Canon EOS 7D 24p footage tries to make indie filmmakers / chain smokers out of us all
By Paul Miller 
posted Sep 8th 2009 12:22PM
posted Sep 8th 2009 12:22PM
[Via planet5D]
posted Sep 8th 2009 12:22PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I doubt we'll see a firmware update address this, as much as I'd love it for mine. I think this gets into the hardware.
I am hoping the 3rd party firmware will be able to make a new update to allow 24p. From what they said on their wiki, the only reason they weren't able to do it before, is cause there is no documentation for the Digic4. They also mention once canon comes out with a new camera with 24p (which they just did), they would be able to see how its done and copy it for their 5d Mark II firmware. Im just hoping its soon.
OOps, forgot the link to the 3rd party firmware site. http://magiclantern.wikia.com/wiki/Magic_Lantern_Firmware_Wiki
There was no excuse to release the 5D II without the obvious frame rates people would want. If it manages 30 FPS, it can manage 24 and 25. And it should, as an option, maintain bitrate and thus offer higher quality at the lower frame rates. Hell, it should offer any rate from 1-30 FPS.
Canon has always exhibited a curious ignorance about frame rates and progressive scanning, dragging its ass for years after Panasonic started offering true 24P on its consumer camcorders. They persisted in marketing fake "frame" modes on interlaced cameras. It seems they still haven't learned that people want 24P. How hard can it be?
OK, let me amend that: They ARE getting better. It only took them one generation to add the necessary frame rates. Now let's get that firmware fix out for the 5D.
That Barack Obama?
Oh, nevermind.
Looks pretty good
it sucks how the 500D is video crippled
Any amount of rolling shutter is too much in a camera that costs as much as these do.
It's inherent with the sensor used with digital cameras. It's either get Canon to go back to CCD sensors in their DSLRs or go buy a digital video camera.
It is a digital camera first. Everything will always be a compromise.
Nothing to do with CMOS vs. CCD. Either requires time to readout the data, terminating the exposure in a rolling fashion as each row is read. The solution with either is to have a buffer for each pixel row (or column) into which to dump the data quickly, allowing the data to then be read of the chip from the buffers asynchronously compared with the exposure termination. However, these buffers consume half the chip area, so that each pixel's light-sensitive area is reduced in area by half. Even with microlenses, pixel charge capacity (and thus dynamic range) is halved. This loss runs counter to the priorities of a DSLR and thus isn't deemed appropriate for this type of camera. In other words, still image quality trumps video quality in the design.
It does have something to do with CCD versus CMOS. Interline CCDs (what everyone uses) have the buffer you speak of, and CMOS sensors don't. Well, it's time for CMOS sensors that take video to have them.
They're just going to have to figure out how to locate the buffers behind the sensor array, or make it so you can turn half the lines into buffers only when in video mode. Then I can take 25MP pictures and in video mode the 12MP sensors will still be plenty to render a 2MP 1080P video. Or they can alter the microlenses so that they reduce the sensor site sizes but still get all the light on them, preserving the signal (amount of light gathered) and therefore the signal to noise ratio.
Right now, HD camcorders use CMOS sensors too, even though they are dedicated video cameras and therefore don't have the same excuse as dSLRs. Those will have to change to eliminate rolling shutter, and once they figure it out, maybe it'll be adapted to cameras too.
Or perhaps it'll just be the same thing that people megapixel boobirds say. Maybe we'll have so many megapixels that we have far outstripped the optical path and so trading a little image quality off won't be a big concern to people next to improved video mode.
Man, that looks really good especially it’s filming at night. The pictures are clear, and may be too clear. Note to self “Never get drunk at indie filmmakers after party… else, might wake up with some fugly chick.”
Even the SI-2K and RED has rolling-shutter artifacts, as well as other high-end CMOS based camcorders. "Any Amount" being unacceptable is plainly wrong.
Most famously, even the recent Oscar winning movie, Slum Dog Millionare, had rolling shutter problems since it was filmed with a CMOS based Silicon Imaging SI-2K (which is a $65,000+ camera). The likelihood is that you didn't even notice it when you were watching the film.
http://prolost.com/blog/2009/2/24/slumdog-millionaire.html
Also, in regard to a "camera that costs as much as these do." $2-3k for a video camera is absolutely dirt-cheap. 1/3" sensor camcorders easily hit over $10,000. Relative to what you get with these video dSLRs, they are dirt cheap.
Also, yes, CCD sensors use a global shutter and do not have rolling shutter issues. The only video camera that has a super 35mm-sized CCD sensor is the Sony CineAlta F35/Panavision Genesis (used in movies like Superman Returns, Fantastic Four, 21, etc). But that camera costs hundreds of thousands of dollars and is the only way to insure you have absolutely "any amount" of rolling shutter for a sensor the size of what the 7D is offering..
Nice to hear a little Thin Lizzy of an afternoon....
Of course the reason all these loons are smoking is because they've just come out of the pubs they were in.
I like the Metallica cover version better!
The Metallica version....please. Hacks.
The main reason so many smokers, apart from it looks cool in camera is all the smokers are outside. All the non smokers are inside!
I love how quite a few of these people seem to freeze as if they're about to get their photo taken.
I noticed that too. It seemed like a series of setups for still shots. Clearly looking to emphasize the strengths of this kind of [video] camera and avoid the weaknesses.
