|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: D-SLR chat
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-12-2009 04:10 PM
I remember reading that there was some weird, complicated, convoluted way to bypass Canon's attempts to restric manual controls in this camera in film mode and have independent control on exposure, focus and aperture. There was this long list of annoying steps you had to take, but it was possible.
Something like this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1032&message=30332040&changemode=1
quote:
However theres another way I found which seems to work with AF Canon lenses so long as you choose an aperture and ISO setting which is "within limits" and has a shutter speed of over 1/40th. sec.
1)With the camera NOT in live view - Select Aperture on the mode dial
2)Choose the aperture you want to use.
3)Set the ISO you want to use.
4)Go to menu - choose Live View/Movie func. set
5)Choose LV func. setting
6)Choose Stills+Movie
7)Choose Exposure simulation
8)Press the Live View button
9)Focus
10)Press the AE lock button
11)Press record
This seems to work so long as the shutter speed isn't below 1/40 sec.
I guess if Canon offered manual controls on this camera, they would stop selling quite a bit of video gear as this camera offers excellent video at professional levels for very little money. Specially for such a small, DSLR format camera. It has its shorcomings (i.e. excessive rolling shutter), but it is what it is, a consumer DSLR camera.
To me it proves what we all really know. If manufacturers wanted, they would offer today a full 2K 4:4:4 12bits uncompressed (or visually lossless compressed) video camera with variable frame rate up to about 30fps for $2500.
Of course, if they did this, they wouldn't sell a single camera after that, as such level of quality is plenty for 99% of all applications, domestic or professional.
So instead they come out with as little as possible, as late as possible, and for as much money as possible as the market tolerates.
Here is a list of cameras coming from RED, most of them this year, and some of their prices.
You can get a "3K" camera and lens for $3000. (It's not "true 3K", but certainly over 1.5K at worse and typically 2K equivalent). Capable of up to 120 frames per second
They also expect to have a 28K up to 30 fps (you read that right, 28K .. and here we are talking about 2K and 4K) for $53,000 next year.
http://red.cachefly.net/14/list2.jpg
They currently offer a 4.5K (more like 3.5K real) for $17.500. A lens can add from $500 up to whatever you want. Typically $3-6K. It's been used for many recent movies and TV shows. Soon they'll have their Super35 format digital 5K one for $7000.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 02-12-2009 06:19 PM
quote: Julio Roberto
I guess if Canon offered manual controls on this camera, they would stop selling quite a bit of video gear as this camera offers excellent video at professional levels for very little money. Specially for such a small, DSLR format camera. It has its shorcomings (i.e. excessive rolling shutter), but it is what it is, a consumer DSLR camera.
While the Canon EOS 5D Mark II shows a lot of promise (especially if its firmware can be updated to add manual aperture & exposure controls), it's still only appropriate for specialty use in video production. It cannot replace full-featured professional video cameras.
One major drawback: the 5D MkII can't record HD video direct to an external hard disc or RAID array the way certain professional HD video cameras are able to do. The cameras from Red are able to go direct to disc. There's only one CF slot -so you can't hot-swap CF cards for uninterrupted video in the same manner as hot-swapping P2 flash cards in the Panasonic HVX200 video camera.
Another major drawback: the 5D MkII only records in highly compressed H.264 format (saving the files in Quicktime-compatible .MOV files). If the camera could be attached to an external RAID setup to receive raw, uncompressed HD video the 5D MkII would have a greater level of professional capability. I don't know if there's any way such a thing could be managed via the mini HDMI port on the 5D MkII.
quote: Julio Roberto
To me it proves what we all really know. If manufacturers wanted, they would offer today a full 2K 4:4:4 12bits uncompressed (or visually lossless compressed) video camera with variable frame rate up to about 30fps for $2500.
And then it will take a lot more than the money saved on the camera for computer NLE video editing gear and data storage hardware to handle such video. The bandwidth of a 1080p/30 4:4:4 stream in uncompressed form would require things like enterprise-level RAID and dual-link HD-SDI connections in order to handle. There is nothing in terms of consumer-level or even "prosumer" level computing gear that can handle that -at least not in real time playback.
