pretty nice music video with 5DII
- Thread starter f64manray
- Start date
stoiqa
Well-known member
"experiment " well said, and has a lot of motion artifacts if you compare them.
Rick Horton
Carbonite Member
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
Well-known member
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 =]
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 =]
Last edited:
Lee Wilson
Veteran
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
Veteran
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
Carbonite Member
I just did compare the 2.
John Caballero
Veteran
And what did you see?
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.
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.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
24p looks like crap.
30p, 48p, 60p +++ look much better
30p, 48p, 60p +++ look much better
John Caballero
Veteran
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?
slimjimmed
Well-known member
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.
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
Veteran
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.
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
Video was cursed from beginning because it had almost no dynamic range or resolution and we blamed on the frame-rate
the defense rests
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
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
Carbonite Member
It doesn't look as cool though, as 24 does. I rest my case.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
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.
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.