quote: Mark Lensenmayer

---

The typical way these places do business is to call you soon after you place the order and try to hard sell you a flock of overpriced accessories you don't need.

---

Well, good luck. I can't imagine Mark G being easily talked into buying something he doesn't want. That will probably end in him selling them stuff they don't want. I think that should be taped and made available on youtube.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-21-2007, 07:34 AM:
 
Thanks for the tips guys. Claude has good points there but actually the plastic body doesn't really bother me much. My N-70 is plastic and has been through alot of tough places in the desert... down in mines, etc. and still works and looks like new. I do hike with my cameras in Lowepro back packs though and using these is undoubtdly the reason my stuff still looks new. I ought to own stock in that company! I have 4 different Lowepro cases... One for the 6X9 Galvin view, One for the 4X5 and a smaller one for film holders that I have to talk someone else into carrying , one for my D-70 and one for my F-2. Since I hike alot, sometimes many miles I need lightweight stuff.

I rented the D-80 body and tried it with the Nikor lenses I use with my N-70 a couple of weeks ago and and the results were excellent. I'm afraid that digital stuff changes so fast these days that soon every camera body will be made from plastic. Compare the weight of the D-80 to the Canon EOS Rebel sometime... The D-80 is quite a bit heavier than the Canon. The best thing about all these Nikons and the part I liked on my N70 is the top side LCD screen for readout of all functions. Nikon sure has Canon beat there in the functionality department by a long shot and the extremely fast 80ms shutter release time! I will still probably go with the D-80 though... I'm going to get a 2gb card with it and if I fill that up I really have alot of home work to do processing all those images! Were I working professionally I would probably go with the D-200 but since the D-80 uses the same imageing chip there really isn't any real "photographic" type advantage for me to speak of.

Brad, Am going for the 10.2 mp realm but thanks for the offer. You might want to hang onto it as a back up body if you shoot alot. I can't begin to tell you how many people I run into in the Parks that are trying to figure out why their digital camera isn't working right(or at all). I only have gotten 2 years of use out of any digital camera I've ever owned...6 different models over the time I've lived in SLC... So if the D-80 gets me two years of 10 mp shooting thats fine... There will be higher mp cameras to buy in a few years anyway.

Michael, When those sales people call us at work we transfer them around to every extension in the building(no, you need to talk to sales... then sales says no... you need to talk to engineering... and engineering finally transfers them to the boiler room. At home I let them start talking and just set the phone down and go about what ever I was doing. What an awful job phone sales has got to be!!

Mark
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-21-2007, 08:36 AM:
 
2-years on a digital camera??!! <clutching onto my 3-decade old F2a>...thats freakin nuts! Who has that sort of money unless you are a pro or collecting such things is a hobby?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-21-2007, 09:14 AM:
 
All of my short lived digital cameras were pocket sized cameras. All worked good till the end and two still do except for the zoom lens. The drive motors are tiny and eventually start to sound like an AW-3 motor with both bearings bad. My N-70 although also plastic has faired really well so hopefully the D-80 will fair just as well but I'm not counting on it... and increaingly more mega-pixels and better sensor technology that makes a new camera worth considering seems to happen about every two years anyway.

Geez... I use these cameras for point and shoot stuff and all the film I would have gone through represents way more than any of these cameras cost. The D-80 will possibly be my first exception to that though and I'll have to get the equivelent of at least 250 to 300 36 exposure rolls through it to break even. The extended warranty on the D-80 that Nikon is offering might be worth considering on this or the D-200.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bill Gabel (Member # 1105) on 02-21-2007, 10:14 AM:
 
Last year I was looking for a digital camera too. I almost went for the D-80, but I went for the Nikon D-200 instead.
It's a Fantastic camera.
 

---

Posted by Martin Brooks (Member # 1269) on 02-24-2007, 08:26 PM:
 
You can get a legit, Nikon USA w/ warranty D80 body for $925 at BH Photo Video in NYC. Very reliable.

I have a D200, which is a great camera, but the D80 will actually produce sharper pictures out of the camera than the D200 will. Increased megapixels doesn't always lead to better pics - the D200 produces more noise at high ISOs than the D80 does.

There are tons of horror stories online about those so-called discounters. It's not worth the grief to deal with them. They sell you the body cheap, but force you to take overpriced "accessories" that are actually supposed to come with the camera. If you don't go for the accessories, they cancel your order but don't tell you, and frequently charge your credit card anyway and give you the runaround.

I've also heard that Costco sells Nikon at a discount. It's gray market and doesn't come with a Nikon warranty, but you supposedly can return the camera anytime during its life and get a replacement or full refund.

And by the way..if you buy grey market, Nikon USA will not repair the camera, even for a fee.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 02-24-2007, 10:05 PM:
 

quote: Martin Brooks

---

You can get a legit, Nikon USA w/ warranty D80 body for $925 at BH Photo Video in NYC. Very reliable.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

the D200 produces more noise at high ISOs than the D80 does.

---

quote:

---

All of the other small-sensor 10-megapixel digital SLRs use a CCD manufactured by Sony. They all produce roughly the same image quality. According to the magazines and Web sites that exhaust themselves taking pictures of test targets, the Canon Digital Rebel XTi produces image quality that is superior to that produced by its 10-megapixel competitors. Canon is the only company with the money and the engineering depth to make its own sensor, a CMOS design like that in the professional Canon bodies.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I'm not sure where you read that the D-80 has better S/N

---

It's no secret that the Canon has better S/N over the Nikon. I am actually considering picking up a Canon and doing comparisons myself. I do prefer the Nikon quality of glass though.

Here is a link showing Canon vs. Nikon.

[ 02-25-2007, 08:51 PM: Message edited by: Brad Miller ]
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-25-2007, 11:03 PM:
 
The results are not unlike shooting with film that is rated at ASA 3200... the old Kodak High Speed Recording Film had grain structure like golf balls but was pretty neat stuff in its time!! The Canon I tried was the D30 and the main thing I didn't like about(aside fomr really poor autofocus was the shutter release lag... The Nikon has them beat there and is quite a bit faster. I would rarely if ever use the 3200 rating so the noise level at that speed for me doesn't mean much and at the next lower rating, 1600... both cameras compare pretty well. Of course this comparison is not comparing the Canon 30-D and the Nikon D-80 which are the two that I have tried so far. The one thing the Canon does have thats really neato is the Ultrasonic CCD cleaner mode... The Nikon CCD would have to be cleaned by hand and at some risk to the face of the chip.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 03-01-2007, 08:21 PM:
 
Hi Mark

As a camera technician and the warranty service agent for both Nikon and Canon I have had a fair bit of experience with this gear. I prefer Nikon SLRs then I do Canon, the reason being is I find the Canon to feel very plastic, the Nikon has a nice solid feel to it. The D80 is a great camera and have not had many in for servicing (which is a good thing!).

Don't be fooled by the ultrasonic CCD cleaning mode of cameras, while it might help somewhat you still need to give the image sensor a proper clean. Avoid changing lens outdoors, always change lens pointing down, keep a body cap on when you have no lens on. One thing that amazes me if how dirty the back of customers lens are and how dirty their body caps are, then they come and complain that there image sensor gets dirty all the time! The risk to the filter on the sensor of giving it a clean by hand is minimal, point the camera downward and give it a puff of air to remove any large bits of dirt that could do damage, then use isopropyl alcohol on a lint free tissue around some tweezers. Make the tissue form a point and make sure the tips of the tweezers are far enough away from the end of the tissue so you can't accidently scratch the filter. This is the factory recommended method for most brands and works great. Take a test photo at widest aperture of a white light source and put that into photoshop and perform auto levels, that will show up at dirty in the absolute worst possible situation.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 03-02-2007, 01:17 PM:
 
Thanks for the tips Paul! I too was a camera tech... For Canon USA back in the late 70's early 80's. My forte was AE-1's, A-1's and optics. I also worked with the TV optics department and did repairs on TV camera lenses. The Japaneese were alot of fun to work for but my eyes couldn't take it for more than a few years.

Mark
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 03-02-2007, 07:34 PM:
 
We still see a fair few AE-1s come through for service, and alot of the older Nikons. I guess people know old mainly mechanical cameras will give them lots of years use once they have a service. But its one of the older techs that does them now, I might only repair a film camera once ever couple of months these days. We are a very busy workshop, but we do service all of Western Australia so not much of a supprise. It did take some getting used to working on such fine equipment but it become second nature.

You will find if you keep your equipment clean then CCDs cleans become much less of an issue. Last year when the World Rally came to WA I watched some of it on TV and looking at press photographers putting really expensive cameras/lens down onto the red dirt made me cringe, but more work for us I guess!
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 03-02-2007, 11:30 PM:
 
I started using Nikon cameras long before I became a professional portrait photographer. The first Nikon I owned was the rangefinder SP I had my brother buy for me from a PX in Japan when he was stationed there in the Army in 1959. To this day, I still regret trading it in for a brand new Nikon F. The Nikon SP along with a Calumet 4X5 sheet film and a Rolleiflex medium format cameras were put to good use when I was a student at Brooks Institute in Santa Barbara, Calif. Since starting out with the SP, I have pretty much used all of Nikon professional film cameras except the F5 & the current F6 and decided on the F100 which has a lot of features found in the F5. I still use the F100 primarily for shooting color transparency film. Because it had a Nikon body and I could use my lenses, my first digital camera was the Fuji S-1 but it could never compare with the Nikon 70 and my brand new D200. I have never had any problem with Nikon cameras and none had ever 'died' on me in the middle of an assignment.

