5DII video now up!

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...
http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/control...articleID=2086

Wow....

And he did this over a weekend. After seeing this, many of us may rethink
the concept of DSLR video.

"Annika1980" wrote in message
...


This changes everything.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.
Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?
Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need. The
5DII seems particularly suited to wedding photography ... it's great
in low light and can capture video clips to boot.
****, I may order a second one!

================================================== ==

I had planned on upgrading after Christmas, but it looks like I'll have to
wait, even then. This thing is pretesting and previewing so well, it's going
to be hard to get. I guess it's Nikon's turn to play catch-up. Damn....

Annika1980 wrote:
On Sep 23, 12:38*pm, Böwser wrote:

And he did this over a weekend. After seeing this, many of us may rethink
the concept of DSLR video.

This changes everything.

Nah.

When I got my first Mini-DV camcorder 11 years ago I used to capture
stills from it.

How did they look?

Decent for web use (720x480), but nothing you'd want to print.
At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it. The 5DII is the first useful product
that combines the two. Perhaps Canon sees the writing on the wall
here, with the new RED cameras?
Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.

Hmmm. A 2MP still from a video or a 25MP photo.

You can get cheaper HD video cameras.

--
Ray Fischer

Bõwser wrote:

At that time I thought that video would soon signal the death knell to
still photography as we know it.

Just the same way as photography has signalled the death knell
to paintings, maybe?

Sports shooters will no longer need a high frame rate still camera
when they can just shoot video and capture the stills they need.

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

-Wolfgang

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

-Wolfgang


For now you are probably right. But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds. Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf) and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

Eric Miller

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds.

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?

and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

Pellicle mirrors are known, as are electronic shutters. Both
have drawbacks, which is why they are not used much.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to
"support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in this
area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty of
people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will
capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second. The camera companies
already make and sell cameras that have 1/3 of that frame rate at 10
megapixels. 10 megapixels at 10 frames per second is not even a new
development. 10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than
10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras
that have been on the market for some time.


But perhaps there is some sort of a
hybrid/middle-ground where instead of taking video to the limit of the
storage for true video playback, the sports photographer will simply take
video-like "bursts" of full resolution images for several seconds.

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.


Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't a
discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a problem
(or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video and
stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many
consumers. Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's
video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for
the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still images
to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given the
recent steady advances in this area of technology.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD . . .

or EVF

. . . give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?


Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up,
of course. And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a
camera "tripod only"? I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with
your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time? In any event, your "tripod
only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use
cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time.

and
the capture rate is not limited by the mirror and shutter.

Pellicle mirrors are known, as are electronic shutters. Both
have drawbacks, which is why they are not used much.


.. . . hence my statement about the style of high frame rate capture that
could be possible with the mirror locked up.

How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along
that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video
or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I
saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher
speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read
only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago. Heck, I'll bet that if you take
photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will
probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that.


Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all
computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and more
and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer cameras
have smaller memory buffers too.


Eric Miller
www.dyesscreek.com

Eric Miller wrote:
How long will it be before a Digic VIII (or some such) chip comes along that
will process (by itself or with others or maybe a "quad core Digic VIII")
large enough images quickly enough to allow video-like (or faster) frame
rates at 10-20 megapixels which could then be downsampled into HD video or
the individual images used for prints or whatever?

The Red One reportedly delivers 12 MP at 30 frames per second.

http://www.red.com/cameras

It does minimal compression, so relies on large and fast data storage.


--
--Bryan

["Followup-To:" header *again* set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to
"support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in this
area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty of
people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will
capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second.

By your logic people will want 200mph inside city limits, because
they "might have a need, or at least a desire" for that. Racing on
the Circuit de Monaco proves that there's at least some people who
want that capability and that it is possible, technically speaking.

For some reason, however, I really doubt that that capability
will turn up in most cars ... and that most cars will still drive
30-50 miles inside city limity.

Sure, 20 or 50 or 200 MPix at 30 or 60 or 120 fps, with excellent
lenses and excellent low ligt capabilities will be cool. It'll be
good for those who do filming in earnest. And such beasts will
be available. Will they be still cameras? Nope. Any 'I can do
everything' device will either be really expensive and deliver
mediocre results or it'll be even more restricted.

