Why doesn't this camera exist? Good high ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode - Page 8

bubblegoose · 22nd October 2009, 10:36 PM

Enter: The 1D mark IV

This is the camera you have been waiting for... Good High ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode and around the 12-15MP mark (ok slightly higher, but who cares) It seems Canon have got it right haha

FB008 · 22nd October 2009, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bubblegoose

Enter: The 1D mark IV

This is the camera you have been waiting for... Good High ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode and around the 12-15MP mark (ok slightly higher, but who cares) It seems Canon have got it right haha

but it ain't full frame.

0oBelialo0 · 22nd October 2009, 11:28 PM

You know when video on an SLR is awesome? When you're being a tourist, chasing your kids around or doing generally boring non-arty shit. IE, 90% of what 95% of DSLR owers shoot.

I think people forget that we're enthusiasts here, and don't represent the average DSLR owner. On the cruise every man and his dog had SLRs, almost all of them using the kit lens or a superzoom. Though there were a few crazy guys with tripods, 70-200s and 1Ds's.

Not having to lug my miniDV camera o/s along with my SLR was fantastic, as was being able to switch modes easily and not change bodies.

Sure, I could have probably used an LX-3 for the whole trip, but there's a reason we lug SLRs around with us. Having video included, at no cost to the still functionality, is fantastically convenient.

And, you know, if you don't want to use it, don't. Just treat it like scene modes, in-camera image filters and the direct print button.

Ben

fancourt · 23rd October 2009, 8:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdkhang

24p is only jerky because of the whole telecine process. Afterall 25p is only 4% faster, surely 4% can't make that huge of a difference in jerkiness. 25p gets away with being smooth because it is broadcast in countries where 50hz is the norm, given 50hz is a multiple of 25, it's easy to reproduce. 24p is used in countries where 60hz is the norm, had it been 48hz or 72hz, there would never be this issue.

Wow, not a single piece of that paragraph is correct. Tell me, how does a telecine running at 24fps make motion look jerky? Does the jerky action go away or increase if I decide to scan on my telecine at say 8fps then play back off disk at 24. 25p looks smooth to you because your used to it, show pal/50i to an American with decent eyes and they'll see a flicker. 24p is not broadcast in america.

However back OT, I would like Canon/Nikon etc to give me some more options in regards to gamma encoding on the video outputs. Essentially I want a log output, flat, unsharpened, and an attempt to preserve more of the highlight detail than what I'm currently seeing.

bubblegoose · 23rd October 2009, 8:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FB008

but it ain't full frame.

It's better than the 1.6 crop of the 7D

hdkhang · 23rd October 2009, 3:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancourt

Wow, not a single piece of that paragraph is correct. Tell me, how does a telecine running at 24fps make motion look jerky? Does the jerky action go away or increase if I decide to scan on my telecine at say 8fps then play back off disk at 24. 25p looks smooth to you because your used to it, show pal/50i to an American with decent eyes and they'll see a flicker. 24p is not broadcast in america.

It was late. However I think you totally misunderstood my post.

The main gist is that 24p is not inherently jerky. The reason people think it is is because of the fact that 24p - 60fps makes it that way (i.e. every 5th frame is a repeat). This is why there was such a big push for 24p output from BluRay and PC playback onto sets which can display at multiples of 24.

I never said anything about 50i either. 50i is not 25p. I said that anything that was 25p does not have the same jerkiness (nothing about flicker here) here in australia since it is an even multiple of 50.

Even with DVDs, here in Australia, 24p sources are sped up to 25fps, this causes pitch shifts in the audio. Which is why some with HTPCs actually use reclock to slow it back down again.

You need to differentiate between jerky motion and flicker.

fancourt · 23rd October 2009, 5:10 PM

No, 24 is jerky because there are not enough frames being captured every second to fool our brains. Lower the frame rate and it becomes worse, speed up and it becomes better. Granted the 2:3 process whilst technically not adding/repeating frames will make movement a little more steppy, it is however inherent in 24 anyway. A Good cinematographer knows the right speed at which to pan to avoid this. I've transferred enough film at 24p on various telecines over the years to know this.

proffesso · 24th October 2009, 3:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancourt

No, 24 is jerky because there are not enough frames being captured every second to fool our brains. Lower the frame rate and it becomes worse, speed up and it becomes better. Granted the 2:3 process whilst technically not adding/repeating frames will make movement a little more steppy, it is however inherent in 24 anyway. A Good cinematographer knows the right speed at which to pan to avoid this. I've transferred enough film at 24p on various telecines over the years to know this.

wasnt 24fps deemed "lowest film speed possible" way back when? to keep costs down. it kinda just stuck now, and anything that doest conform to that isnt considered a "film"

fancourt · 24th October 2009, 7:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

wasnt 24fps deemed "lowest film speed possible" way back when? to keep costs down. it kinda just stuck now, and anything that doest conform to that isnt considered a "film"

Pretty much, and because projection is mechanical once that standard become the norm there was no turning back. 2:3 pulldown was then nutted out by engineers to enable the cutting of 24 frame film in the video world which only had 625/525 available at the time. Its a pretty rare and dead format but if you ever have the opportunity to see something in showscan do not pass it up. Its freakin amazing, 70mm at 60fps.

hdkhang · 26th October 2009, 3:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancourt

No, 24 is jerky because there are not enough frames being captured every second to fool our brains. Lower the frame rate and it becomes worse, speed up and it becomes better. Granted the 2:3 process whilst technically not adding/repeating frames will make movement a little more steppy, it is however inherent in 24 anyway. A Good cinematographer knows the right speed at which to pan to avoid this. I've transferred enough film at 24p on various telecines over the years to know this.