-Claude
 

---

Posted by Justin Gorka (Member # 3727) on 05-29-2007, 03:14 AM:
 
How do you guys rate the Olympus 4/3's cameras. I'm interested in
upgrading to a DLSR from my Canon AE-1 and T-70 to a DSLR. The E410 looks good to me at the monent for bang per buck. Any views?
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 05-29-2007, 06:55 AM:
 
My dad had an olympus SLR and when it broke after a few years it could not be repaired because of some discontinued parts or something. As a result I've always stayed away from Olympus. Paul might be able to better answer that though....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Paul Trimboli (Member # 1509) on 05-29-2007, 10:04 PM:
 
Yeh I have never been a fan of Olympus stuff. There design moto seems to be well we COULD design this simply but hell lets make it really complicated. They tend to be messy to service. Not had much experience with the Olympus D SLRs as we are not the agents for them. I don't get the idea on that Olympus of having a live preview on the back LCD since its an SLR, meaning it has a second smaller CCD in the viewfinder. Why not look at something like the Nikon D40 if your looking in the size and range? I have spoken to people about the E410 and they said its just too small, does not fit well in your hand which is not a good thing when it comes to SLRs.
 

---

Posted by System Notices (Member # 2357) on 02-09-2009, 01:08 PM:
 

It has been 621 days since the last post.

 

---

Posted by Justin Hamaker (Member # 2165) on 02-09-2009, 01:08 PM:
 
I'm looking to buy a Digital SLR and I was shocked at that price - which is still available. Of course the BS radar went crazy and I started looking for some info on the company. I came across these reviews.
Digitals Future reviews
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-10-2009, 08:40 AM:
 
If you think the camera is expensive wait till you go to aquire a few high quality lenses for it .... The cheap Digital SLR lenses are just that... cheap!
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-10-2009, 10:27 AM:
 
I'm still considering buying a Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera body (and selling my Digital Rebel XTi and its cheap kit lens to a co-worker). $2700 approx. for the body alone. The camera is overwhelmingly meant for still photography use. The 21 megapixel sensor will do well for capturing high res images great for use on things like vehicle wraps and billboards.

Still, I was a bit disappointed in a limitation to its 1080p HD video recording function. It seems that the video recording only works in full auto mode. You can't manually adjust aperture and exposure settings for difference DOF appearances. That kind of sucks.

Do the video-capable Nikon D-SLR bodies have that same auto-only limitation? I wonder if its something Canon can fix with a firmware update.
 

---

Posted by Robert Minichino (Member # 3495) on 02-10-2009, 10:52 AM:
 
From my understanding on the Nikon D90 you can only adjust aperture while shooting with a lens with a dedicated aperture ring (not the newer "G" lenses that leave the dedicated ring off), and it takes care of exposure automatically. No AF.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 02-12-2009, 10:51 AM:
 
Have you seen this video?

Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: Reverie

It appears to be doing a rack focus, but I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

After viewing that video, I would never have guessed that it was created by a DSLR...
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-12-2009, 11:51 AM:
 
The movie Coraline (3D), currently in the top 3 Box Office, used Nikon D80 SLR cameras for some of their principal photography, which can be bought for around $1000.

Most was done with an industrial 4K digital camera, though.

And it was stop motion, of course, while the Mark II (or the Nikon D90) can get up to 24fps and HD resolutions ...

Very soon, anyone will be able to film images 24fps perfectly passable for full 2K DCI for less than $3000. Some movies that have seen wide theatrical release on film have used cameras even much more inferior to those.

Think about it. Your home movies "better" (or about the same) as your (2K DCI) multiplex's blockbuster for around $3000...

It will happen in less than a year (i.e. when RED releases their smaller Scarlett cameras). Now you just need to start saving for a nice lighting package for your grandson's birthday ...
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 02-12-2009, 12:29 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

Your home movies "better" (or about the same) as your (2K DCI) multiplex's blockbuster for around $3000...

---

Uh, yeah. All except for those pesky things like story, music, acting, quality cinematography, lighting, editing, production values...
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-12-2009, 01:26 PM:
 

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

All except for those pesky things like story, music, acting, quality cinematography, lighting, editing, production values...

---

Lol.

I guess you haven't been watching too many Hollywood movies lately. A lot of those things have been mostly long gone ...

[Just joking]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2009, 02:58 PM:
 

quote: Scott Jentsch

---

Have you seen this video?

Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: Reverie

It appears to be doing a rack focus, but I don't know if that's what you're looking for.

---

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.

---

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.

---

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.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 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

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?

---

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

[ 02-12-2009, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: Julio Roberto ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-12-2009, 10:30 PM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

I think you are understimating current technology a bit and perhaps missunderstanding some of the concepts.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

To store this signal is not a big deal. It just takes huge amounts of space.

---

Storage capacity is only part of the problem.

The bigger problem is handling the sheer bandwidth of HD video. Consumer level computing hardware doesn't do it -regardless of all the silly burst rate claims. Sustained bandwidth is the real deal. Consumer level SATA RAID built into a common motherboard isn't going to be very reliable either.

If you're dealing with master-grade quality HD video streams you need a computing system able to reliably sustain disc input-output of 1-3 billion bits per second. That takes some pretty expensive computing hardware. A good capture card alone (AJA Xena|2K or AJA Kona|2K) will set you back $2,500 just by itself -never mind the high end multiprocessor workstation and real RAID setup.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 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
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-13-2009, 12:08 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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.

---

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

---

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.

---

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 ]
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-13-2009, 11:05 AM:
 

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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.

---

quote: Julio Roberto

---

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?

---

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.

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

and write speed of 80-93 MBPS

---

which is about consistant with most cheap stuff in the market (but there's also plenty of cheap stuff that reaches 90-120)

And, by your own admission, you are comparing to your enterprise class 10k WD (you don't mention the specific model) drives.

This graph and article benchmark the a Western Digital Velociraptor 10k Sata drive.

http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/storage/WD_Raptor_150GB_10K/images/fullsize/hdtune-raptor.jpg
http://www.techwarelabs.com/reviews/storage/WD_Raptor_150GB_10K/

The short version:
-WD 10k drive 52min/83max (remember it's min we are concerned about for streaming capture)
-By your own admission of your SSD samsung drive: 80-93

Since we are interested in minimun sustained performance, it's 52 against 80 (your number). A 65% improvement. But remember I was thinking of regular 7.2K drives, not top of the line 10k/15k drives.

While there are SOME ssd models that came out with really poor sequential write numbers at the beginning of the solid state "rollout", that was but a forgotten memory like DCI 1.3K projectors

Samsung new models boast a >160MB sustained sequential write speed (according to first benchmarks, close to 200MB/s!!!), twice the amount we are talking about here. It's out in mass production now, but only inside some laptops so far.

http://www.guru3d.com/news/samsung-breaks-transfer-speed-barrier-on-256gb-ssd/
http://www.electronista.com/articles/08/05/25/samsung.256gb.ssd/

And Mark, I thought you didn't buy Korean stuff!!!!!

Don't worry. Intel or the japanese SSD's are almost just as fast and all of them over 120MB writes.

So there. And remember I was thinking about 7.2k drives when I made that statement.

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

I have them in my laptops because of their ultra low power consumption.. I get over an extra hour on my XPS M-1210 laptop and I've even installed a PATA SSD in my older HP tablet

---

quote:

---

The SSD Power Consumption Hoax: Flash SSDs Don’t Improve Your Notebook Battery Runtime – they Reduce It

Flash-based solid state drives (SSDs) are considered to be the future of performance hard drives, and everyone seems to be jumping on the bandwagon. We are no exception, as we have been publishing many articles on flash-based SSDs during the last few months, emphasizing the performance gains and the potential power savings brought by flash memory. And there is nothing wrong with this, since SLC flash SSDs easily outperform conventional hard drives today (SLC = single level cell). However, we have discovered that the power savings aren’t there: in fact, battery runtimes actually decrease if you use a flash SSD.

Could Tom’s Hardware be Wrong?

No, our results are definitely correct. We’ve looked at almost a dozen different flash SSDs from seven vendors over the last few months, and measured acceptable or sometimes even disappointing power requirements with most flash SSDs. In an effort to determine the actual impact on notebook systems, we took four SSDs that we had available in our test lab, and ran a series of Mobilemark benchmark runs on a Dell Latitude D630 notebook. We found runtime differences of up to one hour (!) when using a flash SSD compared to a high-performance 7,200 RPM 2.5” notebook hard drive.

---

quote:

---

And Mark, I thought you didn't buy Korean stuff!!!!!

---

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

---

Nope! I just won't buy Chineese

---

You are right, it was only Korean's car you didn't buy

http://www.film-tech.com/cgi-bin/ubb/f8/t005616/p5.html
[last post on that page]

Remember that conversation we had about polarizers? I got a quote from a Singapore (not chinese ) manufacturer. Too low to even mention. I was surprised at the price of 3D glasses, and I don't usually get surprised by them, as a partner and I set up a small factory in the 80's to service the spanish market during the 3D craze and sold millions.

I used windows7 (clean install) on one home machine for about two weeks. Had to revert it back to xp. It crashed too much. Pbbly from some blackmagic cards or some other hardware inside, but it didn't feel solid. I also run into the win7 hdmi installation bug, and had to use the analog video monitor to complete the installation.

So no win7 beta for me yet. Too much trouble until they clean it up a bit more. Besides, a lot of the stuff here is Linux anyway.

I only use 1 single SSD (Mitron) as scratch disk for home stuff. That one is under XP, but since the OS basically doesn't touch it (much) as it's only for some applications scratch. I find the SSD too expensive and a small raid can do the same for far less and far more capacity. But now, if you ask me how many hard drives I have, I honestly don't know, but at least 10 or 12 500GB and at least 6 or 7 1TB and a couple of 1.5TB and pbbl some dozen or so old ones offline with some footage inside at 300/250GB each. At work (recently retired) we used to put all the stuff on exabytes, but also left plenty of stuff in HD's as backups. Hundreds and hundreds. No SSD's except in some special projects (i.e. a Museumm a/v show).
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 02-13-2009, 10:12 PM:
 
You would have a heart attack if you knew how much a Dolby 3-D filter wheel costs!!!