Maybe a few years from now when computing technology has improved at least another couple or so generations and we're measuring hard discs in hundreds of terabytes (or even petabytes) it won't seem like a big deal at all for a camera to stream 1080p video at bandwidths up to 3 gigabits per second. It will be a common place feature. For now, such video requires expensive gear to handle.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-12-2009 08:38 PM
I think you are understimating current technology a bit and perhaps missunderstanding some of the concepts.
If we consider 2K DCI cinema as "perfect" (i.e. no need for a home or a professional system to have more quality as it will never be shown in a projector/tv better than cinema's DCI), then a whole entire say 3hours movie fits in about 100-300GB. And this is "badly" compressed, as interframe JPEG2000 would need far more space (and therefore bandwith) to store THE SAME QUALITY LEVEL as a better, more sophisticated compression system, such as Redcode or h264 (i.e. blu-ray). It would take less space WITH THE SAME QUALITY LEVEL if a better codec that took advantage of intraframe redundancies was used.
There are already cameras in the market that output uncompressed 4:2:2 1920x1080 for around $2000 (the HDMI output, like most HDMI signals, is full HD uncompressed).
To store this signal is not a big deal. It just takes huge amounts of space ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Additionally you have the red camera using their own "visually lossless" RAW redcode codec that adds little compression (sort of like cinema jpeg2000 but better).
Of course there is no need to record fully uncompresed signals, but you could if you wanted (aja and other make hdmi digitazers ... heck we've been using 10bit 4:2:2 uncompressed SDI in the industry FOREVER, not to mention the ancient D1 and D5 formats I started using in postpro 20 years ago).
1.5TB hard drives are about $120 currently and 2TB drives are $300.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822148337
You don't need a "fast professional array" to record a (little or even uncompressed) full hd def signal. Just about any motherboard in the market offers RAID configurations and just 3 of current drives have enough bandwith to record such a signal. With mild compression (i.e. even less than used in DCInema), you would only need 2 hard drives.
If you think 2 or 3 hard drives are too bulky, you could use a single solid state one or two, as they are twice as fast as traditional mechanical hardrives. I.e.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2013240636%201421430849&name=128GB
The RED scarlett camera, i.e, will do 5K signal, 4:4:4, 12bits redcode RAW compressed, into flash memory cards or a single hard drive, for around $7000.
You can get more general information from articles like this:
http://www.filmmakermagazine.com/fall2006/line_items/hdmi.php
quote:
As detailed above, HDMI does indeed contain audio. So last month Blackmagic Design, renowned for affordable capture and playback cards like its popular DeckLink series, announced the world’s first HDMI editing card, named Intensity, priced at a mere $250. Founder Grant Petty calls Intensity “a product we have always dreamed of making.”
If you guessed that Intensity uses HDMI to capture uncompressed HD directly from camcorders into computers, laptops and disk arrays, you’re right. In a nutshell, it works with either Mac OS X (PCI Express) or Windows XP systems and is compatible with Final Cut Pro as well as Photoshop, After Effects and Premiere Pro. In fact, Blackmagic says any QuickTime or DirectShow-based software can be used with Intensity.
....
But what if I were to tell you that HDMI 1.3 supports not only 4:2:2 component 1920 x 1080 HD (why Blackmagic’s Intensity handles all HDMI as 4:2:2) but also full 4:4:4, as well as 4:4:4 RGB? Or that it supports the brand-new xvYCC color space standard with 1.8 times the color gamut of existing HD — basically any color the human eye can see?
Note that most HD cameras in the market, small and large, that offer HDMI ouput, does so right after the readout and before the compression, so it is (or can be) a 4:4:4 full bit depth (as supported by the camera, usually 10, 12 or even 14 bits) fully uncompressed.
But anyway, long story short, yes you could do it for cheap if you wanted, TODAY. But no, it is not necessary or practical, so there is no need for it.
I was just making a point, not actually thinking that such products were even useful, so no doubt they won't be made available for cheap outside the professional market. There is no point on wasting bandwith on totally lossless video schemes.
I was just saying that THEY COULD DO IT IF THEY WANTED or had a market for it.
Here is someone already using it:
http://worldtv.com/blog/software_tools/hdmi_video_capture_with_intensity.php
And if you don't want to use a "big, professional array", you could use something like this:
http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm
[link is to cineform's recoder, a solid media autonomous digital capture device for uncompressed 1920x1080, 10bits, 4:2:2 signals, a product they are considering making if there is enough demand for it]
quote:
We anticipate developing multiple members in the recorder product family - each targeting different recording needs. This first device targets HDV camcorder users and offers the ability to bypass the highly-compressed MPEG format. The features specification is below. We imagine a sister device that supports single-link and dual-link HD-SDI recording.
