Digital BW, The Print

There was a thread some time ago where a few posters complained
that Canon went to the trouble to include HD video capture in the
5D Mk II.

The assumption, apparently, is that adding the video capability
to the 5D Mk II substantially increased the price of the body while
adding a feature that "still" shooters would never use.

Just comparing the 5D to the 5D Mk II, it looks like the price
went from ~$2000 to ~$2700 for the body - jumping from 12MP to
21MP in the process, substantially improved noise performance,
substantially improved LCD viewscreen, same overall weight.
Superficially, it doesn't seem like the MkII comes at a much
greater cost.

What provoked this email, though, was hearing that a *real*
motion picture professional recently commented that the 5D MkII
was ideal for video-capture which didn't quite call for rolling
out a whole crew.

The point being, by adding a capability to the camera, Canon
seems to have expanded the market beyond *just* "still" shooters.
By expanding the market, the increased cost of development to
Canon is likely to have been offset in increased sales.

Dana

We are using the 5D Mark ll to make our product videos; it's an  
excellent tool for some types of video capture. At one point in the  
SpyderCube video you can see a 5D Mark ll shooting video of a 5D  
shooting a still shot.

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@...

On Mar 8, 2009, at 3:50 PM, "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@...>  
wrote:

>
> There was a thread some time ago where a few posters complained
> that Canon went to the trouble to include HD video capture in the
> 5D Mk II.
>
> The assumption, apparently, is that adding the video capability
> to the 5D Mk II substantially increased the price of the body while
> adding a feature that "still" shooters would never use.
>
> Just comparing the 5D to the 5D Mk II, it looks like the price
> went from ~$2000 to ~$2700 for the body - jumping from 12MP to
> 21MP in the process, substantially improved noise performance,
> substantially improved LCD viewscreen, same overall weight.
> Superficially, it doesn't seem like the MkII comes at a much
> greater cost.
>
> What provoked this email, though, was hearing that a *real*
> motion picture professional recently commented that the 5D MkII
> was ideal for video-capture which didn't quite call for rolling
> out a whole crew.
>
> The point being, by adding a capability to the camera, Canon
> seems to have expanded the market beyond *just* "still" shooters.
> By expanding the market, the increased cost of development to
> Canon is likely to have been offset in increased sales.
>
> Dana
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in  
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNE 
> R” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

My take on this camera is that to some extent the moving picture community was excited by the 5D Mk II.  But they perceived a problem with using it as for motion picture making.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 5d Mk II capture HD video at the frame rate of 30p, rather than the 24p used by movies?

Ed

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers" <dana.myers@...> wrote:

>
> 
> There was a thread some time ago where a few posters complained
> that Canon went to the trouble to include HD video capture in the
> 5D Mk II.
> 
> The assumption, apparently, is that adding the video capability
> to the 5D Mk II substantially increased the price of the body while
> adding a feature that "still" shooters would never use.
> 
> Just comparing the 5D to the 5D Mk II, it looks like the price
> went from ~$2000 to ~$2700 for the body - jumping from 12MP to
> 21MP in the process, substantially improved noise performance,
> substantially improved LCD viewscreen, same overall weight.
> Superficially, it doesn't seem like the MkII comes at a much
> greater cost.
> 
> What provoked this email, though, was hearing that a *real*
> motion picture professional recently commented that the 5D MkII
> was ideal for video-capture which didn't quite call for rolling
> out a whole crew.
> 
> The point being, by adding a capability to the camera, Canon
> seems to have expanded the market beyond *just* "still" shooters.
> By expanding the market, the increased cost of development to
> Canon is likely to have been offset in increased sales.
> 
> Dana
>

We'll see what the next firmware update offers...