I haven't had any Win 7 issues but am runnning it on a brand new build... Two SSD's in RAID 1 for the OS. Has been very solid so far. I really hate Internet Explorer 8 though .

Mark
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 02-13-2009, 10:45 PM:
 

quote:

---

You would have a heart attack if you knew how much a Dolby 3-D filter wheel costs!!!

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I'm thinking that it may be between the D90 and the D700. I'm wondering what the D700 will bring to ME over the D90.

---

Full view of 35mm lenses instead of a crop of the center. Better quality images.

I think the difference a full frame sensor provides in a DSLR is similar to the difference in a consumer oriented video camera versus a "pro-sumer" model with larger CCDs (and 3 of them). More light is hitting the larger pixels on that FF sensor. That means more color and contrast too. 720p shooting is the only thing I see the D90 having over the D700. I'd rather have the D700. Its FF sensor trumps the D90's crop sensor.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-08-2009, 03:54 PM:
 
So I'm guessing your old Canon lenses used the C-FL/D mounts (non bayonet...turn the silver ring until snug). I'll give Canon credit, they came up with a bayonet system that was backwards compatible with existing bodies...however, by then I was on to Nikons.

I'm thinkin' I'm going to need to see both of the Nikons in action to decide which will be a better fit for me. The D90's price currently is but when I do shoot pictures, I can be quite fussy if I want them to be keepers...which brings up the next can of worms...what to do with all of the picture files to ensure they will last like film has (and will). One reason I'm wanting to get an SLR is to start taking better family pictures that will be worth keeping longer than the year on some wallpaper on a computer.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2009, 04:14 PM:
 
It's a tough choice between the D90 and D700. The D700 costs $2700 at B&H Photo. The D90 can be had for under $1000. These are body-only prices.

File storage is a big issue, especially if you shoot in RAW format, which you probably will. RAW has so much more capability than merely shooting in JPEG.

The next time I'm in Colorado I'll look at my father's old camera gear and check. He spent a good bit of money on a few lenses. It would be a shame if they couldn't work at all with an modern EF mount.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-08-2009, 08:58 PM:
 
So the Canons are boasting more pixels...on would think they are sharper images, no? What is the story on that? I see nothing high praise on the D700 and that also comes from professionals...the ones that should have the critical eye.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2009, 10:08 PM:
 
I thought the D700 was generally a well reviewed, well recommended camera. DP review gave it a "highly recommended" rating (they also gave Canon's latest bodies such as the EOS 5D Mark II and EOS 50D a similar "highly recommended" rating). The D700 costs a good bit less than a D3, but has many of the same features. The only obvious complaint I can see about the D700 is its relatively low pixel count compared to something like the Nikon D3x (which has a 24.5 million pixel full frame sensor).

The Canon line of bodies does boast more pixels, but you have to weigh the pros and cons of cramming more pixels into a cropped APS-C sensor. When the pixels get too small, they may not be getting enough light on them and image quality can take a hit. The EOS 50D has 4.7µm sized pixels. The new EOS 7D has even smaller 4.3µm pixels. The pixels on my old Digital Rebel XTi were 5.7µm, but even though its pixels were larger its ISO performance wasn't any good above ISO 400. Also when the pixels on a camera sensor get too small, they can amplify the effects of diffraction when a lens is stopped down to smaller apertures.

The Canon EOS 5D Mark II has a sensor very similar to that of Canon's top of the line EOS 1Ds Mark III camera -a full frame 21 megapixel sensor with 6.4µm sized pixels in a gap free design. Except the sensor in the EOS 5D Mark II has better ISO performance than the 1Ds Mark III (and shoots 1080p HD video). The 1Ds Mark III has a faster frame rate, many more auto focus points, two memory card slots and some other features Canon seems to reserve only for its 1-series bodies.

Compared side to side the EOS 5D Mark II beats Canon's new 7D in terms of image quality. I think a big reason for that is the EOS 5D Mark II has pixels 148% larger than the 7D and it is using the full view of EF series lenses rather than cropping out the center.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 10-08-2009, 10:16 PM:
 
Folks,

Lots of pixels do not guarantee good photos. Only a good photographer makes good photos. Give him a box camera and he's go all he needs to generate award winning pictures....

Mark
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-08-2009, 11:15 PM:
 
The same can be said for any tool that demands skill and/or creative ability. I can't expect to play golf anywhere near as well as Tiger Woods if I buy the same brand of clubs he uses. I just wish people weren't so stupid about that point when it comes to computer graphics programs. Merely owning a copy of Photoshop, even legally purchased, does not make anyone an artist.

Still, it's pretty nice having a camera boasting a high native resolution. That comes in very handy for large format and giant format printing projects such as vehicle wraps and billboards.

Steve, I forgot to mention the Nikon D300. That may actually be the body you want to get. It costs around $1800. I still like the merits of a full frame sensor like what the D700 has. The D300 has a crop body sensor, but has lot of other really nice features, such as a 51 point auto focus system.

I'm not sure what to think about Sony's DSLR system. Canon and Nikon have both been around for a long time and seem like safer bets than a new DSLR equipment line.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-09-2009, 06:57 AM:
 
Bobby...there should be a "not" in my earlier post...the D700 seems to have ONLY high praises...hence my interest.

Hasn't the D300 been out a while? It would seem like the D700 has been out long enough to establish itself but is new enough to be very current.

I'm thinking I'm going to have to go and play with them a bit to see what is worth it to me.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-09-2009, 08:27 AM:
 
I think the D300 was released late in 2008, while the D700 was released late summer 2008.
 

---

Posted by Galen Murphy-Fahlgren (Member # 4535) on 10-09-2009, 02:11 PM:
 
The D300 and the D3 came out at the same time, which, if I recall correctly, was early 2008, after that February trade show. Of course, you couldn't get your hands on one for several months, but that is always the way of these things. I don't remember exactly when the D700 came out, because I stopped following cameras obsessively, but my guess would be August '08, with a subsequent demand-induced delay in availability. According to Nikon's website, there is an S version of the D300, which is something to look at. I, however, preferred the original D70 over the D70S, so an S is not a guarantee of a better camera.

Given that they made an S version of the D300, it won't be replaced by a D400 anytime in the near future, so you might as well get one now if it meets your needs. The D700 is a hell of a camera, but it and the D300 are not similar cameras, so the D300S is a perfectly current camera in its class. That there are newer cameras at other price points doesn't diminish the validity of other models.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-17-2009, 01:09 PM:
 
Just to come full circle...I bought the D90, as noted in another thread. So far...really nice pictures...now I'm trying to learn the camera before the vacation.

And what to do with all of the pictures when they are shot. I plan to shoot "RAW" pictures and then convert to JPEG only when necessary (distribution to friends/family/web...whatever). Some have said to just keep buying SD cards and leave them there. Some have said to do that and also buy HDs to just store pictures...if the HD fails (or when the HD fails) use the SD cards as the back up...or I suppose I could burn CDs/DVDs but I haven't investigated how many pictures fit on those media. Each picture seems to be in the 10-12MB range, thus far. Probably DVD media would be better than CD which would store what? <60 pictures? CD/DVDs also are not "forever" I suppose I could have them outputted to film...that will last

Steve
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 10-17-2009, 02:02 PM:
 
I ended up buying "Nikon D80 Digital Field Guide" by David D. Busch after I purchased my camera a couple of years ago. It contains a lot of photography basics for the beginner, but it also had some information specific to my camera that wasn't even in the stupid owner's manual. The publisher has a "field guide" series book for the D90, and Busch has a guide for the D90 as well, both available on Amazon.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-17-2009, 02:12 PM:
 
I wouldn't keep them in the RAW format. There isn't even a standard for it (it actually varies camera by camera) and your RAW decoding software may eventually become obsolete. Store them in the TIFF format or similar. It will take a whole bunch of space, but I don't think TIFF will be obsolete for at least 10 or 15 more years. Delete the shitty shots to conserve space.

Also, now matter how you store them, you will have to keep moving them around as that format will eventually be obsolete. You think SD cards and their readers will be around forever? Guess again. No matter what you do, you're fucked.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-17-2009, 02:35 PM:
 
I shoot everything in RAW format, then convert all photos to "lossess" JPEG (ummm, yeah) for quick viewing. Until such time that I see Photoshop stops being able to decode the RAW formats, I'm not too worried.

I keep them stored on a RAID5 NAS system, which automatically backs up to another RAID5 NAS system once a week. The primary NAS also backs up to an external USB hard drive every so often and I also burn DVD media, both of which I keep in a safety deposit box.

Why so paranoid? The photos can never be obtained again. Its not like a ripped copy of some music CD. I can always go buy another CD to re-obtain the content. Any photos I shoot with my camera are one-of-a-kind and have to be treated as such.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-17-2009, 03:01 PM:
 
I tend to store art files and digital camera photos on two external hard discs. In case one of them fails, the other drive is there as a backup.

Optical discs can be good for backup purposes, but generally speaking the higher you go in disc storage capacity the more likely it is for the disc to have errors in writing. A CD-R stands up to scuffs and scratches better than a DVD-R. The differences are likely to become more extreme as 25GB and 50GB BD-R/RW media becomes more affordable and practical. Optical discs tend to accumulate and take up lots of space.

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I wouldn't keep them in the RAW format. There isn't even a standard for it (it actually varies camera by camera) and your RAW decoding software may eventually become obsolete. Store them in the TIFF format or similar. It will take a whole bunch of space, but I don't think TIFF will be obsolete for at least 10 or 15 more years.

