pretty nice music video with 5DII

[f64manray]

It seems like you could do a feature with this camera or am I wrong? After reading about how James Cameron is so annoyed with 24 fps, and pushing for 48 fps at 2K as the new shooting format, I think I'm okay with 30 fps. I'm so easily influenced ;-)

One of the best videos with the 5DII to dat, IMO.

http://www.paulwardphotography.com/video.htm

[John Caballero]

Of course you can do a feature with the 5D. Whoever says otherwise will be proven wrong very soon. The Tell Me What You Want video is proof of that. It looks great. There will be many people that won't stop to complain about about the shortcomings of the camera and work around them. These are the people who are real innovators and risk takers.
The look of the images remind me of the CSI shows. It is rich, sharp and the DOF to boot. 30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't. They can't even tell the difference. Especially with those sharp new HD tvs. They just see a crystal clear image with beautiful colors. You will start seeing more and more productions done with this camera very soon.

[mattsand]

pushing for 48 fps at 2K as the new shooting format
48 fps can easily be converted to 24, 25, 50 and to a degree 60 fps. there's nothing wrong with 30 fps except it's incompatible with almost everything.

/matt

[f64manray]

I've done still photography for so long, the 5DII makes my heart beat faster thinking this amazing color rendition, contrast and low light ability will be available at a fairly reasonable cost to make my moving pictures a reality. I think this is going to cost me about $6,500 between the 5DII kit and the new Imac to edit, but I feel it will be worth it.

[f64manray]

48 fps can easily be converted to 24, 25, 50 and to a degree 60 fps. there's nothing wrong with 30 fps except it's incompatible with almost everything.

/matt

Yep, that's why he wants to shoot at 48fps, so it can be converted to 24 fps for the international market which will lag behind for some time before it catches up, but with the new projectors he wants his stuff to be projected at 48fps. 48fps makes a good transition format between the old and the new.

I seriously doubt if film makers had today's technology in the 1920's we would even be discussing 24 fps as a preferred frame rate for movies. It seems it's good for only one thing: saving money on film cost over 48fps, but shooting on hard drives is changing all that pretty quickly it seems.

I would imagine that the new projectors would accept all frame rates.

[mattsand]

30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't.

You're missing the point. It's not the look that's the problem, it's the huge technical hurdle of converting it to a viable screening format. If the audience doesn't even get to see you film don't you think they'll care?!? /matt

[mattsand]

Projectors already support 30p but good luck approaching a distributor saying "by the way, it's in 30p". How are they going to make a print? How are they going to make masters for pal broadcast? Or worse how are you going to, because they'll demand it? I'm sure there will be a few cool films shot on the 5d but it's just counterproductive to ignore the real problem. /matt

[Osslund]

To bad it's 30fps and looks like video. Imho only 24/25p do look like film in the end.

[hunter richards]

Im thinking 30p to 24p via a Teranex Video computer may do the trick...

[Lee Wilson]

Horrible video.

Rudimentary idea, awful lighting, looked like a commercial for a kitchen and bathroom retailer.

Employing about the most basic aspirational 'lifestyle' gimmicks you could dream up, girl playing snooker in her underwear in nice apartment. Tedious.

The music is little better, it could have well been produced by any number of competent studio engineers 10 years ago.


Absolute rubbish.

:)

[artforme]

Horrible video.

Rudimentary idea, awful lighting, looked like a commercial for a kitchen and bathroom retailer.

Employing about the most basic aspirational 'lifestyle' gimmicks you could dream up, girl playing snooker in her underwear in nice apartment. Tedious.

The music is little better, it could have well been produced by any number of competent studio engineers 10 years ago.


Absolute rubbish.

:)

I thought the video was alright, but I have one Huge complaint about it.

At the beginning there is a rack focus that is off. (And this just isn't an artistic opinion.) He focused on the phone (then ring), the focus on the girl, then focus back on the phone.

It should have been, focus on the girl (then ring), then focus on the phone, then on the girl.

Why would you focus on the phone before it rings?

Anyways, I was impressed by the rest of the video, but that simple flaw ruined any experience for me.