Examples?
Compare Canon's 28-300mm L and 30-350mm L zooms on a full or 1.3x
crop camera to your 1.5/1.6x crop camera and a 18-2xxmm.

Or compare the image quality of a mobile phone camera with a
dedicated camera in similar price ranges.


The race for high resolution cameras in the 35mm-class hasn't
finished yet: the 5D MkII's pixels are of nearly the same size
as that from the old, old, 20D, just full frame. The 50D scaled
to full frame would have 38MPix.


So, no, outside specialized gear there won't be video modes
that can replace pressing the shutter of a still camera at
the right time. And yes, of course you can take stills from
video cameras --- I have done so 20 odd years ago. Don't
ask about quality, though.

10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than
10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras
that have been on the market for some time.

Moore's law says you'll be seeing 10,000 times faster system
in 19-20 years. Have a nice wait.

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.

Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't a
discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a problem
(or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video and
stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many
consumers.

They don't make films from stills and don't extract stills from
film. They record memories. Completely different application.

Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's
video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required for
the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still images
to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given the
recent steady advances in this area of technology.

That's the difference between 'seems to be required' and reality.

Kindly look back a couple of decades and find what they'd imagined
the year 2000 would have been. You'll find all sort of 'not
much of a technological leap' which would bring us all peace,
intelligent robots, personal helicopters and 3-D television ---
but no internet.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD . . .

or EVF

Or EVF.

. . . give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?

Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked up,
of course.

Rangefinders have been doing this for a very, very long time.
So have pellicle mirrors.

Unfortunately, EVFs and LCDs only show what I'd have been
shooting 1/30s ago. And they don't show me a thing during a
still capture. And they draw quite a bit of power. And they
don't like cold.

And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a
camera "tripod only"?

Because your eye cannot focus arbitrarily close. That means
the LCD must be at some distance from the eyes (and don't
forget presbyopia!). LCDs at the back of cameras thus need
outstretched arms, which do wonders for stability.

LCDs _not_ on the back of cameras need a bulky design,
probably something shoulder stabilized.

I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with
your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time?

Yes, and with outstretched arms, holding the camera like so many
people hold a point'n'shoot. Though I usually use a 1200mm,
that saves the fees for the muscles factory. At 1/50.000s I
usually get something sharp, too. And if your irony meter
didn't justr peak, you need it readjusted.

In any event, your "tripod
only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use
cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time.

So they do.
Their videos make me motion sick.
Most of their stills aren't remotely good, either.
After all, they record memories, nothing more, nothing less.

Not being a lemming or a sheep, I don't feel a compulsion to
follow them.

You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought I
saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher
speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read
only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago.

Nice strawman.
How high is the read noise of the 50D?
What is the unity gain?
How do you *know* that the read speed doesn't degrade the image
quality?

Heck, I'll bet that if you take
photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will
probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that.



Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all
computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and more
and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer cameras
have smaller memory buffers too.

So, how long does it take to save 21MPix @ 14 bit per pixel?
It's "only" 37 MByte. At 30fps, it's 1.1GByte/second.
Which one of your flash memory cards even comes close to
that number?

How about 50MPix @ 18 bit per pixel and 60fps?

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header *again* set to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.]
Eric Miller wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
Eric Miller wrote:

You're mistaken in that they "can just shoot video and capture
the stills they need". Even in the movie industry the still
photographer is still a must: moved images don't have or need
the resolution a still photo needs.

For now you are probably right.

As for movies, I'll likely stay right. After all, you just don't
need that many pixels per image, when you have a new image 24 or
30 times a second. Building a camera that'd get as many pixels
at that speed would be like building a 1.000.000 hp engine in an
in-town-only econobox car.

I find it strange that you'd feel the need for such an absurd analogy to
"support" your odd claim that time and technology will stand still in
this
area. The leap from 100 hp to 1,000,000 hp is a 10,000 fold leap. Plenty
of
people might have a need, or at least a desire, for a camera that will
capture 10-20 megapixels 24-30 times per second.

