5DIV full spec and full image leak

[gatopardo]

5 hours ago, Policar said:

6720/4096=1.64 which isn't just less than 1.91. It's less than 1.7, counting rounding error.

But the whole crop business is speculation. I have no idea if it's true or not. I don't know where people are getting this information.

An 11-16mm is already a 17mm FF equivalent, anyway. Even if you were right, a 21mm FF equivalent is about 13mm on Super35, wider than the VAST majority of cinema lenses, for which even 18mm is considered an ultra wide.

Anyhow, I'm not buying this in part because I can't afford it right now. If it doesn't meet your needs, you can buy something else. But the need for an ultra ultra wide is esoteric, and your math is wrong to begin with. And we don't know if it's a crop or not anyway... I dunno, the weird codec seems like a bigger issue to me tbh.

You are right. 

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

9 hours ago, Parker said:

Wrong, technically ef-s lenses are only made by canon, they have a longer plastic bit at the end. Third party lenses like the Sigma's mentioned above will go on any full frame EF camera just fine , even if they're only designed to cover aps-c, they still feature the regular EF lens mount. 

Thank you. i didn't know this. i assumed they were ef-s mount. Good to know.

[Andrew Reid]

22 hours ago, Jn- said:

They were using MJPG in their IXUS point and shoot's as far back as 2001.  

640x 480, 15fps, 422.  I still have an Ixus v3, 2002, not sure whether to trade it in or not on this new 5D mk. IV!?

Yeah it's a codec that is as old as the hills and over it.

No place for it in a 2016 camera.

1D C in 2012 I could just about accept because it made for nice images.

They are clearly crippling here... to protect the Cinema EOS range.

If the XC10 can have 305Mbit/s XF codec for less than $2k then Canon can put it in their $3k DSLR... ZERO technical excuses!

Panasonic had MJPEG for their 720p on the GH1, remember? It was considered the lower quality codec option even back in 2010!

[mercer]

My first HD camera was a Panasonic point & shoot back in 2009 and it shot 1080p MJPEG and I still quite like the motion cadence from it. But yeah it is a prehistoric codec, but then again if it works...

[SMGJohn]

Horrible specs, I bet it still has terrible dynamic range compared to other cameras

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

Codec's are like wine. MJPEG 8-bit 422 it's old and heavy. But it gives good motion and color. In my opinion, and solely based on the few cameras I used, Sony has bad colours and Panasonic has bad motion. I don't mind it being heavy and old if it delivers. 

[shooter_]

1 hour ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

Codec's are like wine. MJPEG 8-bit 422 it's old and heavy. But it gives good motion and color. In my opinion, and solely based on the few cameras I used, Sony has bad colours and Panasonic has bad motion. I don't mind it being heavy and old if it delivers. 

Agreed. Panasonic not bad motion though. What the hell? It is 24 or 25 frames per second anyway! That's mere subjective BS.

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

16 minutes ago, shooter_ said:

Agreed. Panasonic not bad motion though. What the hell? It is 24 or 25 frames per second anyway! That's mere subjective BS.

Maybe it's subjective. I used a gh4 and a gx80/85 and the motion feels different to me there is some kind of a subtle jitter at 24 and 25 fps. Never tried at 30fps. But the way it renders motions is different and in my opinion not so good.   

[SMGJohn]

15 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

Maybe it's subjective. I used a gh4 and a gx80/85 and the motion feels different to me there is some kind of a subtle jitter at 24 and 25 fps. Never tried at 30fps. But the way it renders motions is different and in my opinion not so good.   

Are you talking about rolling shutter by any chance? 

 

[tweak]

38 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

Maybe it's subjective. I used a gh4 and a gx80/85 and the motion feels different to me there is some kind of a subtle jitter at 24 and 25 fps. Never tried at 30fps. But the way it renders motions is different and in my opinion not so good.   

I also have GH4 and compared to 7D raw I notice a big difference in motion as well. I'm not sure exactly what it is, but all I can say is it looks kind of fake and electronic (if that makes any sense), like using a super high frame and shutter rate and then playing at 100% speed.

[wolf33d]

You guys are extraordinaire. GH4 a bad Motion look ingé fake and electronic. Not it does not make sense. Pure BS, and I bet 1000$ I can find you multiple GH4 videos that look way more filmic than any video you have ever made on any of your canons. 

 

Anyway, canon is releasing a XC15 in September. Curious to see what will evolve...

Such a shame that they crippled so much the 5D. What I don't understand though is why Nikon who does not have an EOS Cinema line to protect does not push great video features. Imagine a D750 with full video capability (FF 4K with Nikon flat profile,...) 

[tomekk]

7 minutes ago, wolf33d said:

Such a shame that they crippled so much the 5D. What I don't understand though is why Nikon who does not have an EOS Cinema line to protect does not push great video features. Imagine a D750 with full video capability (FF 4K with Nikon flat profile,...) 

