Canon say: "We need to respond to calls for DSLR video quality increase"

[fuzzynormal]

unless the camera and subject is completely static isnt it kind of impossible to get a sharp picture with a 180 shutter?

 

The 180 degree shutter/frame rate thing is a rule of thumb, not a requirement.

 

You can shoot a high speed shutter on motion picture footage and remove motion blur.  I seem to recall a little film that E.T. director guy made about the Normandy Invasion... kinda popular, used high speed shutter.

[Michael1]

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 

 

Michael

[johnnymossville]

unless the camera and subject is completely static isnt it kind of impossible to get a sharp picture with a 180 shutter?

 

Not impossible at all.  I've gotten plenty of really sharp pictures from video. 

[Michael1]

Not impossible at all.  I've gotten plenty of really sharp pictures from video. 

I don't see how this is possible, given the slow shutter speeds.

 

Here is their take on it with a 5K EPIC at 120 fps raw.

 

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/15/is-it-time-to-eliminate-stills-from-your-shoot/

 

Michael

[johnnymossville]

I don't see how this is possible, given the slow shutter speeds.

 

Here is their take on it with a 5K EPIC at 120 fps raw.

 

http://www.aphotoeditor.com/2012/05/15/is-it-time-to-eliminate-stills-from-your-shoot/

 

Michael

 

You can shoot video at high shutter speeds,  but even at slow shutter speeds you will find many sharp frames of video.   Try it. 

[fuzzynormal]

I don't see how this is possible, given the slow shutter speeds.

 

So you increase the shutter speed.  I do this on my Canon, Sony, and Lumix cameras by rotating a dedicated knob put there for exactly such purposes.  It's possible and common.  I think you might be misunderstanding exposure concepts?

[Marino215]

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 
 
Michael

I agree on DSLRs not having 4k but as far as cell phones go thats called the 4k race to the bottom. I see the 4k consumer trend having small sensors and the pro versions equipted with a s35 sensor. The consumer won't care and but the pro will appreciate it. There's going to be as many variations on 4k as there are with 1080, I wouldn't look to cell phones setting any standards.

[Damphousse]

The 180 degree shutter/frame rate thing is a rule of thumb, not a requirement.

 

You can shoot a high speed shutter on motion picture footage and remove motion blur.  I seem to recall a little film that E.T. director guy made about the Normandy Invasion... kinda popular, used high speed shutter.

 

Yeah but that is a niche application... if you have any sense of taste.  You either set the camera to get stills and use a higher shutter speed or you decide you want to shoot a stylistic scene or two and then you can have your video and stills.  But you aren't going to do general every day shooting and walk away with an ideal stills situtation and reasonable video... which is okay.  As has been mentioned even with 1/48 shutter speed you will still have some sharp stills.

 

 

When you can buy a 4K cell phone, but not a 4K DSLR, something is seriously wrong.  The camera market tanked in 2013.  It's really simple.  The camera companies are not innovating.  You can't keep selling the same old thing year after year, and expect people to buy it. 

 

Michael

 

 

Lol.  My DSLR doesn't shoot 41 megapixels either.  I wouldn't trade it for a camera phone though!

 

The DSLR market was up in 2013... it was the mirrorless market that "tanked."  Camera sales across the board are not what they used to be simply because everyone in the first world that wants a quality camera has one.  Photographically my $300 refurb T3i does everything most people could ever want from a stills camera.  And the harsh fact is most consumers don't care about video.  They have smart phones for that.  The stills shooters I know with video capable DSLRs rarely if ever use the video function.  They aren't going to ditch their perfectly good camera just to get 4k.  Heck most of them don't have the horse power to work with 4k files.

[animan]

So you increase the shutter speed.  I do this on my Canon, Sony, and Lumix cameras by rotating a dedicated knob put there for exactly such purposes.  It's possible and common.  I think you might be misunderstanding exposure concepts?

 

hmm, possible at a push i guess, personally I would never think about offering both pro stills and video on the same job though.. one would always be compromised

[fuzzynormal]

Yeah but that is a niche application... if you have any sense of taste.  You either set the camera to get stills and use a higher shutter speed or you decide you want to shoot a stylistic scene or two and then you can have your video and stills.  But you aren't going to do general every day shooting and walk away with an ideal stills situtation and reasonable video.

 

Sports.  240ss@120fps.  It looks fine and even better when slow-mo.  Are sports niche?  More common: 120ss@60fps.  That'll look perfectly acceptable on motion playback and give you plenty of stills to pull.  I'll have to check my sense of taste.  Hold on, mmmmm, umami?

 

If your crystal ball regarding the expanding capabilities of still cams says the market is not there, so be it.  I oracle otherwise.  

 

As a guy that makes a modest living doing this stuff, I'm looking forward to the more versatile gear and will be buying it for practical reasons that add to the creativity of projects.  