[artforme]

As Matt said: FPS is more about distribution than anything else.

If your working on a project that is going straight to web, FPS does not matter that much. Unless your going for that cinematic look, than 24p is your best bet.

[John Caballero]

It is good that everything is a matter of opinion and the one that counts the most is from the general audience watching the video and buying the records. I could bet you the fans love it because it looks and sounds excellent. Again, kudos to the guys that go out and do something, not the critics which usually don't accomplish much on their own. Isn't that almost always the case? The guy that did this one is garnering attention, others, well, just criticizing. You have to give credit to the doers and ignore the naysayers. Lack of "cinematic look"? What a joke.

[artforme]

It is good that everything is a matter of opinion and the one that counts the most is from the general audience watching the video and buying the records. I could bet you the fans love it because it looks and sounds excellent. Again, kudos to the guys that go out and do something, not the critics which usually don't accomplish much on their own. Isn't that almost always the case? The guy that did this one is garnering attention, others, well, just criticizing. You have to give credit to the doers and ignore the naysayers. Lack of "cinematic look"? What a joke.

You have good points. I don't think it lacked a cinematic look. The video was good. It was just the rack focus that bothered me.

On the other hand. It's good to criticize each others works though. That's the only way change happens.

And thanks to the OP for sharing the work, I always like to see what can be done.

[John Caballero]

Your point about the rack focus is totally valid, I was not talking about that. The point I was making is that saying that the piece was a horrible video, blah, blah is not constructive criticism at all. Thats an opinion that I am sure the general audience, which it is targeted for, wouldn't give two cents about. It is good to criticize each others work but it is better to reconize that the person that took the time, effort, money and knowledge to create something with a new tool deserves 100% credit for his/her accomplishment. Heck, if I was going to criticize some work I've seen around done with the Red One, a $30,000 camera, it wouldn't be a polite critic because to tell you the truth a lot of it truly stinks. The fact is that a lot of people are going to get very angry because more proffesional and well produce stuff is going to continue coming out from the 5dM2 and being accepted by the public, 30 FPS or not. Bad compression or not.

[artforme]

I agree, as it's always about the intended audience.

My personal favorite part was at the pool table.

[Car3o]

30p just looks amateurish and that's my opinion on this video.

[John Caballero]

Again the audience is not looking at 30 FPS, they don't even know. They are looking at the whole concept. I think is excellent because it connects with the target audience. How many people have experienced the fact that you had a fight or disagreement with your mate and when you call all you get is an answering machine. I think singing into it is brilliant. Then you have sharp images, great colors, good lighting, a beautiful girl and a cool singer. Again, excellent way to show off the cameras abilities. And all for the target audience.

[Zak Forsman]

Of course you can do a feature with the 5D. Whoever says otherwise will be proven wrong very soon. The Tell Me What You Want video is proof of that. It looks great. There will be many people that won't stop to complain about about the shortcomings of the camera and work around them. These are the people who are real innovators and risk takers.
The look of the images remind me of the CSI shows. It is rich, sharp and the DOF to boot. 30 fps?, who cares. The general audience certainly doesn't. They can't even tell the difference. Especially with those sharp new HD tvs. They just see a crystal clear image with beautiful colors. You will start seeing more and more productions done with this camera very soon.

i'm curious what difference you perceive between this and the D90, which you've asserted no serious filmmaker would attempt to make a feature-length motion picture with?

[stoiqa]

...the video could use some work...agree, but we have to bring on the table constructive criticism and encourage creativity(not so harsh)...practice can only make us better ;)

On a general note,I took the liberty to convert the video 30p to 24p trough twixtor.Result here:http://vimeo.com/2799166

To convert the entire thing in AE render time: 15-20min.The clip is trimmed so I can fit in 500mb of vimeo.

cheers

[John Caballero]

i'm curious what difference you perceive between this and the D90, which you've asserted no serious filmmaker would attempt to make a feature-length motion picture with?