The world is far from perfect, therefore it's clearly a combination of different factors, ie. deadlines, focus, licenses, resources, margins, costs... etc. adding features is not free, it stretches all of the above. In pro bodies it's even tighter because everything has to work. People rely on these things to make a living, trust to the equipment is therefore huge and must be maintained, even if it means sacrificing the latest bells and whistles. Think about why cheap bodies get a lot of new features that pro bodies lack? It's an enormous beta testing playground... 

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

1 hour ago, SMGJohn said:

Are you talking about rolling shutter by any chance? 

 

No. I'm talking about the away motion is rendered. I'm not talking about RS, but about a very subtle jitter. It occurs also when panning or when fast objects pass across the frame. But I'm not talking about RS. it's more like there would be a drop frame, but less evident. 

[Cinegain]

Yeah, it's the mystic and infamous 'motion cadence' (look it up). There's a lot of discussions out there. It's like conspiracy theories (aliens or what have you) or even religion. There's no real hard evidence of it, but people feel there's something to it and believe it's out there.

I think there's more to it than just a camera. I think in certain conditions it might be more prone to show, but I'm also one to think there's something to it. Especially with CCD sensors or thick datastreams of information motion seems to be recorded a little nicer. Is there scientific hard evidence? I didn't really see any. Could it just be a placebo-kinda-thingie? Someone says they see it and you suddenly start to see it, although in all actuality it isn't there? Who knows, really. But it makes for an interesting topic of discussion, if anything.

[TwoScoops]

22 minutes ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

No. I'm talking about the away motion is rendered. I'm not talking about RS, but about a very subtle jitter. It occurs also when panning or when fast objects pass across the frame. But I'm not talking about RS. it's more like there would be a drop frame, but less evident. 

I know exactly what you mean and it most certainly is there in the GH4. Hopefully they fix it with the 5.

[Tiago Rosa-Rosso]

10 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah, it's the mystic and infamous 'motion cadence' (look it up). There's a lot of discussions out there. It's like conspiracy theories (aliens or what have you) or even religion. There's no real hard evidence of it, but people feel there's something to it and believe it's out there.

I think there's more to it than just a camera. I think in certain conditions it might be more prone to show, but I'm also one to think there's something to it. Especially with CCD sensors or thick datastreams of information motion seems to be recorded a little nicer. Is there scientific hard evidence? I didn't really see any. Could it just be a placebo-kinda-thingie? Someone says they see it and you suddenly start to see it, although in all actuality it isn't there? Who knows, really. But it makes for an interesting topic of discussion, if anything.

I agree with you, maybe I'm being completely biased. Cause the true is I can't really explain and is indeed very subtle. On the web i barely notice it, but on big the big screen, on DCP file, it gets less subtle. Just for the record I don't believe Aliens, god or that Elvis is alive. 

[tweak]

1 hour ago, wolf33d said:

You guys are extraordinaire. GH4 a bad Motion look ingé fake and electronic. Not it does not make sense. Pure BS, and I bet 1000$ I can find you multiple GH4 videos that look way more filmic than any video you have ever made on any of your canons. 

Settle down... I wouldn't still own a GH4 if I didn't like it  . That doesn't mean however that I don't see this small "issue", no camera is perfect.

[Ehetyz]

43 minutes ago, Cinegain said:

Yeah, it's the mystic and infamous 'motion cadence' (look it up). There's a lot of discussions out there. It's like conspiracy theories (aliens or what have you) or even religion. There's no real hard evidence of it, but people feel there's something to it and believe it's out there.

I think there's more to it than just a camera. I think in certain conditions it might be more prone to show, but I'm also one to think there's something to it. Especially with CCD sensors or thick datastreams of information motion seems to be recorded a little nicer. Is there scientific hard evidence? I didn't really see any. Could it just be a placebo-kinda-thingie? Someone says they see it and you suddenly start to see it, although in all actuality it isn't there? Who knows, really. But it makes for an interesting topic of discussion, if anything.

I think the mythical "motion cadence", separated from rolling shutter, is down to how different codecs and cameras compress motion and how that affects motion blur. Pretty much without exception people pick RAW cameras as ones that have best motion cadence - because there's no compression or artifacting affecting the motion. Then after that come the cameras that do Prores or other flavours of high bitrate codecs, and dead last are the ones that compress the image to ludicrous degrees with interframe codecs such as Sony cameras or GH4.

The best motion comes from a camera with a fast sensor readout and high bitrate compression or RAW. Imho that's all the magic there is to it.

[vaga]

Don't forget to take dropped frames into account

[mat33]

18 minutes ago, Ehetyz said:

I think the mythical "motion cadence", separated from rolling shutter, is down to how different codecs and cameras compress motion and how that affects motion blur. Pretty much without exception people pick RAW cameras as ones that have best motion cadence - because there's no compression or artifacting affecting the motion. Then after that come the cameras that do Prores or other flavours of high bitrate codecs, and dead last are the ones that compress the image to ludicrous degrees with interframe codecs such as Sony cameras or GH4.

The best motion comes from a camera with a fast sensor readout and high bitrate compression or RAW. Imho that's all the magic there is to it.

I think there might be some truth to this -IMHO the best motion (and colour) is the global shutter in the Digital Bolex