5DII DOES 1080P footage!!!!!!

Pretty good blog entry on the MKII. This blog contains some scene grabs from the MKII's video feature, and it looks outstanding. ...absolutely NOTHING was done to them either in Aperture/Photoshop or any other software.)

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2008...-comingboth-to-this-blog-and-to-our-industry/


A top commercial film editor who who regularly edits RED camera footage - and has seen the raw footage from the 5D MKII - says the 5D MKII is “far superior to the RED camera” in terms of low light performance…

This camera is so easy to use - that you can work incredibly quickly, mostly handheld - without a huge production - and using natural light - ergo you don’t need a huge budget and tons of preparation anymore… forget the lighting trucks and generators that take up entire city blocks…


believe the Shutter speed can be set to either 1/60th or 1/125th…. and I’m unclear as to whether or not you can lock the exposure down in manual… I didn’t think you could - but have since heard that you can by pressing the asterisk down on the back of the camera… I set that to my AF button as I always do - so I may have missed it… once the video starts to roll - you can change the exposure w the back control dial mid way. Exposure wasn’t a problem for 95% of my shots (in fact this camera is the best “point and shoot” camera I’ve ever used… just click and go… don’t worry about the technical “irritations” I’m not sure what they did at Canon to make it so…) - out of all of the shots in the final video - only two showed signs of needing to lock down the exposure due to change in light (and we’re talking of severe changes mind you such as full night to high-beam headlights…) - mind you… these prototypes don’t come with a manual… no documentation at all in fact…
 
Last edited:
Footage far superior to the RED? That's amazing! If that's true, the 5D MK2 will revolutionize the industry.

Now the most important thing that's missing for artistic expression is 24p. I reckon it's only a question of months until a manufacturer will come up with this.. why not Canon with the 1D MK4? Japan, can you hear me?
 
Last edited:
frisco said:
But.... Kholi.... If those are grabs from the video..... Pretty F'in good though, ehh?

frisco
Click to expand...

They look decent. I suspect better than D90 stills would be and video would be as well. The claim that it's superior in lowlight or in any way at all to a RED ONE is just hilarious, though.

More megapixels does not mean better lowlight. =T


Sigh...

5. This camera will sell for approx. $2,700 - and perform better than many $100K plus video cameras out there…
Click to expand...

A camera with very few manual functions that is not a dedicated video acquisition device performing better?... Internet: Double-Edged Sword
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
The claim that it's superior in lowlight or in any way at all to a RED ONE is just hilarious, though.
Click to expand...

Why hilarious? Red is rated at what...500 asa? How are you even in a position to make a statement like this?
 
A camera that shoots badass frames at 6400 ISO might not have better sensitivity than Red One? Why not??
 
Hahahaha.

Do you realize how stupid you people sound? A film shot anything other than 24P is not worth watching...

What did you do before the DVX? Shoot terrible movies? Or soccer games?

How many of you have ever shot film? 24P does not equal film look. To say that is simply stupid. It's like people saying without a 35mm adapter - your film sucks.

Film gets the film look for a variety of factors. One is the graceful failure as opposed to the clipping with exposure latitude.

The second is that - because of the silver halide crystals in the actual film - the image on each frame is essentially different in composition. These blended together at playback give you that ascetic, not the frame rate.

Let me guess, not 1080P, not a film? Simply because of how it was shot?

And to let you know - since you know oh-so-much. Consumer cameras don't even shoot 30P. They shoot 29.97 Interlaced. Your arguments make you sound as if you don't understand the idea of the film world. Ever argument you all have made sounds rediculous.

You mean to tell me that someone who shoots 24P with a 35mm adapter will instantly make better images than say an XTR Prod shooting 30 frames a second?
 
Mattykins said:
Hahahaha.

Do you realize how stupid you people sound? A film shot anything other than 24P is not worth watching...

What did you do before the DVX? Shoot terrible movies? Or soccer games?

How many of you have ever shot film? 24P does not equal film look. To say that is simply stupid. It's like people saying without a 35mm adapter - your film sucks.

Film gets the film look for a variety of factors. One is the graceful failure as opposed to the clipping with exposure latitude.

The second is that - because of the silver halide crystals in the actual film - the image on each frame is essentially different in composition. These blended together at playback give you that ascetic, not the frame rate.

Let me guess, not 1080P, not a film? Simply because of how it was shot?

And to let you know - since you know oh-so-much. Consumer cameras don't even shoot 30P. They shoot 29.97 Interlaced. Your arguments make you sound as if you don't understand the idea of the film world. Ever argument you all have made sounds rediculous.

You mean to tell me that someone who shoots 24P with a 35mm adapter will instantly make better images than say an XTR Prod shooting 30 frames a second?
Click to expand...


I don't think they are stupid so much as blindly dogmatic.

The latitude and selective focus of film is the biggest factor that makes it "film."


I think we will see many features shot in 30p and beyond in the near future.


Blur etc. can be achieved via other mechanisms besides the frame rate.
 
This doesn't look so videoy to me:

laforet_frame_grab_11.jpg


laforet_frame_grab_3.jpg


laforet_frame_grab_21.jpg



Let's see how it comes together in motion.

I think this guy has some skill with still photography.

Let's see what an amatuer in motion can achieve.
 
I think he does as well. The stills look fantastic downrezzed, aside from a couple of visible issues with color.

This discussion isn't about the still portion, though. And, you can't tell what has a video-like cadence from stills. =T
 
Mattykins said:
Hahahaha.

Do you realize how stupid you people sound? A film shot anything other than 24P is not worth watching...

What did you do before the DVX? Shoot terrible movies? Or soccer games?

How many of you have ever shot film? 24P does not equal film look. To say that is simply stupid. It's like people saying without a 35mm adapter - your film sucks.

Film gets the film look for a variety of factors. One is the graceful failure as opposed to the clipping with exposure latitude.

The second is that - because of the silver halide crystals in the actual film - the image on each frame is essentially different in composition. These blended together at playback give you that ascetic, not the frame rate.

Let me guess, not 1080P, not a film? Simply because of how it was shot?

And to let you know - since you know oh-so-much. Consumer cameras don't even shoot 30P. They shoot 29.97 Interlaced. Your arguments make you sound as if you don't understand the idea of the film world. Ever argument you all have made sounds rediculous.

You mean to tell me that someone who shoots 24P with a 35mm adapter will instantly make better images than say an XTR Prod shooting 30 frames a second?
Click to expand...


You cant argue film and video. They are two entirely different entities. Two different looks, two different TOOLS.

Video is a generated image. a signal. same thing frame after frame after frame.

Film is photo chemical. It has grain structure. As you mentioned. Each frame is different. Its organic. And watch a film on a print through a projector at 24fps is what our brains see as normal movement. persistence of vision. Our brains literally retaining the image we just saw for a split second before the next image appears.

Many argue it creates or enhances emotion. Where as video viewing is more hypnotic and zombifying.

But now with digital projection, HDTV, HD to Film, Film to HD. The lines are so far blurred its hard to argue anything anymore. Hardly even worth the time in many cases.

That said, shooting 30fps in video shows itself in motion...pans, tilts, rapid movements by actors. Most would never pick up on this, but there are those who do see it, and it drives them nuts. It lends itself to epitome of all things looking video, and that is why you have so many people die hard for 24p. Whether some understand the reasons or not.
 
Video Grabs, can you believe it!

"One more thing since this is a common question: most of the framegrabs you see on the blog so far - therefore from the video I shot - were shot at a still exposure setting equivalent of 1/15th at f2 at 1600 ASA - which is stunning.

Comment by Vincent Laforet 09.20.08 @ 9:07 pm"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top