I have the D90 and I know how it performs in video mode. The sensor size, the compression scheme and the 720p size, not to talk about the extreme "jello" effect all conspire against the final quality of the video on the D90. I would love for it to be better but it isn't. It doesn't mean that you can't do stuff with it but compared to the videos I've seen so far from the 5D, a lot of it even raw footage, the 5d looks much better. I guess sensor size, 1080p, color reproduction and perhaps better compression gives it an edge. I hope Nikon progresses with the video application and we get a better one next time around. I am a Nikon lifelong user.


On a general note,I took the liberty to convert the video 30p to 24p trough twixtor.

There you go. Thank you for taking your time and doing it. So much great stuff is done in post production. I guess 30p to 24p can part of it.

[Emanuel]

I've done still photography for so long, the 5DII makes my heart beat faster thinking this amazing color rendition, contrast and low light ability will be available at a fairly reasonable cost to make my moving pictures a reality. I think this is going to cost me about $6,500 between the 5DII kit and the new Imac to edit, but I feel it will be worth it.Sure it is. This camera is a dream became true. And a nightmare as far as lack of manual control is concerned. But my major bet would/will be on the 1st one with or without it, as well, 24p/25p vs. 30p.

[Zak Forsman]

I have the D90 and I know how it performs in video mode. The sensor size, the compression scheme and the 720p size, not to talk about the extreme "jello" effect all conspire against the final quality of the video on the D90. I would love for it to be better but it isn't. It doesn't mean that you can't do stuff with it but compared to the videos I've seen so far from the 5D, a lot of it even raw footage, the 5d looks much better. I guess sensor size, 1080p, color reproduction and perhaps better compression gives it an edge. I hope Nikon progresses with the video application and we get a better one next time around. I am a Nikon lifelong user.

well, allow me to me obliterate your assertion, my friend! :) I am a serious filmmaker. and i have chosen the D90 for the feature I am shooting now. cheers! :beer:

[Zak Forsman]

...the video could use some work...agree, but we have to bring on the table constructive criticism and encourage creativity(not so harsh)...practice can only make us better ;)

On a general note,I took the liberty to convert the video 30p to 24p trough twixtor.Result here:http://vimeo.com/2799166

To convert the entire thing in AE render time: 15-20min.The clip is trimmed so I can fit in 500mb of vimeo.

cheers

interesting experiment but as i suspected, it doesn't eliminate the "soap opera / broadcast news / korean music video" look of the inherent 30p capture of motion. converting won't solve the lack of motion characteristics of 24p, in the same way that a telecine process converting 24p to 29.97 for broadcast won't change the visual aesthetic associated with the conventional 24fps framerate.

really looking forward to the next generation of these cameras.

[Emanuel]

Sure it is. This camera is a dream became true. And a nightmare as far as lack of manual control is concerned. But my major bet would/will be on the 1st one with or without it, as well, 24p/25p vs. 30p.BTW, here is an interesting post from a RED shooter too on the 30p advantages as wider shooting format:

« (...) In native HDTV environments I prefer the look of 30P for most footage since it just locks in with most Display refresh rates better with less flicker (...) »

Read the full post(s) here:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25&start=10#p282

As well, on the 5D Mark II option over the EX1:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=402#p4222

[John Caballero]

well, allow me to me obliterate your assertion, my friend! :) I am a serious filmmaker. and i have chosen the D90 for the feature I am shooting now. cheers!

And like I said before, good luck with your project. The idea is to keep working and embrazing the new technology.

[Zak Forsman]

And like I said before, good luck with your project. The idea is to keep working and embrazing the new technology.

and good luck on your endeavors. working on anything?

[mattsand]

It is good that everything is a matter of opinion and the one that counts the most is from the general audience watching the video
an audience that becomes much much smaller because of the 30p. with 24p you reach the world through any channel possible, with 30p you put it on youtube. :-)

/matt

[mattsand]

Again the audience is not looking at 30 FPS, they don't even know
because most of them can't even see it.