24 is jerky as opposed to 25 being smooth aye?

hdkhang · 26th October 2009, 3:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

wasnt 24fps deemed "lowest film speed possible" way back when? to keep costs down. it kinda just stuck now, and anything that doest conform to that isnt considered a "film"

Yeah, but as time progressed we got used to the "look" of 24p. We then associated it with being the look of a "film" as opposed to the look of "video". I use the inverted commas since they aren't technically correct terms, more like lingo.

It's similar to the new TV's with 100hz or 200hz technology (or 120hz or 240hz in the US). The interpolation of frames with intermediate frames to smooth out the motion makes the image look less like "film" and more like "video".

fancourt · 26th October 2009, 5:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hdkhang

24 is jerky as opposed to 25 being smooth aye?

No, your eyes are just shit., because their not divisible by a xxhz.

proffesso · 26th October 2009, 6:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancourt

70mm at 60fps.

deader than dead unfortunantly.

wasnt there talk of reviving 48fps in cinema's a couple of years back? lucas, spielberg etc were supporting it

Edit- did you see the remaster of baraka? 65/70mm rescanned at 8k...

fancourt · 27th October 2009, 9:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by proffesso

deader than dead unfortunantly.

wasnt there talk of reviving 48fps in cinema's a couple of years back? lucas, spielberg etc were supporting it

Edit- did you see the remaster of baraka? 65/70mm rescanned at 8k...

I saw a showscan demo many many years ago in vegas, was part of nab i believe. Should start a partition to bring it back

Projectors double shutter anyway, so effectively giving you 48 but I doubt we'll ever see anything shot at 48 for sync sound for a while, and especially anything shot with film. Maybe once everything including theaters/cameras go digital, but a doubt it, standards move incredibly slowly in this industry.

I own the remastered baraka on blueray and its awesome, would love to see that movie back off print some day.

hdkhang · 27th October 2009, 6:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fancourt

No, your eyes are just shit., because their not divisible by a xxhz.

Kinda like your reading comprehension right?

22nd October 2009, 10:36 PM	#106
bubblegoose Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Albury Posts: 1,026	Enter: The 1D mark IV This is the camera you have been waiting for... Good High ISO, High FPS, 1080p Movie Mode and around the 12-15MP mark (ok slightly higher, but who cares) It seems Canon have got it right haha __________________ HTPC Setup - E8400, 4x2GB 800mhz, HD2600, Sony 52" XBR, Sony STR-DA5300ES, 2 x 15" SAW3800's, SSFCR7000B 7.1 Camera gear- Canon 5D Mark II, Canon 1D, Canon 30D, Canon 70-200/2.8L IS USM, Canon 24-105/4L IS USM, Canon 50/1.8, Canon 22-55/4 USM, Cimko 28/2.8, Speedlite 580 EX II, 430 EX II, Lowepro Photo Trekker AW II, Lowepro Compu daypack, Manfrotto 190xPROB

22nd October 2009, 11:28 PM	#108
0oBelialo0 Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Canberra Posts: 3,971	You know when video on an SLR is awesome? When you're being a tourist, chasing your kids around or doing generally boring non-arty shit. IE, 90% of what 95% of DSLR owers shoot. I think people forget that we're enthusiasts here, and don't represent the average DSLR owner. On the cruise every man and his dog had SLRs, almost all of them using the kit lens or a superzoom. Though there were a few crazy guys with tripods, 70-200s and 1Ds's. Not having to lug my miniDV camera o/s along with my SLR was fantastic, as was being able to switch modes easily and not change bodies. Sure, I could have probably used an LX-3 for the whole trip, but there's a reason we lug SLRs around with us. Having video included, at no cost to the still functionality, is fantastically convenient. And, you know, if you don't want to use it, don't. Just treat it like scene modes, in-camera image filters and the direct print button. Ben __________________ "A vital ingredient of success is not knowing that what you're attempting can't be done" - Pratchett Blog \| RedBubble \| Gear \| Kiva.org - Loans That Change Lives

23rd October 2009, 5:10 PM	#112
fancourt Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 311	No, 24 is jerky because there are not enough frames being captured every second to fool our brains. Lower the frame rate and it becomes worse, speed up and it becomes better. Granted the 2:3 process whilst technically not adding/repeating frames will make movement a little more steppy, it is however inherent in 24 anyway. A Good cinematographer knows the right speed at which to pan to avoid this. I've transferred enough film at 24p on various telecines over the years to know this. Last edited by fancourt; 23rd October 2009 at 5:15 PM.