---

quote: Bill Enos

---

I've used SLRs since the '60s but now that we have electronic cameras with electronic displays, what is the sense to the mirror and all the related optics when a small display just inside the viewfinder would accomplish the same result without the expensive, noisy and troublesome mechanical junk?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Many don't have the necessary level of resolution to let you know if you really have sharp focus.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

This is overkill for most users; "normal people" would probably be better served with an online backup service (or two different services, for better redundancy), although restore times may be an issue for those with large amounts of data.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

There is a place for point-n-shoots and they are getting BETTER all of the time and more convenient too.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

It's kind of funny that we seem to be talking about pictures as super-important/life or death, etc. However I haven't seen any pictures from anyone here aside from maybe Claude (and of course me) that would necessitate such attention to detail like studying histograms, taking 2 hours to set up a single shot, personally checking, interviewing and verifying each individual pixel before pressing the shutter button, etc.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

One of the BIG advantages that SLRs have over other cameras is the ability to see what image is going to be recorded before it is taken.

---

quote: Bill Enos

---

Don't most DSLRs have a point and shoot mode or something close to it that works with basic lenses.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Nah, I am able to see the live histogram after Jen figured it out as well as the live image behind it.

---

This is evidence I'm still learning how to use my camera. I've only had it for 2 months. After doing a little more looking under the Live View settings I figured out to get the live histogram to display along with other stuff like exposure simulation (a live view substitute to pressing the little depth of field button under the lens release tab).
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-19-2009, 03:59 PM:
 
That unmarked button confuses me. It does nothing, so I never press it.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-19-2009, 08:40 PM:
 
If you have your camera set for a tight aperture (something like f/8 or f/11) you'll see the viewfinder darken considerably, along with the plane of focus spreading out to a much wider area.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 10-19-2009, 09:19 PM:
 
But, Joe, if you never press the button, how do you know that the it doesn't to anything when you press it?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2009, 09:17 PM:
 
Canon put out a press release that will be of interest for at least some Canon EOS 5D Mark II camera owners. They're going to release a firmware update in the first half of 2010 to add 1080p/24 and 1080p/25 video recording:

quote: Canon Europe Press Release

---

“London, 20 October 2009 – Canon today announces that it is currently developing a firmware update to the EOS 5D Mark II to enable the recording of high definition 1080p video at 24 and 25fps. The decision to develop new firmware to support these features has been taken following feedback received from cinematographers and photographers.

Introduced in September 2008, the multi award-winning EOS 5D Mark II was the first DSLR product to offer full frame 1080p HD video recording, opening up a multitude of new creative possibilities for photo journalists, news photographers and amateur filmmakers. Since then, Canon has continued to develop its groundbreaking EOS Movie functionality, firstly with the firmware update to the EOS 5D Mark II that enabled manual exposure control, and more recently by introducing a choice of video recording frame rates with the EOS 7D and EOS-1D Mark IV.

Canon currently expects the firmware update to be made available during the first half of 2010. An announcement regarding details of the update and its availability will be made closer to the release date.”

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Standard 30fps video is really 29.97 fps.

---

Only in NTSC. If you are recording in HD, you are not recording in NTSC. Any support for 29.97 in HD formats is only for legacy support. As such, 29.97 no longer has any right to exist. Neither do PAL framerates. The world should be standardized with their frame-rates which should be 24, 30 and 60. Nothing more needed unless it is used to play back ancient, outdated video, like anything ever recorded in NTSC. Yes, even video you record on your NTSC camcorder tomorrow is ancient and outdated, having no reason to exist. You might as well just draw sketches on a flip-pad.

But if you need to mix 30 and 29.97 footage, Cinema Tools will easily conform one to the other without any frame loss or weirdness.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2009, 10:39 PM:
 
That makes me feel a little better about the 1080p/30 clips I can shoot with my DSLR.
 

---

Posted by John Hawkinson (Member # 1135) on 10-20-2009, 10:49 PM:
 
Err, no, Joe. In the pro world (meaning broadcast video and digital cinematography, RED one, F900R, what-have-you), 29.97 and 23.976 continue to rule the day. Why? Because that's what the post houses are set up to deal with, and if you give them straight 24p or 30p, it causes all manner of problems. Or so I hear from the cinematographers and post nerds.

--jhawk
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 10-20-2009, 11:15 PM:
 
Thanks to Penton-Man at Blu-ray.com for pointing out this Hitler video parody regarding the new EOS 7D and the slightly older 5D Mark II.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 10-20-2009, 11:31 PM:
 
Those post houses need to change their set up. They are outdated and archaic.

Anyway, like I said, it is easy to conform one to the other with Cinema Tools without even creating a new file. Apparently a standard Mac is more advanced than those ancient post houses who continue to let outdated standards rule them.
 

---

Posted by Bill Enos (Member # 440) on 11-02-2009, 10:23 AM:
 
Another thing digital cameras can do--they can make a photographer out of anybody. If you take enough pictures you're bound to get some good ones. Today's essentially free image recording makes that possible. A case in point would be the wedding that took place at the theatre Saturday. From the time the first of the wedding party started down the aisle till the last one exited at the end after the 8 minute ceremony the official photographer recorded more than 1,000 images. I know because I had a counter in hand and pushed the button on each clack of his mirror, at times he was taking pics. faster than I could punch the counter button. In the day of film he would have taken a couple or three dozen well chosen shots. The camera noise during the vows was quite annoying and was remarked upon by some of the guests.
 

---

Posted by Karl Borowski (Member # 5424) on 11-02-2009, 01:15 PM:
 
Bill, don't feel too bad. He did probably almost $100 worth of damage to the shutter box in his camera.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-02-2009, 07:34 PM:
 
Some camera models, in both Point And Shoot and DSLR classes, have silent and/or semi-silent shooting modes.

DSLRs have those noisy reflex mirrors. They slap. Some do it louder than others. My new camera is pretty noisy when shooting in normal fashion looking through the viewfinder. The 5D Mark II is louder than the Digital Rebel series. However, it is much more quiet when shooting in "live view" mode since the mirror is locked in the up position.

quote: Bill Enos

---

Another thing digital cameras can do--they can make a photographer out of anybody.

---

quote: Bill Enos

---

If you take enough pictures you're bound to get some good ones.

---

quote: the-digital-picture.com

---

NBC’s Saturday Night Live Shoots Opening Title Sequence in Full 1080p HD Video with Canon’s EOS Digital SLR Cameras

EOS 5D Mark II and New EOS 7D Cameras Capture SNL Cast In True New York City Nightlife Style

LAKE SUCCESS, N.Y., November 11, 2009 – The new season of NBC’s Saturday Night Live debuted not only with an a new cast, but with a new look for the opening title sequence as the entire opening montage was shot using the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and the new Canon EOS 7D digital SLR cameras. The concept behind the opening sequence was portraiture as the director and crew looked to capture “living” portraits of the city, the cast and the unique characters that make up the New York City nightlife.

The crew wanted to capture the city nightlife in as natural a look and setting as possible. This meant minimal additional lighting, and making those on-camera feel comfortable to act naturally. Their solution was the Canon EOS 5D Mark II and Canon EOS 7D Digital SLR cameras, with their amazing low-light performance, small form factor, and amazing depth-of-field, which enabled the crew to shoot in predominantly ambient light without big lighting gear. The crew also found it easy to covertly shoot around the city without drawing a crowd.

The entire sequence was shot using a combination of Canon’s full-frame EOS 5D Mark II and the selectable frame rates of the EOS 7D Digital SLR cameras. Filming at night, the new stars of the hit TV show were shot in various New York City hotspots by a small crew discretely capturing the cast as they participated in select New York happenings. The entire segment was captured and edited in a week’s time, incorporating 30p footage from Canon’s 5D Mark II as well as 60p footage used for slow-motion segments shot with Canon’s EOS 7D Digital SLR camera.

The end result was that the cast and crew were able to shoot in any location – from the Brooklyn Bridge, which has limited ambient light, to a dimly lit street corner, to a more controlled bar interior – using only an on-camera Litepanels MiniPlus for most of the exterior shots and two Kino Flo lights for an interior shot that required some illumination enhancement. The lack of heavy equipment allowed the crew to move around the city quickly and shoot in some tight spaces.

“We have seen a shift in HD video capture toward a simpler and easier HDSLR workflow, and now with the EOS 7D shooting in standard NTSC and PAL frame rates, customers are realizing an even easier HD video workflow, using some of the largest HD video image sensors on the market at a fraction of the cost of competitive equipment,” stated Yuichi Ishizuka, senior vice president and general manager, Consumer Imaging Group, Canon U.S.A.

The Canon EOS 7D and EOS 5D Mark II empower cinematographers with a high-quality HD video solution featuring full manual exposure control and more than 50 Canon EF lenses to chose from, shooting on two of the industry’s largest HD video sensors. The EOS 7D also features selectable cinematic frame rates. The EOS 7D features Dual DIGIC 4 Imaging Processors and a large APS-C–sized CMOS sensor, while the EOS 5D Mark II features a single DIGIC 4 Imaging Processor and larger Full-Frame CMOS sensor, helping to render stunning color reproduction, amazing depth of field and fine high-definition detail.

The Canon EOS 7D records video in one of three modes – Full HD and HD in a 16:9 aspect ratio and Standard Definition (SD) in a 4:3 aspect ratio, all at selectable frame rates: Full HD at 1920 x 1080 pixels in selectable frame rates of 24p (23.976), 25p, or 30p (29.97); 720p HD recording at 50p or 60p (59.94) and SD video at frame rates of 50p or 60p (59.94). The EOS 5D Mark II features 16:9 Full HD video capture at 1920 x 1080 pixels and 30 fps as well as 4:3 standard TV quality (SD) video capture at 640 x 480 pixels and 30 fps. The EOS 5D Mark II features 16:9 Full HD video capture at 1920 x 1080 pixels and 30 fps as well as 4:3 standard TV quality (SD) video capture at 640 x 480 pixels and 30 fps.