By your logic people will want 200mph inside city limits, because
they "might have a need, or at least a desire" for that. Racing on
the Circuit de Monaco proves that there's at least some people who
want that capability and that it is possible, technically speaking.


No. That would not be logic and it isn't mine. You are the person who
apparently believes that absurdly extreme automobile/submarine analogies are
perfectly adequate to sum up your theory that cameras cannot do what you
proclaim they cannot.

For some reason, however, I really doubt that that capability
will turn up in most cars ... and that most cars will still drive
30-50 miles inside city limity.

Sure, 20 or 50 or 200 MPix at 30 or 60 or 120 fps, with excellent
lenses and excellent low ligt capabilities will be cool. It'll be
good for those who do filming in earnest. And such beasts will
be available. Will they be still cameras? Nope. Any 'I can do
everything' device will either be really expensive and deliver
mediocre results or it'll be even more restricted.

Oh come on! You're not giving up on race cars downtown so soon are you?
Abandoning your silly arguments about 24-30 frames per second pretty quick
aren't you? If I were you, I'd want to change the subject to.


Examples?
Compare Canon's 28-300mm L and 30-350mm L zooms on a full or 1.3x
crop camera to your 1.5/1.6x crop camera and a 18-2xxmm.

Or compare the image quality of a mobile phone camera with a
dedicated camera in similar price ranges.


And this has exactly what to do with a DSLR capturing high quality, 10-20
megapixel images at 24-30 frames per second? BTW, I don't own a "1.5/1.6x
crop camera."


The race for high resolution cameras in the 35mm-class hasn't
finished yet: the 5D MkII's pixels are of nearly the same size
as that from the old, old, 20D, just full frame. The 50D scaled
to full frame would have 38MPix.


So, no, outside specialized gear there won't be video modes
that can replace pressing the shutter of a still camera at
the right time. And yes, of course you can take stills from
video cameras --- I have done so 20 odd years ago. Don't
ask about quality, though.


Well at least we know how long time has supposedly stood still.

10 megapixels at 24 frames per second is a just bit less than
10,000 times the current processing or capturing capabilities of cameras
that have been on the market for some time.

Moore's law says you'll be seeing 10,000 times faster system
in 19-20 years. Have a nice wait.


Did you wave at the point when it flew over your head?

Just like a flying submarine car. It's possible to create one,
but it's not really good in either domain and costs lots and lots.

Which is why analogies can be false (your second in one post). This isn't
a
discussion of cars and submarines or other solutions in search of a
problem
(or an old James Bond movie). Digital cameras that can take both video
and
stills have been around for a while and apparently satisfy a need to many
consumers.

They don't make films from stills and don't extract stills from
film. They record memories. Completely different application.


Who is this "they" of which you are speaking and why are you trying to
change the subject to film? Knock knock? We're talking about the video
capture mode of a DSLR, remember?

Still cameras are getting better at capturing video as the OP's
video link shows. Not much of a technological leap seems to be required
for
the resolution and quality gap between the video frames and the still
images
to close since they are being captured by the same sensor and also given
the
recent steady advances in this area of technology.

That's the difference between 'seems to be required' and reality.

What difference? What the hell are you talking about? What seems to be
required is simply taking the processing power of the 1DS MkIII, marrying it
to the sensor of a 40D and the firmware of a 5D MkII. That would seem to
provide a camera with the ability to capture 10mp images at 20-30 frames per
second. Now all we need is some invention that would allow the photographer
to see what is being recorded while the mirror is up. Hmm, your right, its
probably not possible.


Kindly look back a couple of decades and find what they'd imagined
the year 2000 would have been. You'll find all sort of 'not
much of a technological leap' which would bring us all peace,
intelligent robots, personal helicopters and 3-D television ---
but no internet.

Perhaps
what we are seeing is a shift towards high frame rate capture in a
video
mode where the lcd is used instead of the viewfinder (or maybe an evf)

And what would the LCD . . .

or EVF

Or EVF.

. . . give us, for all the shaking and
tired arms or "tripod only" costs it incurs?

Why, the ability to see what you are shooting while the mirror is locked
up,
of course.

Rangefinders have been doing this for a very, very long time.
So have pellicle mirrors.

Ding Ding! DSLRs, remember?