The technology to make a camera that can record a quality level that is exactly the same as DCI cinema (4:4:4, 12bits, 2K, slighty compressed) exists and such a product could be sold today for aprox. a $4000 price level, as RED shows us NOW and Canon teases us tomorrow.
BTW, here is a video of the guy shooting the video with the Mark II that was posted above.
http://vincentlaforet.smugmug.com/gallery/6021407_xEg87#378479692_MRytZ-A-LB
Of course all videos you see in the web are recompressed and a quarter of their original size ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 02-12-2009, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-12-2009 11:14 PM
Bobby,
Just look at some of the movies that have been theatrically released, such as this in 2007 in 1,200 screens titled Sarah Landon and the paranormal hour, yet have been shot in $4000 domestic cameras, such as the panasonic HVX200, which is like 1/4 of the overall quality levels we are talking about here.
And it's not the only one, of course.
So I think it is proven that you could use low money (say $6000) domestic gear in 2006 and turn out a movie that can look professional if you put talent in front of it. Do you know what can be done in 2009?
So yes, I stand by my statement that you can take a cheap camera (not an SLR for a whole feature, that would be silly as there are much better alternatives), and complete a feature with it. Not only that, there is proof. I just gave it to you.
It's true that most of these films being shot for low money, even with renoun stars (I can give you examples if you insist), are for movies that go straight to DVD distribution because their production values are just not good enough for a wide theatrical release, rather than because their image is not good enough, which is what we are talking about.
What I mean is: if you have enough money for a big production, it would be silly of you to use smaller, cheaper cameras, domestic cameras, when proven and probably better alternatives exist. You would go with whichever was the best, price consideration coming second.
If you had little money and had to use a cheap camera, then chances are you also had little money for everything else, and therefore turn out a bad product, but not because of the camera you chose.
Yet, there are examples of just about any exceptions to that (i.e. you can turn out a crappy product with an expensive camera and a good product with a cheap camera).
Coraline used the D80 and its a professional product (and in 3D)... What more proof do you need that you can use a "domestic" camera to obtain similar quality levels as 2K DCI?
So we don't explain technology to each other, let me tell you that I have worked in (major) TV postproduction for 15 years, so I already know.
And yes, 3 Raid-0 hard drives can sustain the aprox. 1.6Gb/s bandwith needed for uncompressed HD 4:4:4 12bits 24pfs recording. Or two SSD (Solid State Drives). You would normally use four or more just to make sure and totally rule out dropping any frames. You can run the calculations, but I used to do it almost everyday when I needed to churn out an intermediate to move it to another platform and it did it real-time.
Or you could use professional recorders indeed, such as this:
http://www.keisoku.co.jp/en/product/vw/recorder/udr20e/specifications.html
But, of course, one would first at least losslessly compress it first (1.6:1), so no need for such huge bandwidth.
What I meant that perhaps you didn't quite understand is that compressing something with like say Jpeg2000 (MJP2K) produces a file that is way unnecessarily large and requires much more storage than THE SAME QUALITY LEVEL when stored with more efficient compression schemes, such as cineon, or avc, or redcode. Yet the final product of a multimillion dollars hollywood movie ends up in a 200GB $50 hard drive at the theater with a 250Mb/s rate limit. The only reason it's used in theaters is that they don't care about the storage, as you pretty much only need one or two movies at a time per server and a 500GB hard drive can be bought for like $60.
So domestic cameras can have a quality/bandwidth relationship that is much better than that used in cinemas, and they can do a 10:1 reduction while preserving the same quality level as other codecs (i.e. DCI jpeg200k) at 5:1.
Besides, didn't I already say that there are plenty of them in the market that have UNCOMPRESSED output that you can capture? So no more discussion about codecs, ok? They could be used for PERFECT adquisition level (later to become Master level) material.
The Nikon D90 has an uncompressed HDMI out (but they decided to cap-it-out at 720p). Both current products, the D90 and the Mark II are so obviously PURPOSELY limited, that's not even funny. They went great lengths to try to stop professional use, yet there have been commercials and music videos shot with them.