Actually there was A LOT of movement. pans up and down people. Not a series of static shots.
Yea one guy even thinks he is going to get his still taken and then laughs and talks with the filmmaker like "oh you're taking video" or something like that
I get exactly the same on when i'm shooting video with my 500D... people posing and waiting to hear a shutter click.
actually kind of annoying. :P
a lot of them said, have you taken it yet?!
Video quality looks great, but I imagine the shallow DOF will be hard for some to get used to as far as filming goes. Granted, you can always stop down. Look interesting! Now if only Oly would bring a higher end camera with video. I love my E-3, but I lust to use my 35-100 for a video lens... :)
If only Oly would bring -a- high-end camera.
It was dark, so he had the aperture open. That has nothing to do with the camera, it could just as easily do a long DOF if there was good lighting. Plus for a video like this, it looks nice. Way better than the standard camcorder's long DOF all the time kind of thing.
-Taylor
That's some amazing video....looks like film to me.
Low light performance is amazing. Must have one hell of an optical sensor.
And I thought my Flip HD was good at HD video. LOL.
agreed!
This is temple bar in dublin so most of these people are tourist.
Or people over on stag and hen parties.
plus you would get lots of people smoking outside as there is a smoking ban in all pubs for the last few years.
The song is Irish band thin lizzy's whiskey in the Jar , one of the best rock bands ever.
GEEEEZUS smoke much!
I wonder what their lung cancer rate is in that country!
Probably better than the obesity rate in the US
@Frankfurter: I see plenty of FAT people from Europe too. I mean FAT too!
You know that's a mirror, right?
You talk alot for a guy having a Hotdog as a display picture...
While the rolling shutter is annoying the low-light performance destroys my (once) $800 canon HV30. (obviously with a larger sensor and a much larger/better lens attached to the 7D).
I have noticed a lot of these pros doing 5DMkII or 7D videos that looks amazing, they don't move the camera for most of their shots. As long as you keep the camera still while the subjects are moving it isn't so bad. (but panning causes some serious problems it seems)
Wow looks really good did not expect for it to look that good when filming at night
If Canon is trying to make "indie filmmakers out of us all" , this is the one of the worst ways to do it. Just because your camera can shoot in HD does not mean your video is any good. Regardless of the fact that a video that looks like this will get plenty of lot of Ooo's and Ahh's-comments on Vimeo does not retract from the fact that the video is a boring, uninspiring montage of people smoking cigarettes--all to a useless audio track, nonetheless. Another video I feel like i've already seen even before watching it: You know, the one where everything is in HD and uses shallow depth of field in every shot. Shallow depth of field + HD Video = recipe for getting away with creating total bullshit videos that people who don't know any better are tricked into thinking they are watching something worthwhile, when they aren't. The once-coveted film-like video technology is now dangerously in the hands of amateurs with an over-inflated, artificial sense of movie-making confidence.
It's a tech demo by a review site.
After a comment like that I'd much rather it be in their hands than yours.
the level of negativity in this post has inspired me to go buy a 7D and film myself beating my dog. obviously it will be in 24p HD. with a shallow DOF.
Although I completely agree with you, this person got the camera as a demo for maybe a long weekend. I don't know how easy it is to write, shoot, edit, and finish a movie in that timeframe. I would expect demo shoots to only be filled with 'oooh' and 'aaahs'.
I would think the same thing was said when artsy kids got their hands on their first VHS-C camcorder. The feeling is not new....
I agree with you as well. We're seeing this stuff become overused and cliche simply because it's the first time we can do this kind of stuff this cheap. Real filmmakers will always use whatever works to tell the story, looking past the latest buzz.
Personally I'm starting to feel the same way about all this bleach bypass color grading.
But this was just a quick demo,
I hate to think of myself as an amateur after doing this for 20 years!
Why the hate, "john rene romero"? Or is it something else? Jealousy, perhaps?
YOU FEEL THAT IS BAD...???
It drives me crazy that every joe (40hr desk jockey or whatever) and jane (aka:soccer mom) pick up a camera at wal-mart (read:antichrist of retail stores) now doing weddings, events, or whatever and calling themselves "professional" photographers....ummmm...yeeeaaah..sure!!!
The only thing that sucks about using a digital camera for video recording is when you whip it out and start recording, people freeze and pose like you are taking a picture - its awkward, and I hate saying "its recording" every minute.
hey as$holes making all the comments about how the quality of this video sucks..... i say that the leaps and bounds being made by Canon (and others) in this technology are amazing. the combination of film and high quality video in a DSLR is in its infancy and yet they already produce video of this quality in essentially a 3rd generation product. i say hats off to canon (and others) for bringing such revolutionary technology to us in such a short period of time.
Knee-jerk reaction much? Not one person said anything about the quality sucking. Maybe you're replying on the wrong website...
i wish there would be a firmware upgrade for the xsi so that i could shoot video with mine
No 24p for me, unless there's a purposeful imitation I want natural motion, this camera can do 30p or even 720p60. I saw a guy doing a test shoot on a Panasonic camcorder, he was putting a 35mm adapter on, then setting the camera to 4:3 because he was putting an anamorphic lens on. He said he wanted a 'filmic look.' But when these standards came about, they weren't aesthetic decisions, they were practical ones. Allusion is powerful but I think we can do it in better ways.