Unfortunately, EVFs and LCDs only show what I'd have been
shooting 1/30s ago. And they don't show me a thing during a
still capture. And they draw quite a bit of power. And they
don't like cold.

So, let me get this straight, in order for a photographer to get decent
shots with a DSLR shooting in some kind of video burst mode during a
football game in cold conditions, he'd need to think in advance 1/30th of a
second, someone would have to "invent" an LCD that didn't go black during
the video capture, he'd have to wear a coat and bring extra batteries? All
for the benefit of only three times the frame rate of a current camera? Yep,
that's way too tough.


And ignoring EVFs, why should the use of an LCD make such a
camera "tripod only"?

Because your eye cannot focus arbitrarily close. That means
the LCD must be at some distance from the eyes (and don't
forget presbyopia!). LCDs at the back of cameras thus need
outstretched arms, which do wonders for stability.

I guess that is why no one does this . . .


LCDs _not_ on the back of cameras need a bulky design,
probably something shoulder stabilized.

I suppose that you routinely shoot football games with
your 400 f/2.8 without a monopod all the time?

Yes, and with outstretched arms, holding the camera like so many
people hold a point'n'shoot. Though I usually use a 1200mm,
that saves the fees for the muscles factory. At 1/50.000s I
usually get something sharp, too. And if your irony meter
didn't justr peak, you need it readjusted.

Thanks for acknowledging your prior idocy.


In any event, your "tripod
only" proclamation seems to be an argument with the many people who use
cameras without either a viewfinder or a tripod all the time.

So they do.
Their videos make me motion sick.
Most of their stills aren't remotely good, either.
After all, they record memories, nothing more, nothing less.


You're right. This whole LCD business and Liveview phenomenon will never
catch on.

Not being a lemming or a sheep, I don't feel a compulsion to
follow them.



You can read sensors fast. You can read sensors accurate.
Don't plan on having both at the same time. Not without
crippling costs.

Yeah, I guess I was dreaming about that whole 50D press release I thought
I
saw. I mean, you obviously cannot read a 15 megapixel sensor at a higher
speed "accurately" for less money than one of its predecessors could read
only 4.3 megapixels 6 years (or so) ago.

Nice strawman.

Not a strawman, an example that tends to contradict your claim that sensors
can't be read quickly and accurately. I've seen sample images from the 50D
and they look pretty good.

How high is the read noise of the 50D?
What is the unity gain?
How do you *know* that the read speed doesn't degrade the image
quality?


Nice combination of an argument to ignorance and attempting to change the
subject. You're not knowing the answers doesn't support your position now
does it? Again, I've seen the sample images from teh 50D, they look pretty
good and I'm guessing that no one slowed down the "read speed" to make the
images look better.

Additionally, when I watched the video in the OP, I really didn't think to
myself, man that video may look nice, but I bet the unity gain on that
camera sucks.

Heck, I'll bet that if you take
photos of a dog with a 50D, the in-"accurate" reading of the sensor will
probably result in the noisy image of a cat . . . or something like that.



Other bottlenecks are things like *storing* the information.
Sure, if you got *the* money, you can get a solution.

So right you are. I too have noticed that flash memory, like all
computer/digital technology, just keeps getting slower and slower and
more
and more expensive over time. I've also noticed that all the newer
cameras
have smaller memory buffers too.

So, how long does it take to save 21MPix @ 14 bit per pixel?
It's "only" 37 MByte. At 30fps, it's 1.1GByte/second.
Which one of your flash memory cards even comes close to
that number?

Talk about a straw man . . . it doesn't make any difference, as long as the
camera writes all the images to the card. So the video burst mode is limited
by the buffer on the camera, so what? I still see photographers on the
sidelines of games using cameras whose images can't be written to thier
flash cards as fast as the images can be caputured. That apparently didn't
prevent them or thier employers from purchasing the cameras.

I just can't imagine a Canon or Nikon technician saying,"Oh no! That
Wolfpack guy won't buy it if the unity gain isn't impressive enough . . ."
But maybe that is just my lack of imagination.



How about 50MPix @ 18 bit per pixel and 60fps?


How about it? Why not 1,000,000 horsepower in an econobox?

Eric Miller