Both cameras record video up to 4GB clip length, depending on the level of detail in the scene, a 4GB clip can record approximately 12 minutes of video at full HD resolution or approximately 24 minutes in standard definition. For both the Canon EOS 7D and EOS 5D Mark II, sound is recorded either through an external stereo microphone or a built-in monaural microphone.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

The world should be standardized with their frame-rates which should be 24, 30 and 60. Nothing more needed

---

quote:

---

a 4GB clip can record approximately 12 minutes of video at full HD resolution

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Regarding the camera thing: if you want a video camera, why not just buy a video camera? I can see why a digital still camera might be useful for animators who would use it on a copy stand (and then put the frames together on a computer), but I don't see the benefit of using one instead of a normal video camera to shoot live action. Different tools for different purposes. Or maybe I'm just stupid.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

I have a video camera that shoots at 60fps, but lays down the video at 24fps for true slow motion.

---

Joe, that's exactly what I'm talking about. Your footage *is* in slow motion and looks fantastic, but it still plays back nearly 50% faster than 96 would (4x normal). 60 fps isn't quite "movie" slow motion; high-speed studio cameras generally shoot slo-mo at 96 fps. It has a certain look about it that I'd like to see introduced into these new cameras at some point.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-14-2009, 11:02 AM:
 
The specs on the EOS 50D say it has an HDMI output that can be fed to an HD monitor. I assume that to mean it's a live video feed?

Question: If so, can you take that HDMI output and capture images from it on a computer -- without snapping the shutter on the camera -- for use in something like stop-motion animation?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2009, 02:27 PM:
 
The HDMI output on certain Canon EOS DSLR bodies will provide a live feed to a TV set. I don't think you're supposed to connect the camera to a computer via HDMI.

Most DSLR cameras can be remotely operated via USB 2.0 cable when "tethered" to a computer. Canon's EOS utility has pretty good remote shooting controls. Additionally, a remote shutter release like the Canon TC-80N3 has intervalometer functions for creating things like time lapse sequences. It's a compact device that's far easier to carry to an outdoor location than a notebook computer. Its battery life lasts far longer. You take a bunch of still images, re-size them for the video frame dimensions and then drop them into the timeline of a video editor. Image quality with the still frame approach is better than trying to shoot time lapse or stop motion using a video format. You can even shoot the frames in RAW format if you have the disc space. On top of that, you could shoot an animation for 4K format, not just 1080p or SD. My camera would down-size from "5.6K" to 4K.

The Timescapes web site has a couple good time lapse videos created using the EOS 5D Mark II.
 

---

Posted by Tim Reed (Member # 137) on 11-14-2009, 03:56 PM:
 
Thanks, Bobby! These are very new to me.

Shooting via the camera and transferring very high-res images would be my preferred method, however, I have been reading about (and concerned with) the amount of exposures I could take over a period of time doing a lot of animation or time lapse: the shutter operational life. Are these mechanical shutters with pellicles that flip out of the way when exposures are made?

Also, I hear the frame to frame exposure can vary ever so slightly with mechanical shutters, as to render any animation unusable?
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-14-2009, 04:45 PM:
 
It's already been done as a feature: Tim Burton shot the stop-motion film The Corpse Bride with Canon EOS 1D cameras and glass. The camera output RAW files to Apple Shake thru a Cineon CMS box, which added a look-up table meant to emulate the look of Kodak 5248 film stock.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-14-2009, 06:11 PM:
 

quote: Tim Reed

---

I have been reading about (and concerned with) the amount of exposures I could take over a period of time doing a lot of animation or time lapse: the shutter operational life. Are these mechanical shutters with pellicles that flip out of the way when exposures are made?

---

quote: Tim Reed

---

Also, I hear the frame to frame exposure can vary ever so slightly with mechanical shutters, as to render any animation unusable?

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The Timescapes web site has a couple good time lapse videos created using the EOS 5D Mark II.

---

quote: Mark Ogden

---

It's already been done as a feature

---

Yes, I know, I thought that was pretty cool. Only, they had about 15 cameras, with several setups working simultaneously. Mine will have to be on one. As I recall, they also had alignment problems from one frame to the next, which had to be corrected in software.

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

Use the mirror lock-up function to eliminate vibrations caused by mirror slap.

---

Great! Didn't know about that feature. Thanks for all the good suggestions!

Btw, I shot some time-lapse back in the 70s on 16mm. I learned to not even attempt to compensate for exposure changes. On a sunset, for example, set it either for the twilight or the nighttime and let everything else fall where it may. The resulting smoothness was worth any temporary over or under exposure.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2010, 06:41 PM:
 
Okay...so my next question is about color space. What do you all use and why. sRGB or Adobe RGB. The manual speaks of Adobe RGB being for those that will extensively retouch the photos and sRGB for everyone else.

I don't know which photos will need to be retouched until after they are taken.

Why is one better than the other. What do you all use?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 01-02-2010, 07:46 PM:
 
I ended up with Adobe RGB after taking identical sample photos in both color spaces and choosing what looked best for what I was shooting.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-02-2010, 10:52 PM:
 
Says the guy with the monochrome forum photo.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-03-2010, 11:27 PM:
 
Okay...I'm pretty sure I'm going to go for a pair of external hard drives to store digital pictures. I have an iMac (5,1). I also want to ensure that as I change computers...that the hard drive of the computer isn't the thing I have to transfer from. I'd rather the computer's hard drive just deal with programs and such.

Any recommendations on the hard drives? Best brands, size, connection method?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-04-2010, 12:15 AM:
 
All I can say on that front is to look for USB 2 connectivity. Don't worry about Firewire as that seems to be phasing out despite its vast superiority (the consumer usually chooses the inferior technology so it should come as no surprise). There are also eSATA connections. Don't worry about those, either. If you want the drive to work on Windows, format it as FAT32 (MS-DOS under Disk Utility). Macs can read some Windows disks, but Windows can't read any Mac disks. Just keep any individual file under 4gb, but that should be very easy with photography.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-04-2010, 04:39 AM:
 
I wonder if the Canon EOS 5D Mark 2 Turbo EX will be able to handle 24fps at 1080p very well. I have heard reviews on Canon's own site that there are many dropped frames when shooting video on that thing. I am looking into getting maybe a Canon POS 7D Mark 1 non-turbo.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-04-2010, 08:04 AM:
 
I haven't seen any dropped frames from my EOS 5D Mark II. Edit: the only logical reason I can see for the camera dropping frames is if the user has installed too slow a CF card. I have a SanDisk Extreme III 8GB card in my camera.

However, it does not shoot 1080p/24 yet. It only does 1080p/30 for now. Canon is working on a firmware update to add the feature so they don't lose some 5D Mk II sales to the $1000 less expensive 7D. I bought my 5D Mk II for the still image quality. It handily beats the crap out of the 7D in that regard.

The main problem with shooting video on both the 5D Mk II and 7D is the rolling shutter. If you have any kind of fast pans you're going to see vertical objects get slanted looking in the frame during the pan. It's kind of strange looking.

I have my camera set in the standard "sRGB" mode. However, I'm shooting a lot of my photos in RAW format, which is a lot better than the ordinary JPEG stuff. Use the RAW editing utility and then bring the image into Photoshop in 16-bit per channel form if you want to do more tweaking to the colors. Then drop it down to 8-bit per channel when you're finished.

If you're only shooting JPEG then it's going to be more critical to decide between Adobe RGB and sRGB. Then again, you're already going to be hamstrung from working with a lossy image compression format possibly with some auto-JPEG let's over sharpen some stuff junk cooked into the image.

Adobe Photoshop and Adobe Bridge can batch convert a lot of RAW images to TIFF or JPEG. That can help with choosing the best image format in which to shoot and which to save on disc.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-04-2010, 09:39 AM:
 
I shoot all of my pictures in the RAW (.NEF) formats as well as a heavily compressed JPEG format (takes both pictures simultaneously). Thus, if I want to post pictures on say Facebook...I already have the cheapo image and don't have to do much of anything to post. I then have the RAW format for the "keeper".

Very few pictures have I photoshoped for the sake of "improving" them. I like to capture things as they are. I have used Photoshop mostly to get rid of the technicalities of the photos (spots) or to get an unwanted object out of the picture...but that is the exception rather than the rule.

I do want to start out with the best image possible to store/work with...hence the RAW format...I just don't have a definitive reason to use sRGB versus Adobe RGB. I suppose doing some test like Adam did would be the trick for me...but one would think that with all of the people that have been shooting D-SLRs...this would be sussed out. I wonder what Claude shoots with, for instance.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 01-04-2010, 09:51 AM:
 
I do RAW+Jpeg like you Steve. Of course .

No dropped frames on my 5D MK2 either at 30fps. Haven't done 25fps yet, as the firmware is not out. Like Bobby said, fast enough memory card (a 32GB kingston in my case) or, even better, an UDMA enabled one (mine is not, just 133X rated and decent enough).

Lately have been having better luck with Samsung hard drives than with the traditional ones (Seagate-Maxtor/Western Digital/Hitachi-IBM). That doesn't mean I haven't had any Samsung failures at work. There is a particular 1.5TB Seagate that I would avoid if I were you.

Like Joe, I would go for something like an USB->SATA dock station and format a couple of 1TB drives FAT32 (if 4GB file size limit is not a problem for you) and double-copy everything to each drive. Don't recommend doing RAID for archival.
 

---

Posted by Scott Jentsch (Member # 1681) on 01-04-2010, 11:07 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Okay...I'm pretty sure I'm going to go for a pair of external hard drives to store digital pictures. I have an iMac (5,1). I also want to ensure that as I change computers...that the hard drive of the computer isn't the thing I have to transfer from. I'd rather the computer's hard drive just deal with programs and such.

Any recommendations on the hard drives? Best brands, size, connection method?