C. D. Tobie
Global Product Technology Mngr.
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor.com
CDTobie@Datacolor.com

On Mar 8, 2009, at 9:46 PM, "edrudolpho" <erudolph@...> wrote:

> My take on this camera is that to some extent the moving picture  
> community was excited by the 5D Mk II.  But they perceived a problem  
> with using it as for motion picture making.  Correct me if I'm  
> wrong, but doesn't the 5d Mk II capture HD video at the frame rate  
> of 30p, rather than the 24p used by movies?
>
> Ed
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Dana H. Myers"  
> <dana.myers@...> wrote:
>>
>>
>> There was a thread some time ago where a few posters complained
>> that Canon went to the trouble to include HD video capture in the
>> 5D Mk II.
>>
>> The assumption, apparently, is that adding the video capability
>> to the 5D Mk II substantially increased the price of the body while
>> adding a feature that "still" shooters would never use.
>>
>> Just comparing the 5D to the 5D Mk II, it looks like the price
>> went from ~$2000 to ~$2700 for the body - jumping from 12MP to
>> 21MP in the process, substantially improved noise performance,
>> substantially improved LCD viewscreen, same overall weight.
>> Superficially, it doesn't seem like the MkII comes at a much
>> greater cost.
>>
>> What provoked this email, though, was hearing that a *real*
>> motion picture professional recently commented that the 5D MkII
>> was ideal for video-capture which didn't quite call for rolling
>> out a whole crew.
>>
>> The point being, by adding a capability to the camera, Canon
>> seems to have expanded the market beyond *just* "still" shooters.
>> By expanding the market, the increased cost of development to
>> Canon is likely to have been offset in increased sales.
>>
>> Dana
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish  
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting  
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and  
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group  
> Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines” in  
> the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE “OWNE 
> R” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DA 
> MAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE L 
> OSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW,  
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH D 
> AMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIG 
> ITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTER 
> ATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF  
> ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) AN 
> Y OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho" <erudolph@...> wrote:
>
> My take on this camera is that to some extent the moving picture community was excited by the 5D Mk II.  But they perceived a problem with using it as for motion picture making.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 5d Mk II capture HD video at the frame rate of 30p, rather than the 24p used by movies?
> 

More than frame rate issues, what about audio and timecode inputs? If you can't put timecode into it, you step back about 30-40 years to where you rely on the slate alone to sync an audio track. And I have a feeling that it doesn't offer a balanced audio input which kind of limits you to consumer level deices. Then the ergonomics would be next on the list in my book of things I don't like.

If they redesigned the device to meet those issues, and kept it under about $5,000, they would sell a lot of them to motion picture film schools. It would also need to fit one of the more standard file formats too.

On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Greg wrote:

> More than frame rate issues, what about audio and timecode inputs?  
> If you can't put timecode into it, you step back about 30-40 years  
> to where you rely on the slate alone to sync an audio track.

Its for clips, for the most part. But we've been using a system where  
we run a typical video camera nonstop to create a timeline, and then  
lay 5D clips over that, and sync them up. With two 5Ds you  can  
replace the entire original track with better quality 5D shots. But  
yes, its not going to replace all functions of all video cameras; even  
if, under many conditions, it shoots much better video.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, C D Tobie <CDTobie@...> wrote:
>
> 
> On Mar 9, 2009, at 9:09 AM, Greg wrote:
> 
> > More than frame rate issues, what about audio and timecode inputs?  
> > If you can't put timecode into it, you step back about 30-40 years  
> > to where you rely on the slate alone to sync an audio track.
> 
> Its for clips, for the most part. But we've been using a system where  
> we run a typical video camera nonstop to create a timeline, and then  
> lay 5D clips over that, and sync them up. With two 5Ds you  can  
> replace the entire original track with better quality 5D shots. But  
> yes, its not going to replace all functions of all video cameras; even  
> if, under many conditions, it shoots much better video.
> 
> C. David Tobie
> Global Product Technology Manager
> Digital Imaging & Home Theater
> CDTobie@...
> 
> 


With the quality of under $5,000 HD video cameras that are out now, there is little that would cause me to go with the lack of features of a still camera. Sony Z5 with the CF card option is high on the list. Panasonic has some new cameras that go around $3,500, JVC has a really nice camera that just dropped down to $4,000 and is only 6 months old (200b). The Sony has a bayonet lens (but not B4) and the JVC has a B4 bayonet for 1/3 inch CCD. The Panasonic in the cheap end does not have a lens that comes off, you don't get that until you get up into P2 storage and the price on that is just silly.

