OT: Dang, getting 5D lust...

Coursedesign wrote on 4/4/2010, 6:01 PM
Yarra Valley (Oz) wine commercial shot with a Canon 5DMkII DSLR

Sigh.... Hard to look away from that quality. Even footage from a $15,000 regular pro camcorder wouldn'a looked as nice.

Mmmmmm....

I can smell a revolution in the coming.

Ten years from now we may even see these big sensors in video-optimized cameras....

If only Canon had a completely unreasonable guy at the helm, like one company that can't be mentioned here.

Then the video camera department would be told to get together with the still guys to worship Kannon (aka Kwannon), the ancient Goddess of Mercy that gave the company its name, and create a "masterpiece large format camcorder," or end up with cement shoes at the bottom of Tokyo Bay.

:O)

Comments

farss wrote on 4/4/2010, 9:20 PM
The 5D seems the best road to go down, no risk of cooking something. Still a beach to work with though. Try getting a feed from it to the video village., just not enough silicon in the box. Maybe I should buy one and fire up the Dremel. Probably end up with something like a Red though :(

We'll have the reworked Zacuto viewfinder in a couple of days and a full set of 'cine' primes soon. You're still looking at around $15K all up.

The new Arri is out and about, if you don't mind the Euro 50K price tag. Takes two quick snapshot per frame, the second one just for the highlights.

Bob.

UlfLaursen wrote on 4/4/2010, 9:34 PM
We'll have the reworked Zacuto viewfinder in a couple of days

If you have the time and possibility to test it out, it would be great to know how it is - I am looking at this one for my 550D too. I shot some tests outside yesterday in quite bright light and it was hard to focus accurate wihtout a viewfinder.

Thanks.

/Ulf
farss wrote on 4/4/2010, 10:11 PM
Oh hang on, oops on my part.
This is a loupe that fits onto the camera's LCD screen.
The old design was held on by double sided tape, the new one has a plate that goes under the camera and from that the loupe is held in place. Same basic loupe, just better mouting as the old one would fall off and part of the screen was hidden.
All you really get is an enlarged view of the LCD and as you say you can see it in daylight.

I have the Hoodman one on my EX1 and these gizmos are generally a must have unless you have an expensive 'broadcast' viewfinder when focussing is critical.

Bob.
DGates wrote on 4/4/2010, 11:18 PM
It will be a lot sooner than 10 years before we see these in video cameras.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 5:56 AM
Due to compartmentalization and infighting for resources within the big companies, each division is only working towards its own goals.

The end result of that is that the division managers' thumbs are kept warmer than the other fingers, and we don't get the cameras we deserve. Until much later than it could have been.

Canon for example could have gone all out and by now totally owned this market. They did it before with SLRs for the pro market, at a time when Nikon was satisfied with what they were doing...until one day all anyone could see at major public events was a sea of white telephoto lenses.

Nikon? Could still do it, but they don't have a camcorder division to lean on, so they'd have to learn from scratch (which alas can be an advantage at times).

Sony has the most pro camcorders of all the companies that also sell DSLRs, but then that is a problem for them. Do they want to compete with their lucrative $200,000 F35s etc.? No, better wait for a competitor to do that...
Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/5/2010, 7:36 AM

Perhaps you'd be interested in reading this post (#22) by Alister Chapman in these regards. It includes some image comparisons.


Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 8:51 AM
Thanks Jay,

That comparison should be very helpful for anyone contemplating a T2i as a drop-in replacement for a 5DMkII.

Actually, my interest (and the main difference) is not in raw resolution.

I am seeking a tonal rendition that is more like that of a 6x6 cm or a 4"x5" still camera.

Look at 35 mm feature films from the 1960s or 70s. The resolution is laughably low, but the tonal rendition can be quite nice still (when shot and printed competently).

35 mm film SLRs reached a point with modern emulsions where the net resolution was often indistinguishable from that of medium format cameras. But the tonal rendition? Not even close, and this difference can be seen even in low resolution halftone newspaper photos.

Full format DSLRs (like the 5D) are getting quite close. A DP friend of mine also shoots stills for movie posters using a Canon 1Ds, they're quite decent.

Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 8:52 AM
And, yeah, the ARRI Alexa seems a major step forward.

Hope they are able to make it work (they usually do).
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 4/5/2010, 9:40 AM
Even i don't care for the images in the OP's original link (they still have this infomercial quality to it) the 5D/7D are pretty incredible. That said though you have to remember a few things.
1. It ain't 35mm film. Look at recent Zacuto DSLR comparison video and you will be blown away how much higher in latitude film still is.

2. The aliasing of the DSLR is HORRIBLE. Thus if you shoot a wide vista trying to have everything sharp you will be in for a nasty surprise. This has something to do with the fact that even though the sensor of the DSLR is extremely high resolution to get video out of that sensor the camera needs to dump all that date and fast, so the engineers came up with a solution... drop every other line when dumping the date. In other words: shoot shots with tons of blurriness = beautiful image; shoot the footage with tons of sharp wides = failure to understand the gear's limitation.



Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 9:59 AM
There is no question that current DSLRs have lots of limitations, and they are a PITA to shoot with.

OTOH, I have spent more than four decades getting around the limitations of past formats, whether film emulsions or early analog and digital video formats (blech!).

Shooting film without knowing its limitations will likely result in blown out shadows, just like shooting video without knowing its limitations will likely result in blown out highlights.

And then you have all the other issues of HD being too sharp, film being too slow, and a hundred other things.