(yeah, i'm gonna continue making this remark until you agree or tell me why you disagree)

/matt

[mattsand]

The sensor size
...is the same as the red one and more than three times bigger than most pro video cameras. how could that possibly make the camera less well suited for feature filmmaking? i agree with many of your opinions but most of your arguments suck, with all due respect. the d90 has a large sensor, a pro, 720p, not bad, i'd rate it neutral, 24 fps, a pro, compression is about the same as dvcpro hd, neutral, the jello and the generally soft and artifacty image are the "only" downsides. you *cannot* blame the bad image quality on the things you mention.

/matt

[Lee Wilson]

I could bet you the fans love it because it looks and sounds excellent. Again, kudos to the guys that go out and do something, not the critics which usually don't accomplish much on their own. Isn't that almost always the case?

Yeah, absolutely right, if you ever express an opinion other than positive you cannot possibly accomplish anything.

Well done for not falling into the trap of any number of logical fallacies. :)

[John Caballero]

and good luck on your endeavors. working on anything?

Yes sir. Finally putting all my energy on my HVX 200. I was going to wait for the Scarlet but... We shall see what 2009 brings.

[John Caballero]

...is the same as the red one and more than three times bigger than most pro video cameras. how could that possibly make the camera less well suited for feature filmmaking?0

I was comparing it to the sensor on the 5D. I have the D90 since the first week it hit the stores. Whoever wants to use the DMovie professionally more power to them. I won't. I already got my investment back from the stills side. I am putting more emphasis on my endeavors with my HVX 200 and waiting for the next camera from Nikon. Hopefully the upgrade will be worth it.

[BMFM FILMS]

LOL you know what I notice with most of these great D90/5DII music videos, they have to have at least 1 hot chick in there to complete the package.

This one is an exception though, cuz the video wasn't that great, but yet again she was hot.

[mattsand]

I was comparing it to the sensor on the 5D
i know, but then you made the conclusion that it wasn't suitable for filmmaking for, i assume, the same reasons?

I have the D90 since the first week it hit the stores. Whoever wants to use the DMovie professionally more power to them. I won't
i will, and have.

I already got my investment back from the stills side
me too, and it will very likely remain my still camera after the "real" video slr appears sometime this year.

/matt

[John Caballero]

The sensor in the D90 is fine but you only have to compare footage and it is obvious the 5D kicks the d90's butt. I won't go into any more details about my own conclusions and certainly don't want to continue the argument. To each his own. If you want to invest your time and effort on creating stuff with the D90 more power to you. I'll eagerly be waiting to watch the results.

[mattsand]

The sensor in the D90 is fine but you only have to compare footage and it is obvious the 5D kicks the d90's butt.
but for what reasons? if you don't want your arguments to be scrutinized i suggest you keep them to yourself. ;-)

/matt

[John Caballero]

but for what reasons?

What part of these you don't understand?: 5D: bigger sensor, 1080P, better compression, a LOT LESS "jello" effect, better color reproduction, NO noticeable stair stepping effect, sharper, better low light performance, less noise, more expensive. My eyes: obviouly can tell the difference between the two and the better performance overall of the 5D. After 33 years in the imaging business I can surely tell. I might not know how to bake a cake but I certainly know my photo and movie stuff.

[Rick Horton]

To be frank, I haven't seen any good work from the 5D Mark II yet. The low light is incredible, but nobody has made a good film with it. I'm sure it will happen. Reverie is great for a TV commercial. Everything else seems to be Cat tests and junk like that.
I think its a cool camera, and I almost bought one, but I decided to go with the D90 for a myriad of reasons, and price was only one.

[John Caballero]

Reverie is great for a TV commercial.

And they pay very well too. The fact is that this camera just came out. Go to vimeo and there is a lot of good stuff out there already. It takes a little longer to make a good film with any camera. I myself won't be getting one but you have to give credit where credit is due.

[Lammy]

Ewwww @ the slimey motion. Is that 30p and slow shutter in use or something?

Hot chick though.

[stoiqa]

interesting experiment but as i suspected, it doesn't eliminate the "soap opera / broadcast news / korean music video"
really looking forward to the next generation of these cameras.

"experiment " well said, and has a lot of motion artifacts if you compare them.

