It's A Shame... 5D vs D90

Dan Brockett's new HPX170 article ( good read, see link ) states that :
The RED Scarlet has been completely scrapped and will eventually re-emerge as something completely different in specification and execution at some unknown date.
Click to expand...

http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage/hpx_170_evolution_brockett.html

...Myself, I think that the Canon 5D MKII is just a "toe in the water" for this new class of HD video cameras, and expect to see a full blown video body from one of the majors within 2 years. Hopefully it will be Canon, as I am willing to invest in their top-notch glass now with an eye to still be able to use it on a future 35mm Full Frame HD Video body.
 
Hey, listen camp--

I want nothing more than to own a full manual video camera with interchangeable lensing and interchangeable mounting systems. A clean 2k image and a Respectable Recording Format that I can hand off to a client with CONFIDENCE.

I want it, I want it bad. I need it because my bank account is suffering and I'm so sick and tired Panasonic's low-resolution tripe. I'm not holding my breath, though. I can't afford to.

So when one of these jerks show me a hard-coded release date for a camera that does this then I'll be a believer. Until then it's just fluff.
 
When I said "It's a Shame" I meant about the two weak wings on both GREAT Cameras:

Nikon: Video with too many artifacts. low resolution.
Canon: Not 24p.
 
Polanski said:
When I said "It's a Shame" I meant about the two weak wings on both GREAT Cameras:

Nikon: Video with too many artifacts. low resolution.
Canon: Not 24p.
Click to expand...



Nikon:

stair stepping
poor resolution
Jello cam
Skew

Canon:

30p (for us PAL users this is an absolute tragedy)
Aliasing problem
Over zelous noise reduction
lack of manual control
 
This might be a silly question:

Why is it that 3 sensors is the standard for video cameras, but only one on DSLRs. If having 3 sensors improves the image, why does the image from my 40d look so good?

Presumably it would be pretty easy to make a large 2+ MPixel video camera with just one sensor if that would give a better image than 3 1/3 inch sensors?

Is shallow DoF preferable to 3CCD??

Maybe Hassleblad will release a medium format video cam next ;)

Stu
 
Polanski said:
When I said "It's a Shame" I meant about the two weak wings on both GREAT Cameras:

Nikon: Video with too many artifacts. low resolution.
Canon: Not 24p.
Click to expand...

If Canon 5D MKII can process 21 megapixels of information and produce beautiful 1080p 30 fps, I guess it's only question of simple firmware update to introduce lower frame rates. 24 or 25 fps is just a parameter for the codec. Question is, will Canon be willing to introduce these features... 30 fps is great for sports, events, concerts etc. 24 fps is irritating in such applications (not only my opinion). 24 fps is not a Holy Grail, but having 24 (and 25) fps frame rates wouldn't hurt sales numbers for sure.
Still, 5D MKII appeals to full frame photographers first. It's a different league than smaller sensor cameras.
 
it's not the codec that determines frame rate, it's the sensor, its electronic shutter, and how data is read from it. might still be an easy firmware upgrade, i don't know, but definitely not as simple as some seem to think.

/matt
 
If the logic inside the sensor works like logic in many small CMOS sensors the difference between 30 fps and 24 (or 25) fps is just a value in a register (the amount of "invisible lines" read below the visible ones).
 
Did I say codec determines frame rate? I wrote that frame rate is just a parameter for the codec. You can clock CMOS sensor with all the speed that you want, but there are thermal limits there before you reach maximum possible rate, and of course there are other limitations and bottlenecks like processor speed & codec efficiency, maximum data transfer rate for the recorder etc.
My simple point is, if 5D MKII can handle 1080p 30 fps then 25 or 24 fps technically should not be a problem. The other way is different story so for example, Nikon D90 may not be able to go above 24 fps at all. We don't know, just like we don't know if 5D's frame rate is fixed or configurable. The latter would give us hope for firmware update with 24 and 25 fps. I hope Canon considers that upgrade. Since Nikon and Canon fed our appetite with movie mode in DSLRs, we want more because having one frame rate only is limitation.
 
Bogdan said:
Did I say codec determines frame rate? I wrote that frame rate is just a parameter for the codec
Click to expand...
exactly. which made it sound much easier than it is. whether you know something or not isn't very important, it's whether you can express it. as you just did. :-)
You can clock CMOS sensor with all the speed that you want
Click to expand...
of course, but is that an easy thing to do with a firmware hack?

/matt
 
TheRealMe said:
I agree. Both cams are cool but with too many flaws. I'm sticking with my HVX200 and waiting for things to settle down. The market is way to hectic for my own taste at the moment...

I wouldn't count out Panasonic either... They could surprise us and come out with a new large CMOS chip cam in an HPX170 body. From the look of it, CMOS is here to stay, and is rapidly getting better.
Click to expand...

Anybody still talking about the HVX200? It's junk and even the canon HV20 is MUCH better than the HVX200. Panasonic is practically a dead player in the video market. The Canon 5D is not perfect but incredibly better than the HVX200
 
There are other things than image quality to consider. But the hvx does produce some crappy footage for sure, especially in low light...
 
mattsand said:
There are other things than image quality to consider. But the hvx does produce some crappy footage for sure, especially in low light...
Click to expand...

you are right, and I am not sure if the Canon 5D will be really practical to use in terms of control, ergonomics, sound, and workflow.

For sure the HVX is crap. But then my alternatives remain Canon 5D or Sony EX1
 
studio1972 said:
This might be a silly question:

Why is it that 3 sensors is the standard for video cameras, but only one on DSLRs. If having 3 sensors improves the image, why does the image from my 40d look so good?
Click to expand...

Lee Wilson said:
It's not.
Click to expand...

Never quite understood this myself. I've only ever owned 1/3", 1/2", and 2/3" cameras with 3CCDs myself since they always looked so much better than their single-chip counterparts. And Lee, I don't know why you say, "It's not." EVERY camera I've ever used in production has been a 3CCD camera. There are like nine-trillion 3CCD BVW300/400/600s on the market. All past and present broadcast cameras are three-imager cameras. The exceptions are all the new single-sensor, CMOS-based digital cinema cameras.

Anywho, like I said, I never quite understood the reason for TS' question myself.
 
Last edited:
three ccd's need a much longer flange distance, so it's not practical in a dslr. also, sensors have become so much better lately that one is usually "enough". oh, and the prism size needed if you wanted to use three full frame 24x36 sensors would make the camera waaay too big and heavy. ever noticed how 3ccd camera generally have smaller sensors?

/matt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top