My whole point, once again, is not what currently is being done or not. My point is that, if some manufacturer wanted, he could (easily) come out with a video camera product that for about $4000 could give you a product with a reasonable (semi-domestic, inexpensive) workflow which result would compare or even surpass 2K DCI cinema quality.
It's actually "here". Red Scarlet prototypes already prove that, shooting "3K" 4:4:4 12bits up to 30fps for a $3700 tag for a complete package, including flash media adquisition, zoom lens and batteries.
You can watch kazillions of "professional level" material done with the domestic Mark II canon camera here:
http://www.5dvideos.com/category/5d-mark-ii-video-clips/
Then tell me I'm stupid for thinking that a $4000 camera could, if the manufacturer wanted, produce images that can compare to DCI 2K quality.
http://vimeo.com/2859439
Even some 30yo hungarian dude could do it in his house
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Julio Roberto
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 938
From: Madrid, Madrid, Spain
Registered: Oct 2008
|
posted 02-13-2009 12:37 AM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Not completely true! If you look carefully at the actual reviewed-tested write speeds of SSD's they are only on a par with good mechanical hard drives, in fact the Western Digital 10K rpm velociraptor may actually be faster at write seed than most SSD's
Not compleately true!
Lol
We could just go back and forth.
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ssd-memoright,1926-10.html
Ok. Twice as fast was a bit of exageration on my part just for shorts. SOME of them are twice as fast as SOME drives (not the average, for capture, you must measure the lowest in the inner parts of the platters, as the stream, even when buffered, needs to be sufficient to avoid dropped frames). Let's say they are usually ... hmmm ... at least 80% faster at minimun sustained data rates compared to 7200.
Mark, you may have been looking at performance figures of average writing times on older SSD products. Some of the current ones, such as this Intel one, is hell-fast.
http://xtreview.com/addcomment-id-7091-view-Intel-X25--E-SSD-benchmark.html
And Mark, I'll quote myself
quote: Julio Roberto
So we don't explain technology to each other, let me tell you that I have worked in (major) TV postproduction for 15 years, so I already know.
![[beer]](graemlins/beer.gif)
But we are actually talking non-sense. Not even hollywood captures uncompressed 2K generally.
For pits sake. Lucas did the new star wars trilogy with HD (1920x1080), 4:2:2, 10 bits, HDCAM compressed cameras !!!! Basically like less than half the quality levels we are talking about here!!!
And 3D movies shown TODAY (in many places) are under HD resolution and 4:2:2 10bits as well.
Plus 48fps DCI (3D) calls for a JP2K compression of twice as much as 2D, so it's like 7:1 for 2D and 14:1 for 3D (to maintain the 250Mbit/s rate limit imposed by DCI for a 1.85 film, leaving each eye with 125Mbit/s).
So, again, in 3D DCI we have:
-Less than HD resolution in many cases.
-1/2 the color resolution (4:2:2)
-1/4 the number of colors (10bits)
-Increased (doubled) compression to meet bandwidth requirement at 48fps instead of 24fps.
And, still, we are talking here of surpassing that domestically with:
-Full HD resolution
-Full 4:4:4 color resolution
-Full bit depth 12 bits
-Uncompressed or very little compressed 2:1
And yet I still show that it can be done (not w/o some difficulties, but doable nonetheless), on the cheap. What more proof do we need?
We can do 4:2:2 full 2K 10bits UNCOMPRESSED (better than the same as each view of DCI 3D) with tons of stuff available in the market, some of it inexpensive, right NOW. That is basically standard HD-SDI which is basically the standard today in ALL pro tv equipment. And there are inexpensive ($200) convertion boxes to change uncompressed domestic HDMI into HD-SDI if needed.
Heck. You could even do real-time JP2K compression on that and store it in a portable SINGLE hard-drive attached to your camera. Plenty of crap like this around:
http://www.ffv.com/products/elite_front_4.pdf
So yes. I totally stand by my statement that you could do 24fps images similar in quality (or even better) than DCI 2K on the cheap today (with some difficulties) and that if a manufacturer wanted, could produce such a system w/o difficulties and w/o drawbacks for retail sales of around $4000. And the only reason there isn't much more of it (or hardly any at all, except for RED), it's because they want to protect their margins on higher profit professional equipment, not for technical or cost reasons.
[ 02-13-2009, 04:17 AM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 12 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10 11 12
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic