Discussion in 'Talking Pictures' started by Zou, Jun 1, 2011.
It's got 1080p video. If you only need 720p, the 1100D will do that.
Interesting thank you folk; to me, though, home video is a load of Bolex.
Hohoho! Seriously though, as with stills photography, surely it is what you make of it? It could be super (8).
ok we've established an average age here, collectively in the thousands......
In a previous life, using a three turret Bolex, my senior apprentice filmed our lunch hour. He ended with a three minute film which was (expertly) spliced and was (to us) very funny and interesting; 20:1 edit ratio (it's less than that in the movie industry I hear).
Of course then, the film was blessedly silent.
Editing is a thing people tend not to do now, hence an invitation to see a home movie is best rejected in favour of 'washing my (receding) hair)' ...
Interesting thread; I've owned my 5D MkII for two and a half years and have yet to explore the video capability (or live view for that matter). I bought the camera as a good quality stills camera with a high resolution full frame sensor .. I'd loved my 5D so this was the obvious upgrade. I've still got the 5D (as a spare?) - maybe one day I'll convert it to IR.
I think there are two things that put me off even trying the video mode - one is the fact that apparently you can't shoot while looking through the viewfinder (why on earth not?) and the second is that I only have PSE7 for post processing and to my knowledge it doesn't handle video. I would therefore be faced with having to buy additional software to edit my video footage (this is a potential minefield that I've never looked into - I don't even know the video format at this stage) which is additional expense I could do without since I retired!
I always regret not forking out for a camcorder when my daughter was little (late 70's/early 80's) - I'd like nothing better now than to be able to watch her as a child once again. Decent quality camcorders were expensive then and I just couldn't bring myself to pay all that money for one, especially when I had a perfectly good SLR to record every moment if I wished to.
The sensor has to be permanently illuminated to provide the video frames, so the mirror has to be permanently up.
In some ways I started in video, except that in around 1947 it was 9.5mm B&W silent cine film shot with a spring-wound camera and projected via a hand wound projector. Cine then lapsed until about a decade ago when I bought a MiniDV camcorder to record family events.
Fast forward to two weeks ago when I gave my Eos 5D II a try on its video settings, and I was quite disappointed. I used a separate microphone, had the camera on a tripod with a pan & tilt head, and used my EF 70-200 F4L IS and viewed the film on my HDV monitor directly via an HDMI cable. One of the clips was of horses in a field. The horses were rendered quite well, sharp etc. and looked like horses. It was the grass which was the problem - it simply looked as though there was no detail, comparable to a green water-colour wash. I also managed to provoke the well described CMOS rolling shutter artefacts when I shot a fast moving Pendolino. My HDV Sony camcorder, a tape based HDR-HC5, can film the same Pendolinos without problem, and it uses a CMOS sensor.
Clearly I need to try the video on my 5D II in different settings, but at the moment I'm very impressed with the still capabilities of the 5D II, and with the HDV capabilities of the Sony HC5.
I seen a couple of movies made with the Uni 5Ds, and then edited in final cut pro, one shot in B&W which was quite outstanding, haven't tried it yet, but never say never
Some of the disappointment with dSLR video is that beginners to the medium are comparing their results with the various demonstrations around on the web. These were often shot by a full team of professionals - but they sometimes neglect to say so.
Separate names with a comma.