On Mar 9, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Greg wrote:

> With the quality of under $5,000 HD video cameras that are out now,  
> there is little that would cause me to go with the lack of features  
> of a still camera.

When I see a once in a once-in-a-lifetime video opportunity in the  
field, I don't have a crate of video-specific equipment with me; I may  
not even have a camera bag with me. If I'm shooting with the 5D Mark  
II, I have the option to capture it, instead of letting it pass. Ask  
nature photographers how many of their top still images appear in  
their dreams, taunting them for not having the equipment at hand to  
shoot a video version as well as the still. The 5D will shoot better  
video, especially under low light, than any of the cameras you note  
(or a lot of others at far higher prices), and its there, in your  
hand, shooting through your Canon L series lenses, when you need it.

You may be missing the point here: videographers can use whatever they  
care to pay for and carry around. Me: I have a 5D, and I can shoot top  
notch video with it if I find the opportunity, even though still  
shooting is my main goal. Other than carrying more cards, there is no  
penalty, and a big bonus.

C. David Tobie
Global Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
CDTobie@...


  ----------



Datacolor
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I think this Canon video capability created some buzz when it came out.  There are several sample movies available on the web that are good looking.  I haven't followed it since then.  Being in video postproduction I can say that I haven't seen any of it coming in the door.

In terms of picture quality, is it capturing MPEG video?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg" <dfaprinting@...> wrote:

> 
> With the quality of under $5,000 HD video cameras that are out now, there is little that would cause me to go with the lack of features of a still camera. Sony Z5 with the CF card option is high on the list. Panasonic has some new cameras that go around $3,500, JVC has a really nice camera that just dropped down to $4,000 and is only 6 months old (200b). The Sony has a bayonet lens (but not B4) and the JVC has a B4 bayonet for 1/3 inch CCD. The Panasonic in the cheap end does not have a lens that comes off, you don't get that until you get up into P2 storage and the price on that is just silly.
>

edrudolpho wrote:
> 
> 
> I think this Canon video capability created some buzz when it came out. 
> There are several sample movies available on the web that are good 
> looking. I haven't followed it since then. Being in video postproduction 
> I can say that I haven't seen any of it coming in the door.

Clearly, the 5DMkII's video capability is intended as an adjunct
to the primary functionality of the still camera, with the
benefit of leveraging existing lens collections.  It doesn't look
intended to convert videographers into photographers - but it offers
photographers the ready option of video capture.

I was pleasantly surprised at the collection of on-stage
videos available in HD for Nine Inch Nails at:

http://www.youtube.com/user/ninofficial

Be sure to click on 'HD' to get the HD video/audio.

> In terms of picture quality, is it capturing MPEG video?

Canon specs 1920x1080 resolution, using file format .mov.

 From the Canon web page:

"HD Video Shooting with Live View Function.
Full HD Video capture at 1920 x 1080 resolution for up to 4GB per clip
with HDMI output for HD viewing of stills and video.

The EOS 5D Mark II is the first digital EOS to offer recording of Full HD
video in Live View Mode. Capable of shooting clips almost half an hour long
at full 1080 resolution, the EOS 5D Mark II does amazing double duty, making
it possible to shoot broadcast quality video on your camera by simply changing
settings. The advantages move way beyond the ability to shoot on your SLR - the
wealth of high-speed lenses and shooting accessories that make EOS photography
so remarkable can be used in shooting video. Where interchangeable lens video
cameras cost thousands of dollars, with the EOS 5D Mark II their operation,
including HDMI output, is simply an added bonus to a remarkable camera."

"Image Type
Still: JPEG, RAW (14-bit, Canon original), sRAW1, sRAW2, RAW+JPEG
Video: MOV"