why: Canon Reveals Their Next Pro Video Cam at DVInfo.net

Lord amighty. All this is now available in a portable package that costs only 500 clams, and people are COMPLAINING? The video image doesn't quite measure up to cameras costing orders of magnitude more? Color me shocked.

Add to that the fact that this camera will happily use any K-mount, or with an $11 adapter, any M42-mount lens ever made. Never mind that it's an excellent DSLR to boot.

I know where my next 500 bucks is going. For that price, grab this creative tool and figure out how to use it to its best advantage (I figure B-roll for my HD100) and run with it.

That article is pure speculation and is in no way related to DSLRs anyway.

Of course it's related. You brought it up yourself:

I've addressed exactly this point in the article that I've linked to... specifically the last portion of it which discusses exactly what you're talking about here, which is D-SLR image sensor technology in a video camera body. And I've carefully explained why it's not going to happen this year. I wouldn't have posted the link if I didn't think it was relevant to this conversation.

As far as it being "pure speculation," I have already pointed that out in my article, but anyone who knows me and knows my history is fully aware that my "speculation" is highly informed and carries an awful lot of weight. In other words, I'm usually right about this sort of thing.

Besides, Michael Galvan has already confirmed my prediction -- but he's just the first of many folks who are finding out on their own that what I've said in that article is true. Hope this helps,

I'm already there and for precisely the reasons you state:

#1: Big upgrade from my previous still camera AS A STILL CAMERA. Low light performance is orders of magnitude better.

#2: Excellent learning tool at an unbeatable pricepoint. So the footage isn't perfect. It is still an excellent learning tool so I can have a clue as to what I'm doing.

Oh for sure. Although i'd happily pay $$$$ (well ££££ in my case) for a dSLR that did do it properly, that's not the issue.

I think a lot of people are believing and expecting that it's pro quality and it's nowhere near.

Also i think the frustration is that it's *so close*, almost there expect for some dodgy compression and a scaling artefact. As a some time developer and tinkerer with sensors and electronics i really don't see it being that difficult from what they've all got. So I assume it's on purpose.

What worries me a little is that the visual quality bar is being lowered all the time. We now accept rolling shutter, even in movies. And i suspect we will soon accept aliasing in movies. But i guess that's the nature of the game.

cheers
paul

If Red deliver anything of their DSMC (?) system this year then perhaps others will be spurred on to do something as well

cheers
paul

Wow,
I'm really glad I'm not an "expert" and see things like you guys. It would be so hard to enjoy my job. I thought that clip looked phenomenal. I have a 5DmKII and am consitently blown away by the image quality. But then I don't care what the charts, tests, or "experts" say I care what my eyes see. And in almost every case this camera's image quality far exceeds any medium I have for playing it. Ignorance is truly bliss... However, there are some major drawbacks from a useability standpoint. Mainly audio, formfactor, and lack of autofocus. Those things you have to weigh carefully, but image quality is not an issue unless you have a lot of charts and stuff that you want to shoot.
Bill

As you say, ignorance is bliss. But I've shot a Mark 2, and I've watched the quality fall apart. Mostly due to codec. In most circumstances it really does do a nice job, but it fails terribly under stress.

These cameras are getting there. They are just not quite there yet...

I don't think you'll be finding a RED S35 sensor camera at DSLR prices, this year or any time soon. Even the 2/3" Scarlet is the price of a high end DSLR. The first new 35mm sensor camera will be the Epic, which is closer to an Arri than a DSLR in cost terms.

A 7D is pretty much the same size as a RED S35. All i'm looking for (in a dSLR) is decent scaling of the full image and better compression. Neither of which are big technical barriers.

For example, i'd have the scaling of the GH1 with the compression of the 7D and it would be perfect for my personal use or some low end jobs. There's no dSLR that ticks those boxes right now. The Pentax suffers bad compression, weird pixel sizes and inflexible frame rates.

And of course it needs to take great stills, after all it is a stills camera :)

If we're producing something professionally then we'd just hire something appropriate for the job be it digital or film. In those cases it's about work flow, crew experience and form factor.

cheers
paul

Technically it's possible, whether it can be done at a price that stills photographers are not going to complain about is another matter. The RED cameras go for the motion aspect, which requires more processing power than 5 fps motor drive commonly found on stills cameras.

You really have to wonder how long it will be before a company like Nikon, who to my knowledge doesn't have a hand in the pro video market, will just create a new Video camera with a DSLR sized 35mm sensor that does do most everything everyone wants. Developing a new product takes time. You're talking about designing a whole new camera body style, and improving some of the tech that you use in your current cameras, but it seems like the potential sales would more than offset the dev cost, wouldn't it?

Wouldn't many of us pony up 3k-5k or more for a camera that did full 1920x1080 (or better) recording in various framerates in a video camera body that had the ability to use DSLR lenses? That recorded in AVCHD full 24mb/s bitrate or maybe even something better?

I sure would. You'd be rivaling Red for some of their market on the new scarlet, even if you didn't make this new camera able to shoot in 2k. A lower price would make many be more than happy with 1080p.

I admire Red for what they did. They took that thought of, "This is what people want, we could do it for much cheaper than it's being done now," and went out and created a product that is in such high demand that they can't keep up with it.

Yes, not creating this super product may be better for the bottom line right now, but you have to think that if these companies wait too long, someone else is going to swoop in and snatch up the market.

5FPS at 24MP is the D3x the D3s does 8 FPS at 12 MP, so that a lot of data going though the circuits, what catches them (and most DSLR) is the buffer isn't designed to do this continuously.

Personally I'm waiting for a D700v or D3v which is more focused towards Video, I still want the PhotoCamera part, but by tacking on Video (please Nikon - 1080p!) it reduces the number of cameras I need to carry to an event (as people now knowing about these dual cameras are asking for Photo & Video).