---

This past summer, I wanted to get into some form of redundancy for network storage, and decided upon the Netgear ReadyNAS Duo and put two 1TB drives in it. I also considered a Drobo, but was concerned after reading many negative comments about reliability issues. The concept of it is very cool, though...

The one knock I have against the ReadyNAS is that it requires some tweaking to get the best performance out of it. Transfer speed is OK, but could be better, even on a Gigabit network. I think the box is limited by a CPU that is too slow. The file sharing permissions can be tricky and I've not taken the time to determine why I have problems with permissions in some cases. I'm sure it's a setting somewhere, but that would require reading the documentation...

However, the redundancy factor came in handy, when one of the 1TB drives started increasing its reallocated sector counts, indicating that it was possibly failing. I received an E-Mail from the box saying that the number was increasing each time it did, and I bought a new 1TB drive to replace it, and then the box automatically sync'd the new drive as a mirror of the remaining good drive. I'll RMA the old one and then have a backup drive to use somewhere else.

I still make backups of the data, because I never want to be dependent upon one failure point. Even though it has two redundant drives, the ReadyNAS is still a single point of failure. The data on its drives (sadly) cannot be read by a standard computer.

Eventually, I want to get a SATA dock, and then take that extra 1TB drive and use it as an offsite backup drive that I can update periodically with a new snapshot.

I also have two Western Digital Passport drives that I use as backup drives for certain data sets as well. They are slower than molasses in January, so one can grow old waiting for them to do their thing.

Another thing you may want to consider from a backup standpoint is online backups, using something like JungleDisk, which uses Amazon's S3 storage cloud as a big online hard drive. I'm trying to find out more information about such options through RackSpace's Cloud Storage as well.

If you're not averse to some assembly, I've seen many good comments about using the Antec MX-1 USB/e-SATA 3.5-Inch Hard Drive Enclosure with a nice internal SATA hard drive. You'll get the longer warranty coverage that comes with the internal drive vs. external drives, and the result may be a better bang-for-the-buck solution. For about $155, you can have a 1.5TB external drive with both eSATA and USB connections. (I have no idea how a Mac factors into compatibility.)
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-04-2010, 11:13 AM:
 
The RAW+JPEG approach is fine if you have cards/data capacity for it. It's even better if you're sure the JPEG images will be acceptable in most cases.

A lot of wedding photographers shoot only in JPEG simply because they're shooting so many images. By making that choice they're under more pressure to get the shot right in the camera.

With a lot of shooting situations it may be no big deal to shoot only in JPEG. Sometimes you never know what will pop up in the image. RAW provides more flexibility to correct things like blown highlights or color fringing on an extremely contrasty object.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 01-04-2010, 11:56 AM:
 
I typically get about 500 pics per memory card and I have 2 or 3. I'm not shooting a wedding (often) thus the size is not an issue. Again, I use the low-rez, compressed JPG as the second image...they seem more than adequate for most postings and take up almost zero space (as compared to the 12M RAW files). Anyone that has seen my Facebook photos has seen the low-rez images...I honestly don't think that going through the RAW->JPG conversion would yield any better result for something like that.

For those pictures that were sourced from my D-SLR for the AFI/Silver photo project, I did go through the RAW->JPEG conversion...for several reasons. There are specific requirements on for those pictures (by Film-Tech) so I was going to be photoshopping them just for size/compression anyway. I've found it ALWAYS better to downrez than up to up-rez. There were also four or so different cameras for that so different degrees of "help" were applied.

So I highly recommend the dual picture thing...it doesn't take up much space, it does slow things down enough that I wouldn't do it if I were taking rapid fire shots but again, that doesn't come up much for me right now...even with the double picture you get something like a 3-picture spread in one shot, if you wanted.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 01-04-2010, 12:07 PM:
 
No idea on the color space question.

As for external disks, we have had very good luck with the Maxtor external USB disks at my day job. We have several remote users (mostly salesmen) who work out of their homes and use these for backup purposes. I am not aware of any failures out of about fifteen disks. They have a good reputation and I believe that there are also firewire models available (which you might prefer for your Mac).

I would stay away from Western Digital and Lacie, as both seem to have spotty reputations. I have no opinion on other brands.

FAT32 is the most universal filesystem, but you really want something like zfs (which, sadly, the Mac does not support except for read-only use) in order to prevent losing data due to "bit-rot" (Google it).

The NAS box is an excellent idea, but you really need two of them in different locations, as the electronics in the box can fry, which could easily take out both disks (as could an accidental deletion, etc.). RAID is not backup; its purpose is to minimize downtime. The best part about the NAS box is that it allows easy access from multiple computers.

Note that disks like to be kept spinning, and a disk left on the shelf for any length of time cannot necessarily be expected to last for many years. Replace disks every year or two, at least. Before using them for storage, do some large copy operations to and from them for a couple of weeks to ensure that they will not fail quickly due to manufacturing issues. Keep at least two copies of everything (plus an original), and keep at least one of the copies off site (at your office or in a safe-deposit box).

If there are pictures that you truly care about and want to preserve for the long term, have them printed by a professional lab using a silver-halide process (or output the files to 35mm slides). Store the prints/slides in the dark, using acid-free materials. Modern color prints should last decades in dark storage at room temperature, and aren't subject to changing file formats, changing filesystems, data corruption, etc. B&W fiber-base prints are even better, but I don't know if these can be made from digital files.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-04-2010, 12:41 PM:
 
I think Firewire was bitten by the same bug that killed SCSI for mainstream consumer use: too complicated and expensive. Firewire isn't nearly as needlessly complicated as SCSI, but the varying 4-pin, 6-pin and 9-pin connectors and 400/800 speeds confused way too many people.

Apple did a good job promoting Firewire for the Mac platform. But Firewire has pretty much gone nowhere on the PC end, even though it is technically better than USB. Firewire has survived due to its use in video cameras. But so many newer models are equipped with hard discs or optical discs and don't really need Firewire to transfer the video.

I think eSATA stands a decent chance of gaining mainstream acceptance once enough computers are equipped with such ports. Many new computers don't have eSATA connections even though the standard can work in a USB/eSATA combo port.

quote: Scott Norwood

---

FAT32 is the most universal filesystem, but you really want something like zfs (which, sadly, the Mac does not support except for read-only use) in order to prevent losing data due to "bit-rot" (Google it).

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

Note that disks like to be kept spinning, and a disk left on the shelf for any length of time cannot necessarily be expected to last for many years. Replace disks every year or two, at least. Before using them for storage, do some large copy operations to and from them for a couple of weeks to ensure that they will not fail quickly due to manufacturing issues. Keep at least two copies of everything (plus an original), and keep at least one of the copies off site (at your office or in a safe-deposit box).

---

quote:

---

Apple asks for Firewire royalty payments
Monday 18 January 1999 12:00

Tom Foremski

Apple Computer has begun asking for royalty payments from users of its Firewire technology as the fast data bus begins to take off as an important feature in new consumer electronics products. Apple wants about $1 per port in royalties, a move that could cause some companies to either delay or cancel using Firewire in some products where profit margins are slim. Intel is reported to have contacted Apple protesting the royalty demand.
Firewire is also known as IEEE 1394 and offers fast data transfer speeds of as much as 400 Mbits per second. The technology has begun showing up in new electronics products such as camcorders and set-top TV boxes.

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

I wonder how much any given lens affects which color space looks best for any given photo?

---

quote: Adam Martin

---

... looks best ...

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

I have a SanDisk Extreme III 8GB card in my camera.

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

have an Extreme III compact flash card as well. But is it really 3XTrE3M3 enough for the task?

---

quote: Joe Redifer

---

Actually 422 refers to the color space

---

Yeah, you're right. I keep brain farting on terms.
4:2:2 is the color sampling.

When making videos for ads at work we get a lot of material on DVD. I usually rip the DVD and convert to ProRes 422 in one step using MPEG Streamclip. If you can deduce which VOB file is the one that holds the scenes you want you can play it back with Streamclip and export it to 422.

It's still a lossy codec but it makes your editing go a heck of a lot smoother and you get better results at the end.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2010, 09:31 AM:
 
Yeah, MPEG Streamclip is awesome, except that it doesn't play very well with OSX 10.6. I usually go all out and convert to ProRes 4444. But from DVD 422 is probably more than fine. I should do some tests and see if I can get away with a smaller codec. 4444 isn't as "huge" as I once thought it would be, but it sure ain't small (that's what she said).
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-24-2010, 03:00 PM:
 
When I upgraded to 10.6 it I found my MPEG-2 codec was deleted.
I thought I was going to have to reinstall but, at the last minute, I remembered, "Hey! I have Time Macnine!" I checked my T.M. backup and there it was! The MPEG-2 codec I needed! I just clicked "Restore" and I was back in business.

What else about 10.6 doesn't want to play nice with MPEG Streamclip? That's the only trouble I had. Once I figured that out I was okay again.

I know ProRes 422 isn't a small codec but, at home, I have plenty of storage. More than 2 TB total. At work we have 3 X 500 GB drives just for storing junk and I delete all unclaimed material off them at the end of ever term.

I know ProRes 422 takes a lot of time to "conform" the data the first time you convert to it but, once it is done, everything else goes lickey-split. But even then, the machines at work are Quad-Cores and, at home, I have an 8-core ("Harpertown") Mac Pro. Conversion speed isn't a factor, especially when you have a fast machine running 10.6. Even if you don't have 64-bit clean software it still helps because you can access more memory.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2010, 05:18 PM:
 
Hmmmm.... ProRes 422HQ doesn't seem to take up any less space than ProRes 4444. ProRes 422 (non-HQ) isn't much bigger than the video files captured by the camera. As was the case with VHS, the "HQ" makes all the difference in the world. MPEG Streamclip doesn't work well with DVDs since upgrading to 10.6. I can't rip anything. Must use Windows for that.