[Rick Horton]

And they pay very well too. The fact is that this camera just came out. Go to vimeo and there is a lot of good stuff out there already. It takes a little longer to make a good film with any camera. I myself won't be getting one but you have to give credit where credit is due.




I haven't seen anything good on vimeo with the 5D Mark II, unless you lower the bar down to a static shot of a wolf in the snow, or some Japanese people walking around at night. It's been mostly ultra lame tests.
Same as with the D90. I'm neutral about the whole thing. I know the 5D can do some nice stuff, and I'm sure a good movie can be made with it. Same as with the D90, (which I've shot stuff that I've seen on the big screen with ). 720p is absolutely fine in a theater.
I think, in all honesty, that although the 5D gets really nice low light footage, The clips on vimeo so far all do look too video-ish. The D90 footage ( even though only 720 ) looks more cinematic. That is one of the main reasons I went with it. It's not just the frame rate, its the over-all colors and feel.

[Lammy]

Have to say I do like the song but the video looks more like location recce than a music video so I'll reserve judgment on it. But yeah it does need alot of work, technically in lighting and framing, as well as the core creative idea.

The girl needs to do more and there needs to be less emphasis on the decor and whatnot. If anything the camera's gaze at the expensive stuff makes the subjects unlikable and turns me off.

I like what you did stoiqa but damn this video hasn't used the 5d to its potential :|
Rick Horton: Dan Chung has made awesome videojournalism stuff with the 5d that doesn't look like a lame test I say.

http://www.vimeo.com/2435467

http://www.vimeo.com/2573561

With my d90 I mostly do photography and home video mess arounds, although I'm directing a short film in two months time with the d90. Hoorah! Measly £1,500 budget though. Wont be doing anything with the d90 for features I don't think, hopefully those scripts will pick up 35mm and funding =]

[Lee Wilson]

I haven't seen anything good on vimeo with the 5D Mark II, unless you lower the bar down to a static shot of a wolf in the snow, or some Japanese people walking around at night. It's been mostly ultra lame tests.

Alan D's test footage on a pre-release 5D2 has some nice shots:

http://www.vimeo.com/2053280

http://alandoyle.smugmug.com/

[John Caballero]

One more time: You can't compare the quality of the footage from the 5D to the one from the D90. Again, I own a D90 from the get go and it is a fun video camera. The 5D way more advanced. It is so obvious, just open your eyes wider when watching stuff done with both and you will see the difference.

[Rick Horton]

I just did compare the 2.

[John Caballero]

And what did you see?

[Recorder]

The Canon produces great, stunning video. There's no question about that. The D90 can make beautiful art. I think what people are saying is that the D90 produces something between video and film (filmeo?) It's hard to nail it down, but to me, the D90 took video to a new place, it's images come out soft and warm and the 5D's are sharp and cold. I waited decades for a tool to combine the ease of video and the look of film at a price I could actually afford.

[artforme]

The whole argument whether or not you could make a viable feature with the D90 is very silly. It's not the tools but the artist at work. Sure the D90 has it's fall backs, but I think the IQ is substantially better than the Pani 100B; and I've seen some decent features on that. I'd rather work the D90.

[Osslund]

True. I can take an old Canon XL1 and make a great piece of work.

With 15 years working as a professional videoeditor the filmlook originates from the slower refresh rate of the 25p and 24p. 30 and above just look like video. No matter how good the actual picture is.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

24p looks like crap.

30p, 48p, 60p +++ look much better

[John Caballero]

I am just curious: if you took a 35mm film camera and shot with it at 30 FPS then telecined it to video then edited it, would the final product look be video or film?

[Jim Klatt]

I am guessing that it would still have the motion characteristics that remind us of the real world, but it would have the dynamic range of film. I bet it would look like a very handsome home video.

[mattsand]

I am just curious: if you took a 35mm film camera and shot with it at 30 FPS then telecined it to video then edited it, would the final product look be video or film?
more like video for sure, i've tried it. if you shoot 50 or 60 fps and transfer to interlaced even more so. does it matter? not really? does it still look good and maybe even better? you bet.