It's pretty funny how the DSLR revolution started with the Reverie short. That was just a prime example of shooting within the camera's limitations, to the point where people thought the beautiful footage would translate to their production setups automatically.
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 4/5/2010, 10:11 AM
I'm pretty sure it did NOT start with some guy borrowing the camera to do what it was capable to do... He simple was lucky enough to shoot with it first. If not for him, they would be plenty of others to follow.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 11:09 AM
Of course, but few saw the limitations of the camera when that gorgeous clip was shown to the world.
farss wrote on 4/5/2010, 1:56 PM
Regarding the 'is film dead' subplot which is really a 'is digital as good as film' debate one comment from someone more observant than me is interesting. It's getting harder to tell the difference because the latest Kodak stocks look so digital.

Which really goes to my latest thoughts on this whole debate. It's friggin irrelevant because its all about what "we" think. Unless we start asking the paying public what they think and the younger generation in particular we'll go the way of the dinosaurs.
It's not just the 'look' of the image, it goes back to the story as well. As the chairman of the Australian Screewriters Association pointed out recently, we're making movies that everyone who went to the opening night thought was awesome but no one paid a dime to see.

Bob.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 4/5/2010, 3:26 PM

"It's not just the 'look' of the image, it goes back to the story as well."

Amen, amen, and amen.

Such always has been and always will be the case.


Coursedesign wrote on 4/5/2010, 3:32 PM
The 'look' of the image has always been part of the story, whether intentionally or unintentionally.

That's why film DPs spend time choosing emulsions for each film, sometimes for each scene.

Ditto when adding MB Looks etc. to video, to tell the story differently.

Remember the movie Thirteen a few years ago? The look was part of the story, with the gritty grain of the S16 film conveying a key emotion.
FilmingPhotoGuy wrote on 4/6/2010, 1:34 AM
I'm confused when comparing prices on the 5D and 5D MKII and the 7D. The 5D is most expensive.

Checkout DPreview

For video purposes which, between the 5DMkII and the7D would you choose?
Coursedesign wrote on 4/6/2010, 7:12 AM
Many factors.

If you need aggressive wide angle, you need a 5D (because a 17mm say is 17 mm instead of "a 26mm" on the 7D).

The 5D makes "richer" images thanks to its larger sensor.

The 5D is significantly better in low light.

"Video frame rates" used to be a key difference where the 7D had an advantage, less so with the 5D firmware update.

Don't forget the new T2i/550D, which is about half the cost of the 7D.

It seems quite reasonable in PQ and for sure has the most bang for the buck.
farss wrote on 4/6/2010, 7:48 AM
I just hope anyone planning to go down this road really understands what they're buying into. I certainly agree that the 5D is the best on offer, no risk of cooking something, no reduction in FoV however the level of difficulty in getting shots as good as those in that Yarra video (which is the best I've seen so far) is considerable. It's not limited to the difficulties of shooting 35mm, not by a wide margin. It's not a cheap road either, people overlook the costs of lenses and all the other bits needed to a get a usable rig.

Bob.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/6/2010, 8:45 AM
Focus pulling on a 5D is 44% more difficult than with 35 mm cine film, as the frame is twice as big (24x36mm vs. 18x24mm) making it necessary to use a longer lens for the same angle of view.

(This could lead to a long discussion of CoC and film grain vs. video noise vs. aliasing problems vs. misc factors, so let's just say "it's more difficult.)

Zeiss has just released a lens kit with a bunch of EF-mount cine primes for only $20,000 total. That is an astonishing bargain for real cine lenses with proper lens barrels with 270 deg focusing, continuous iris rings, very little focus breathing, etc.

Terje wrote on 4/6/2010, 11:26 AM
>> Zeiss has just released a lens kit with a bunch of EF-mount cine primes for only $20,000 total

Could you elaborate? Google would not cooperate.
farss wrote on 4/6/2010, 2:41 PM
I think what he's referring to is the Compact Primes. Zeiss are making these available in EF mount. Full specs available here.


Bob.
farss wrote on 4/7/2010, 1:12 AM
"Ten years from now we may even see these big sensors in video-optimized cameras...."

Those ten years went past pretty quickly, the Arri Alexa is shipping in a few months. 1080p Prores to SxS cards. Good enough for TV or use them as proxies to edit and conform ArriRAW recorded from the dual 3G SDI outputs.

Bob.
Coursedesign wrote on 4/7/2010, 5:59 AM
There have been others even before that one, but I really meant something affordable in the less than $10K range at least.

A barebones Alexa body is nearly $70K, and it really needs a few accessories.
farss wrote on 4/7/2010, 6:36 AM
If mass produced, even with so much precision machining, that price could be bought down a lot. Maybe not under $10K, maybe $20K. As you say the kind of accessories you need are expensive and there's no really cheap solution on the horizon. Even a decent HD viewfinder for a video camera is expensive.

There's a much bigger problem though and one we're way off finding a solution to. The cost of optics increases with sensor size. Everyone gets all in lather about the camera and ignores the optics. A zoom lens for a 35mm sensor comes in around $50K and from memory it's only a 3:1 zoom and it's one friggin big, heavy hunk of glass. By comparison a usable quality 14:1 HD zoom for a 2/3" camera can be had for $2K. It's sure not top shelf, for that you pay 10x the price.
Realistically the market for 35mm video cameras will always be small until or if ever someone finds a solution to the problem of the optics and that will probably have to await some break through in physics rather than an advance in technology.

Bob