Anyway, here is a frame grab from the 7D video. The "diagonal-ness" on the quick pans isn't nearly as bad as some have made it out to be. You have to be moving pretty fast to get the effect.


 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-24-2010, 07:50 PM:
 
It's a lot easier to see the diagonal artifact issues caused by the rolling shutter in the Canon EOS 7D and 5D Mark II by looking at video clips in motion.

Here is an interesting comparison of the rolling shutter effect between the 7D and 5D Mark II.

I think the diagonal effect is a little more pronounced on the 5D Mark II since its imaging sensor is so much larger than that of the 7D.

In certain cases I could see the slanted effect actually being useful to add "energy" to certain shots. But the effect is pretty noticeable and one would need to take steps to avoid having it show up in the footage.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2010, 07:57 PM:
 
There is next to no motion blur in those clips so the effect is easier to see. But I don't foresee myself doing too many whip pans.

Here is the Quicktime (downscaled and compressed) of my pan. Noticeable, but not crazy-distracting.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-24-2010, 08:39 PM:
 
Unencrypted DVDs I can play just by using Streamclip. Encrypted DVDs I can use Mac the Ripper to pull out the VOB I need then play or transcode to ProRes 422 with Streamclip.

When I first installed 10.6 I had trouble. I lost my MPEG-2 playback codec. The installer deleted it. I had to use Time Machine to restore it from previous backups. After that, I have had no trouble at all ripping DVDs.

Look in /MacintoshHD/Library/Quicktime/ for the file "QuickTimeMPEG2.component". If you don't have it, restore it from prior backups or reinstall from the installation disks. If you don't want to go through that trouble I can e-mail the file to you. It's only 672 MB on disk. It can be zipped down to less than 300 MB.

If you need the component I can send it to you. If that's not what the problem is, I don't know why yours doesn't work. Mine does.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-24-2010, 09:42 PM:
 
I don't seem to have that file, but I can play .M2V and .VOB files in Quicktime without any problem. What are the advantages of that particular component? And hell yeah, I'll take it. My e-mail account only allows for 50MB attachments max, though. Unless you FTP.

I really like how MPEG Streamclip lets me pick the IN and OUT point in a DVD and just rip that straight to whatever format I choose. I've never really tried Mac the Ripper, Does that let you select in and out points as well? I don't like ripping the entire VOB file if I don't have to.
 

---

Posted by Randy Stankey (Member # 64) on 01-24-2010, 11:05 PM:
 
Klicken Sie hier! http://files.me.com/randystankey/v6tr8v

I am not certain that this will work but, what the hell! It's worth a try.
The file goes in /MachintoshHD/Library/Quicktime/...

Theoretically, there should be nothing wrong with you receiving this. You paid for Final Cut Pro. Correct? This component is supposed to be part of Final Cut Pro. When you installed 10.6, the file was deleted. You are only restoring something that you previously had.

This is what solved my problem and I think it will help solve yours but it's an easy thing to try. If it doesn't work, nothing lost. Right?

BTW: Streamclip isn't supposed to be capable of playing back encrypted DVDs or the VOB files contained therein. However, if you decrypt and extract those VOBs to your hard drive there should be no problem playing them.

"Mac the Ripper" is the application I use to extract material from DVDs. With this program encryption comes of faster than a prom dress! Mac the Ripper can extract the elementary streams, you can remove region codes (assuming your drive can read the region of the original disk) and it can disable UOP restrictions in menus.

I assume your Google-Fu is strong enough to find "Mac the Ripper."
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 01-25-2010, 01:18 PM:
 
Thanks for that. I don't have any DVDs around me right now, but the fact is that component should be there regardless.

ROBERT HENDERSON! I have a couple of tests I would like for you to try on your 5D Mark II camera. You don't have to post examples of the results like I did, I just want to know if the same thing affects your camera as does my T1i.

The first is a moire test. Put your camera in video mode and point it at a building with a similar brick pattern as seen in my example video below. Moire?
Moire Test
My video was at 720p. Try 1080p on yours. Moire is my enemy.

The second test is very important. My camera does not allow for full manual control during video mode. Pointing it at a light source and zooming in and out will change the ISO settings automatically. Check out my example video of this happening. I want to know if this still occurs in full manual mode on a camera like the 5.2D or 7D. When I was messing with the 7D, it did this as I zoomed in and out, but I did not have a lot of time to mess with the controls. Point your 5.2D at a light source (or anywhere, really) in video mode and zoom in and out with your lens. Try to stop the ISO from changing automatically. Let me know what you find.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 01-25-2010, 07:53 PM:
 
I'll have to test the moire issue on a brick wall in the next day or two.

As for ISO, you can manually set the ISO level during video recording but you must be in full manual mode to do so. The controls on the 7D are little different from the 5D Mark II. On the 5D Mark II the dial on top must be set to "M" and the little ON/OFF selector switch under the "quick control dial" on the back of the camera body must be set to its third position above "ON". That activates the big "quick control dial" on the back of the camera. You use that and the "main dial" to change aperture and shutter speeds manually for video. Press the ISO button near the main dial to manually change ISO settings. If you don't have those controls set right then that auto ISO stuff will be there by default.

Hey, what do you know! Post 7000.
 

---

Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 02-27-2010, 05:30 PM:
 
I am interested in taking the Dslr jump. The Mark II 5D seems to be top of the line, but probably a tad excessive for my needs and very expensive. The 7D is much cheaper, but I read some reviews that it's recommended for sports photography. I intend to use the camera for when I travel, taking people shots, monuments, wildlife, etc. Are there any good review sites for cameras?
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-27-2010, 06:41 PM:
 
Digital Photography Review is a pretty good resource. The site has in depth reviews of many different DSLR cameras and lenses. The site also has a pretty good forum too.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 02-27-2010, 09:02 PM:
 
Another nice thing about DPR is that you get to see the exact same test shots done with the various cameras you are comparing and see what the trade-offs are. I don't think anyone has a lock on "best" but you can decide what is important to you and how much you want to pay for that next increment of "better."

Steve
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2010, 02:42 AM:
 

quote: Mike Heenan

---

The 7D is much cheaper, but I read some reviews that it's recommended for sports photography.

---

Well if that isn't a deal-breaker, I don't know what is!!! The 7D has a logic chip inside to determine what you are taking a picture of. If it is not a sports-related image, the camera deletes the image right after the shutter closes. I would never, ever get a camera that is recommended for sports photography. It must be HORRIBLE! The 5D Mark II is recommended for taking pictures of traffic, by the way.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2010, 12:17 PM:
 
Hmm, I thought a faster possible frame rate was a good thing.

The EOS 7D can take up to 8 full resolution photos per second. That's why it gets a "sports photography" tag. The EOS 5D Mark II takes 3.9 photos per second. That's not really slow, but it's not so great for sports either. The EOS 1D Mark III and Mark IV models shoot 10 photos per second.

The 7D has a better (newer) auto focus system than the 5D Mark II.

The big advantage of the 5D Mark II is its large 36mm X 24mm full frame sensor. It sees the full view of EF series lenses instead of a 1.6 cropped view. The pixels on its image sensor are significantly larger than that of the 7D (6.4µm versus 4.3µm). That helps the 5D Mark II get more light and color onto the imaging sensor and also help it perform better in low light situations.

The 7D is built more for speed. It is a better choice for action photography. The 5D Mark II is better for studio use and situations where you're not having to act super quick to get the shot. Although getting the shot successfully comes more from the planning and actions of the photographer than the camera itself.

The Digital Picture is a Canon oriented web site, but has a great deal of information and comparisons of Canon camera bodies, lenses and other gear to use with those camera systems.

BTW, Canon may deliver its big firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark II in mid March. The Canon Rumors web site posted a photo of a slide listing the video features for the 5D MkII with the firmware update:
HDTV recording modes:
1080p/30 NTSC
1080p/24 NTSC
1080p/25 PAL
1080p/24 PAL
640X480 30fps

Shutter priority (Tv) and aperture priority (Av) exposure modes will be added for movie shooting. A histogram display will be available for shooting movies in manual mode. The audio sampling frequency is changed from 44.1kHz to 48kHz. A manual recording level (64 steps) will be added in the update.

One thing the 5D Mark II firmware update cannot add: a simple "start/stop" movie recording button on the back of the camera. The 7D has that. It's kind of a pain to set up movie recording in the 5D Mark II (you have to go into that Live View settings menu and fiddle with stuff in there).
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2010, 04:15 PM:
 
Another good Canon-oriented site to mention:
Planet 5D

That site is not just about the EOS 5D and 5D Mark II. There's lots of stuff on there about other Canon camera bodies like the 7D and 1D Mark IV. There's lots of interesting video links showing off HD footage from 5D MkII, 7D and ID MkIV bodies.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2010, 06:37 PM:
 
Bobby, NTSC and PAL cannot be 1080p. You owe everyone an apology.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2010, 06:46 PM:
 
I'm just repeating what I saw on the slide:
http://www.canonrumors.com/2010/02/5d-mark-ii-firmware-info-update/
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 02-28-2010, 08:36 PM:
 
Apologize. Now.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 02-28-2010, 10:15 PM:
 
I am sorry for what I saw. Damn my eyesight! Damn it all to hell!

 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2010, 04:28 PM:
 
Canon confirmed the March 2010 release schedule of the 2.0.3 firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark II. The features added by the firmware are pretty much what was listed a couple posts earlier.

The existing 1080p/30 mode on the 5D Mark II will be changed to the 29.97 frame rate. The 1080p/24 mode will really be 23.976. Gotta make things easier to port that HD stuff on old-ass SD NTSC equipment!

The firmware update reportedly will not add any 720p modes to the 5D Mark II. Some folks are griping about the lack of a 1080p/60 mode. That's kind of a head-scratcher to me. Outside of some video games, what sort of video is even recorded or played back in 1080p/60? Do any standard HD video cameras or playback decks support live action video in 1080p/60?