/matt

[Lee Wilson]

I am just curious: if you took a 35mm film camera and shot with it at 30 FPS then telecined it to video then edited it, would the final product look be video or film?

Likely to look like very nice video, it would have the visual characteristics of film but the temporal resolution would be higher, lending it a video look.

[beckspace]

24p is overrated, 30p represents motion much better. We have to use 24p because its a movie standard for a century. Our eyes can see motion up to 60~70 fps. 24p is the minimum to not see strobing, and it is the minimum because film is (was) too expensive.

Until the digital projectors unify a new movie standard we are settled with 24p for life. I would rather to choose 24p by its aesthetics reasons than being forced to use 24p all the time. Would rather see Full Metal Jacket or 2001 at 60fps with crisp reality than the 'film-like' standard. but that is my taste.

Than you say: but 60i looks like crap! Thats because no serious motion picture was shot or edited at 60fps. Douglas Trumbull tried, he succeed making it but failed selling it.
take a read on this article about his showscan (http://my.nero.com/index.php?__path=Blog%3A%2F%2FDisplayBlogComposite %2FIanFarquhar%2F7100886&NCSS=a102OH62Zade8iLQrQwEp0cEDX0o3a9r79qt#0)

Video was cursed from beginning because it had almost no dynamic range or resolution and we blamed on the frame-rate

the defense rests

[Rick Horton]

It doesn't look as cool though, as 24 does. I rest my case.

[mattsand]

the coolness factor is often forgotten by some people, i wonder why. :-)

/matt

[Osslund]

Higher fps might be considered as better compared to a slower fps. But it's not as natural.
One advantage of 30fps over 24 fps in the 5D is a less pronounced rolling shutter and video in it's interlaced form is 50/60fieldsps and thus smoother. But it still looks cheap.

And regardless of fps there will be some that perceive higher fps as better and others 24fps to have the best look. A matter of taste.

[beckspace]

It doesn't look as cool though, as 24 does. I rest my case.

its cool as a hip hop album in vinyl

[Emanuel]

BTW, here is an interesting post from a RED shooter too on the 30p advantages as wider shooting format:

« (...) In native HDTV environments I prefer the look of 30P for most footage since it just locks in with most Display refresh rates better with less flicker (...) »

Read the full post(s) here:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=25&start=10#p282

As well, on the 5D Mark II option over the EX1:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=402#p4222Another one:

http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=203#p2377

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Projectors already support 30p but good luck approaching a distributor saying "by the way, it's in 30p". How are they going to make a print? How are they going to make masters for pal broadcast? Or worse how are you going to, because they'll demand it? I'm sure there will be a few cool films shot on the 5d but it's just counterproductive to ignore the real problem. /matt

????????

[ESTEBEVERDE]

Horrible video.

Rudimentary idea, awful lighting, looked like a commercial for a kitchen and bathroom retailer.

Employing about the most basic aspirational 'lifestyle' gimmicks you could dream up, girl playing snooker in her underwear in nice apartment. Tedious.

The music is little better, it could have well been produced by any number of competent studio engineers 10 years ago.


Absolute rubbish.

:)

O.K.

But what do you think about it? :beer:

[Lee Wilson]

O.K.

But what do you think about it? :beer:

:grin::grin::grin:

[Car3o]

I'd rather watch Rick Astley never make you cry.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I'd rather watch Rick Astley never make you cry.

:grin: !!!!!!!!!!!!

[mattsand]

????????

I'm not sure what was unclear. Projectors support 30p, a very basic thing to grasp, and the fact that distributors don't accept 30p shouldn't be so hard either. What else?

[ESTEBEVERDE]

I'm not sure what was unclear. Projectors support 30p, a very basic thing to grasp, and the fact that distributors don't accept 30p shouldn't be so hard either. What else?


???????

[mattsand]

What do you want to know? Do you have a question or are you trying to pick a fight? I'm ready for either.

[ESTEBEVERDE]

What do you want to know? Do you have a question or are you trying to pick a fight? I'm ready for either.


Clearly! :beer: