Video resolution on Canon 5D2 pathetic

[Graeme Nattress]

Lenses can make the world of a difference, but in the case we're talking about here, they can't make up for how the 5D2 reads the sensor. But in the case of the RED where we don't shortcut like that, the camera responds well to the character of the lens, and will let it show of it's qualities, good, bad or otherwise - same with filtration, which can sometimes really help achieve the image you want.

[fredjeang]

Lenses can make the world of a difference, but in the case we're talking about here, they can't make up for how the 5D2 reads the sensor. But in the case of the RED where we don't shortcut like that, the camera responds well to the character of the lens, and will let it show of it's qualities, good, bad or otherwise - same with filtration, which can sometimes really help achieve the image you want.

Yes, I can see perfectly what you mean. But I think Canon has a particular approach in their electronics. Even in stills something very similar happens.

The Canon's look (if there is such a thing but I think there really is) has always been acheived at the expense of a certain amount of resolution. But...they actually deliver very plaisant results right-out-the box.
Very specially (and I really don't know why but sees it) when humans are involved. But whatever you mount on them, you'll have the Canon's touch, not that much the lens touch.

In the congress here, I was amazed to see that among all press photographers, 100% shooted Canon. Not just one Nikon. All Canons. Even in sports, you see logically more Nikons but Canon is still very present.

Their approach is maybe not technically the most rigourous in terms of preserving the maximum sensor performance but for a lot of pros, the delivered look just works bloody fine and + or - hassle free. I think that it is maybe the real success reason of that brand and why despite its questionable resolution aproach you find those cameras almost everywhere in prod.

Red One just plays in another league and amazingly cheap for such products.

[bcooter]

Lenses can make the world of a difference, but in the case we're talking about here, they can't make up for how the 5D2 reads the sensor. But in the case of the RED where we don't shortcut like that, the camera responds well to the character of the lens, and will let it show of it's qualities, good, bad or otherwise - same with filtration, which can sometimes really help achieve the image you want.

Graeme,

I agree, but for the price the Canon is pretty amazing.

The only issue with Canon is they backdoored the camera for video.   It's only been like 100 million times that people have asked for a physically larger sensor in digital motion and you'd think they'd asked for the security code to the pentagon.

Speaking of that, I'd have an Epic sitting in my garage (uh I mean studio) if I could just buy one of the bloody things without going on list 12, stage  6, item 4, see sub paragraph 9.

Do yourself a favor.  Put on one of those mission impossible masks and go into your hollywood store looking like a normal guy and ask a few questions.  Even little stuff like EVF's and the guys at the counter, look at the floor, and say uh I can't answer that cause my sister is coming into town, I have to wash my hair, my car broke down on Sunset, I just work here  . . .

You guys make amazing stuff, but getting information is tough.  I think I'll send a note to that Wikileaks guy and see if he can get on it.

Really, though, at the end of the day,if the story is good, the cinematography interesting, nobody that views this stuff seems to notice.

We're starting a round the world gig and shot the test story on the RED mixed with some 5d2 footage.  Nobody said anything other than they like it and what they wanted to change, but nothing bout' cameras.

So please, please, don't be like the still medium format guys and keep information so clubby and hidden.  Get those cameras on the shelves ready to sell.



IMO

BC


P.s.  back to the lenses.  I have all kinds but when I use the Zeiss still lenses (not the PL mount) I can see a huge noticeale difference in the look of the image, especially on the RED.

[Graeme Nattress]

Working on getting the cameras out there. It's been tricky to say the least.

The guys at the Hollywood store know me too well, and I do make a point of catching up with them regularly and going over their questions and making sure they're up to speed on that side of things.

For good info - my email is wildly known and I'm pretty easy to get hold of - I can answer a lot of the image processing side of things, and put people in touch or get other kinds of answers if it's not something that's been posted about on reduser.net.

Indeed, if the story is good, the dialogue clear and the cinematography great, not much else matters, other than if those aspects are really good, you don't want to spoil the result with a less than optimal image on the technical side of things. I believe that for every use and budget there's an optimum camera. To think otherwise is silly.

Different lenses really do alter things - a lot of it is due to the contrast of the lens from the different coatings used. Just the other day I was shooting on Epic with Canon mount, a Sigma 50mm F1.4, and then some old Olympus OM mount glass (via adapter) - a wide angle and a zoom, and they looked really nice too.

Graeme

[fredjeang]

Coating is key. Some lenses only work fine with a proper hood and can pass from average to stellar with the hood. I tend to avoid however the purple coatings because they generally have a strong cast and wb is weired to get it right. On the vintage Zeiss primes that work brillantly in motion, the yellowish coating is important. Included I learned that the Russian copies have been build with 2 different coating. The oldest the best, yellow tone or neutral-warm but a hood is obligatory with them.  

I had many OM (olympus was my first camera ever) but if you could try the Pentaxes on the Epic, specially the Takumar and super Takumar you will be amazed. Now my dealers are in Germany, specially the former eastern where you trully find some impressive lenses made in USSR in the middle of a lot of impressive crapperies too, it's true. They feature stepless aperture and generally a generous number of blades.
Built quality is below the western standarts but the glasses are superb.

If you go 39mm mount be carrefull of one point: there has been versions done for certain reflex that used the 39mm mount like the rangefinders. The result is that with any 39mm adaptor you will never get infinity focus because those adaptors are made with the Leica calculation in mind. When you see 2 M39 released models with different shapes for the same model it is the case. So carefull on the Leica 39 mount offers because most of vendors don't even know it.

Some PL mount Angenieux are amazing.(but not cheap)

I love it. It's much better that going to the shopping center! Those vintageries on a today's camera are working really well if like me you're on a budget. They have now a second life!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Coating is key. Some lenses only work fine with a proper hood and can pass from average to stellar with the hood.

Which would suggest that the hood is key . Actually, they both are key.

I tend to avoid however the purple coatings because they generally have a strong cast and wb is weired to get it right. On the vintage Zeiss primes that work brillantly in motion, the yellowish coating is important. Included I learned that the Russian copies have been build with 2 different coating. The oldest the best, yellow tone or neutral-warm but a hood is obligatory with them.

The coating color you can see is mostly contributed by the most outer coating. It requires the whole set of lenses/groups to be adequately coated, and the interior of the lens barrel, and the edges of the lens groups to be blackened. Modern lens coatings exceed the more simple 'wavelength suppression by internal cancellation' principle, which only works best when rays hit the air/glass surface perpendicularly.

Cheers,
Bart

[figure1a]

HDMI out on the 5D Mark II plays at 480p.

This demo reel was shot on 5D mark II and is super sharp:

http://www.dananeibert.com/main/motion.php

[Conner999]

Y'all might want to look at Part II of the single sensor camera tests (resolution, noise, sensitivity, etc) at Zacuto.com.  The contrast between the 5D2 still shots and it's video resolution (vs higher end cameras) stirrs-up some commentary.

[spotmeter]

Y'all might want to look at Part II of the single sensor camera tests (resolution, noise, sensitivity, etc) at Zacuto.com.  The contrast between the 5D2 still shots and it's video resolution (vs higher end cameras) stirrs-up some commentary.

Perhaps you would be good enough to summarize their findings for us?

Thanks.

[Conner999]

Won't summarize their findings as they actually let the viewers come to their on conclusions. But suffice it to say, it jives with what your OP was about.  That said, when you're comparing the video performance aspects of cameras from the Arri Alexa and it's snack-bracket competitors down thru the 5DII, 7D & D7K for video quality.... The two videos in the series (with a 3rd to come) make so a good watch.

[spotmeter]

That said, when you're comparing the video performance aspects of cameras from the Arri Alexa and it's snack-bracket competitors down thru the 5DII, 7D & D7K for video quality.... The two videos in the series (with a 3rd to come) make so a good watch.

Sorry, but I don't understand this sentence.  'Snack-bracket' means what exactly?  And how does the 5DII compare to the Alexa?

[Conner999]

'snack bracket' -> price range

As for the 5DII (or any SLR) vs. Alexa, Phantom, Sony F3, Red (can't recall model) etc., in their test - when it comes to video resolution, there was no comparison.

http://www.zacuto.com/  

[spotmeter]

As for the 5DII (or any SLR) vs. Alexa, Phantom, Sony F3, Red (can't recall model) etc., in their test - when it comes to video resolution, there was no comparison.

http://www.zacuto.com/  

When you say 'there was no comparison', does that mean they did not compare the 5DII to the Alexa, etc., or that the Alexa, etc. resolution was so much better than the 5DII?

[Conner999]

The higher-end (dedicated motion) cameras held much more detail and color accuracy (in part, as mentioned earlier in thread, due to compression used) than the DSLRs.

[hjulenissen]

The higher-end (dedicated motion) cameras held much more detail and color accuracy (in part, as mentioned earlier in thread, due to compression used) than the DSLRs.

How do you know that it is the compression?

-h

[Skeptikal]

The higher-end (dedicated motion) cameras held much more detail and color accuracy (in part, as mentioned earlier in thread, due to compression used) than the DSLRs.

Have you guys heard of the Ptool hack for the Panasonic GH1 and, as of last month, the GH2? With the firmware hacked (simple 5 minute procedure) the GH1 becomes a GH13 shooting AVCHD @ 50mbps 24p/25p 1080; the GH2 settings still in development but AVCHD @ 40mbps and superb quality intraframe 1080p MJPEG @ 100mbps.

Easily out-performs image quality and low light performance of many "dedicated" high end video cameras (without a Nanoflash type device). The Canon 5D2 doesn't come close (sensor line-skipping = low 600 line resolution + moire+aliasing; relatively low bit rate) ...I wasted my time with one for a year before the GH13 arrived.

[Conner999]

That hack sounds interesting..

 "....(in part, as mentioned earlier in thread, due to compression used)....". The testers discuss what is likely contributing to the video performance of the DSLRS vs dedicated higher-end units. Beyond that www.zacuto.com.

[Graeme Nattress]

Compression plays a part, but the compression can only compress what it receives as an image, which is severely compromised by the line-skipping sensor sampling methods used. In other words, capturing an uncompressed feed still shows you the majority of the camera imaging issues.

Graeme