 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-02-2010, 04:43 PM:
 
I don't think so. Videogames only, and even then only some of them. All 1080/60 material is otherwise 1080i. Oh and they will add manual audio adjustment to the 5D as well. I wonder if the 7D is 24p or 23.976p.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-02-2010, 05:49 PM:
 
I didn't think there was any existing 1080p/60 standard for live action video. It would take roughly double the bandwidth (or double the severity of data compression) to squeeze 1080p/60 video into a broadcast or cable TV application.

That 60Hz clock in so much broadcast equipment does a lot to keep some strange standards in place. We can't have broadcast TV in 1080p/30. It has to be chopped into 1080i/60. 720p/60 seems kind of cool, but so many ABC and Fox TV shows aren't photographed in a native 60 frames per second format.

The manual audio feature for the 5D Mark II seems interesting. However, to capture audio that's worth a damn at all with the camera you absolutely have to buy a shotgun mic of some sort. The built in mic in the 5D Mark II sucks. It doesn't record audio very well but picks up lots of wind noise.

The 7D shoots 23.976 for 24p and 29.97 for 30p.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2010, 12:18 AM:
 
Well, Canon has just issued the new firmware update for the EOS 5D Mark II. Unfortunately the firmware update procedure seems really stupidly fucking complicated. All I know is I need to fully charge the battery for my 5D Mark II and maybe have a USB cable handy. It just seems like a real pain in the ass to gain 1080p/24 capability with a good dose of moire (unless I open the aperture to f/2.8).

Oh well, I got a warm-up for this event via a Panasonic Blu-ray player owned by a couple of my friends. Their player was unable to play Inglorious Basterds. With some research I found they definitely needed to do a firmware update because Universal screwed the pooch when testing their disc on Panasonic players. That update was a PAIN IN THE ASS. They couldn't do it because their Roxio software and M$ Vista wouldn't let them author an ISO-9660 formatted CD-R disc with the latest firmware update software. FUCK. The damned BD player has a SD card slot and USB 2.0 slots yet you still have to burn a fucking ISO CD disc. What the mother fuck!? Goddamn! I want to sledgehammer an engineer's skull for not thinking about firmware updates via USB or flash card slots (kinda like the Playstation 3 can do --assholes!).

Since I own a very old, aging laptop computer with XP, I was able to burn the proper ISO-9660 update to a CD-R and properly repair my friends' Blu-ray player. They were very happy. Then we had drinks this weekend and lounged in the hot tub. No time machine involved. No porn either. All respectable.

Still, the instructions for the EOS 5D Mark II firmware update seem needlessly complicated. I'm sure I'll manage because I'm very very very careful about these kinds of things. Who needs to take chances on bricking a $2800 camera body?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-16-2010, 03:45 AM:
 
How is it complicated? The 7D firmware update seems easy. Download the file, put it in the root directory of the Compact Flash Extr33m 3 card, put card in, turn camera on, go to certain option in the menu, tell it to update. About a minute later, it is done.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-16-2010, 10:29 AM:
 
The actual procedure of applying the firmware update isn't too bad, but it would be nice if the camera would just automatically detect the firmware update file when you turn on the camera and then ask you if you want to apply the update.

Canon's instructions of getting there just seem to add some unnecessary steps. You download some self extracting EXE/ZIP file that turns out not to save as file size. They ask you to format the CF card before sticking the "5d200203.fir" file into the root directory. So you have to move anything you have on the CF card elsewhere.

Anyway, I was finally able to apply the update. The real hassle turned out to be just downloading the update file. Canon's server kept timing out. Someone else at one of the photo forums posted a copy of the already extracted "5d200203.fir" file elsewhere on a much faster server.

Canon may have to do another update. Complaints are surfacing about the manual audio controls. They don't "stick" at the same setting when you turn off the camera or let it go to sleep. If you don't check manual gain settings every time you shoot you may end up with video clips without audio.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-16-2010, 04:25 PM:
 

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

They ask you to format the CF card before sticking the "5d200203.fir" file into the root directory. So you have to move anything you have on the CF card elsewhere.

---

No you don't. Don't do that! I didn't when I updated the 7D. Just put it in the root directory and it is fine. It worked.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2010, 12:26 AM:
 
It took only a day or two for Canon to address the audio level bug in the 5D Mark II version 2.0.3 firmware with new and improved 2.0.4 firmware!

This time I tried the EOS utility method of updating the firmware since my notebook computer at home doesn't have a CF card slot. Seemed convenient enough. With the camera connected to the computer, use the remote shooting feature. It has a firmware update function. When used, the new firmware is copied to the CF card in the camera and launched.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-21-2010, 01:26 AM:
 
Let me know when you have videos ready to view that you made with the 5D Mark Gulbrandsen II.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-21-2010, 01:59 AM:
 
With the weather as shitty as it has been it could be awhile. Gotta be able to get outdoors and find some decent subject matter.

Can't really post amateur porn here either!

 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-27-2010, 10:56 PM:
 
You guys mentioned "sports photography". My wife and I are trying to figure out what to look for in that regard with digital cameras. She teaches Irish Dance, and we'd like to be able to take clear - non-motion-blurred pictures of our dancers when they're on stage. Up until now, our cheapy digital camera seems to have a real problem with that. It's one of the pocket model cameras. One thing I hate about it is when I know a particular shot is coming up that will look cool (because I know the dance routine), I'll time my press of the button - only to have the camera hesitate for what seems like a random amount of time to try to focus or whatever and then miss the shot.

So we're ready to make the leap into D-SLR I think. But we don't want to spend a ton of money. We just want to be able to take decent non-blurred pictures of our dancers while they're dancing. We don't need 20 mega pixels or anything like that. Honestly 8 or 10 is probably fine.

Can you guys give me any tips, or recommend any reasonably priced cameras that are good enough for what we want without breaking our bank?
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 03-28-2010, 12:38 AM:
 
Do get too disillusioned, DSLRs hesitate just as much as the pocket cameras when they are in autofocus mode. But the nice thing about DSLR is that they don't HAVE to be in autofocus. Just put it in manual, focus on the dancers once and leave it.

Getting non-motion blurred shots is really tricky in dark situations, and I doubt the dancers perform in bright sunlight. The key is to have a high shutter speed (aka short exposure). 1/150 should be enough to eliminate most/all motion blur on all but the fastest moving objects. To compensate you'll need a larger aperture and a higher ISO. The higher the ISO, the noisier your image. If you zoom in, your aperture cannot be opened as wide. So tell the light people to make everything extra bright so you don't have to turn up the ISO too high.

Check out the Canon T2i. I think it is around $700 or $800 with a lens included. You can get fairly cheap remote shutters for about $25 or so. That way you don't need to touch the camera itself to take the shot.
 

---

Posted by Julio Roberto (Member # 4976) on 03-28-2010, 01:01 AM:
 
On the high end-ish of things, you should look into the canon 7D and T2i. The T2i (AKA 550D) is only around $1100 with a nice lens kit (with optical stabilization, which helps with hand-shake motion blur) and can take videos at 720p at 60fps for brief periods of time in hot weather (say 30m, since it overheats a bit), which should help with motion blur/interlace related artifacts on appropiate TV/monitors (60p is well supported).

If you want something cheap but REALLY want to get into the "sport" mode and don't mind low-resolution too much, some Fuji camera models, like the HF10, offer shooting speeds of up to 1000fps and 30X nice zooms for around $500. The high speed comes of course at much lower resolutions. They work quite well in low light situations.

Still, they have 240fps modes which are not too bad. With that, you can capture motion quite well with about the same resolution as a VHS tape and can do clear slow motion. Or 120fps at about NTSC-DVD resolutions.

Casio (i.e. Exilim pro ex-f1) and Nikon Coolpix P100 (around $400) also offer high speed modes (i.e. 120fps at good resolutions). The Casio can do 300fps at a useable 512x384 and up to 1200fps!!! (at 336x96 post stamp size )

Plenty of choices. Just research them all and decide what your best option is. The most recommended camera overall right now is the canon t2i/550D, but may not be the best option for your specific needs besides being a tad expensive.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 03-28-2010, 01:06 PM:
 
Sports photography, and other forms of "action" photography can be pretty tricky. One piece "point and shoot" cameras are generally pretty bad at action photography.

First of all getting the shot is more a function of the camera lens than the camera body. It is nice to have a camera body that can shoot at least 5 or more frames per second. There is no one, single lens that will be perfect for all purposes. Shooting distance and lighting conditions will dictate what kind of lens should be used.

If the lighting is dim at all -such as indoor fluorescent lighting in a gym, the lens will need a large aperture to get enough light into the camera for faster shutter speeds.

Zoom lenses usually don't give you any larger than a f/2.8 aperture, and you have to spend quite a lot of money for zoom lenses that maintain that big f/2.8 aperture throughout the entire zoom range. Less expensive zoom lenses will have a variable aperture, such as f/3.5 to f/5.6. An f/5.6 maximum aperture is pretty slow and not very useful for light-challenged indoor sports photography.

Prime lenses can be an affordable alternative. Both Nikon and Canon have good quality, affordable primes in 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm and 200mm focal lengths. Some of these lenses have apertures that open up as big as f/1.4. That's going to allow for much faster shutter speeds than most any zoom lens will provide. Image sharpness from corner to corner will be better than the results of most zoom lenses too. You just have to be more careful about picking your shooting position since you can't zoom.

A shutter speed of 1/160 is fast enough to stop most action in the frame, but it isn't fast enough to stop camera shake if you're zoomed out to focal lengths of 200mm or more. Image stabilization can be very valuable in something like a 70-200mm zoom lens and is mandatory for a 300mm or 400mm super telephoto lens.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 03-28-2010, 08:53 PM:
 
Great info. Thanks, guys.
 

---