 

Let's not ignore the fact that increased video capabilities will translate well to photo.  RAW bursts that last a few minutes @4K perhaps?  Can't say that would be a bad thing.

 

Suggesting that some stills shooters are content with the way things are and the gear they have may be anecdotally true among the crowd you know, but I assure you the market ultimately demands innovation.

[fuzzynormal]

hmm, possible at a push i guess, personally I would never think about offering both pro stills and video on the same job though.. one would always be compromised

 

I would depending on the job.  Some clients actually ask for it.  Heck I did a thing last week where a client wanted to save money and time; didn't hire a photographer, and decided to pull stills for their small training pamphlet based on the lame video we shot for them.

 

Kinda silly, but oh well.  That's the corporate environment.  Offering flexibility to those clients and making them happy pays the bills.  The needs of the real world demand compromises.  At least in the circles in which I run.  If you're blessed to be above all that, good for you.  Kinda wish I was.

[Damphousse]

 Are sports niche?

 

Yes.  The average consumer does not need to make all their home movies look like Saving Private Ryan.  Would you really want that?

[kadajawi]

The 180 degree shutter/frame rate thing is a rule of thumb, not a requirement.

 

You can shoot a high speed shutter on motion picture footage and remove motion blur.  I seem to recall a little film that E.T. director guy made about the Normandy Invasion... kinda popular, used high speed shutter.

 

That was a VERY jarring and striking scene because of that though. Yes, you CAN do it, but it will have a certain effect on the viewer, which may or may not be wanted (usually in cinema it is not, IMHO). Try to shoot a romantic wedding video like that... There's a reason why DoPs use ND filters at times to get down to a 180 degree shutter... because it tends to look better.

 

Btw., if you watch Star Trek: TNG on Blu Ray, watch for the flybys of the Enterprise. They did motion control photography, and sometimes there is no motion blur, the model was completely stationary when they took the single photos. As a result it's stuttering like mad, and looks quite bad and awkward (it's great for taking stills though).

[Andrew Reid]

The 180 degree shutter is way too low for a lot of handheld camera work.

 

Also you can get away with really high shutter speeds like 1/2000 for exposure without NDs if the scene is relatively slow moving and locked down on a tripod.

 

The negative effects of high shutter speeds are a bit misunderstood, it's not always a bad thing to ignore the rule of thumb.

[jcs]

If the sensor can handle it (low noise etc.), one could shoot everything with a high shutter speed to ensure all frames are in focus. Stills could be pulled at will and motion blur can be added in post with AE, Resolve, etc. Lots of blur = laid back, dreamy, calm, no blur at all = high energy, tense... Retiming quality (frame interpolation) is also better without initial motion blur.

[fuzzynormal]

Yes. 

 

 

A lot of home movies are of kids doing sports.  At least in my reality.  Are average people doing home movies really discriminating about their shutter speed!?  If you tell a consumer they can shoot their son's football match as video and then grab stills from it as they wish, I doubt high the shutter speeds that effectively allows for that sort of thing is going to discourage them.  They're most likely not going to care about the high shutter aesthetic.    

 

But aside from all that, if you're trying to find a middle ground, you can shoot a 120ss/60fps and have it look fine for motion pictures and allow for better frame grabs.  It really depends on what you're attempting to do.  

 

Ultimately, the issue brought up was "stills can't be pulled from video in a worthwhile way."  I just disagree with that assertion.  And uber-ultimately, the OP thread is about Canon camera development...back on point, I don't think we're going to see Canon doing 4K video on their mid-market DSLR line this year.

[fuzzynormal]

Try to shoot a romantic wedding video like that.

 

You're right.  25fps and a 50ss is ideal motion picture settings, in my opinion, for weddings.  (and 25/25 can look nice too)  However... I could see shooting 60fps/120ss and then conforming the footage to slow-mo.  Slow-mo tends to be kinda romantic, right?  At 120ss, you'd be able to hunt and find a lot of nice stills.

 

Let's not forget, a photography rule of thumb to avoid motion blur induced by hand held shake is that you x2 the shutter speed based on the focal length.  Obviously, that's a bit unwieldy for motion picture shooting.  Still, I think you'd be able to find nice stills from 24/48 as well --to be honest.  Lots of posing, stationary standing, and such in weddings I believe.  

 

I am a bit surprised that people are implying 4K frame grabs somehow won't be a pragmatic tool.  Granted, it's not going to usurp one discipline over the other (motion vs. stills imaging) but I'll be damned if it's not viable for supplementing it.

[fuzzynormal]

motion blur can be added in post with AE, Resolve, etc.

 

That never really looks good though, does it?

[hmcindie]

Heck I did a thing last week where a client wanted to save money and time; didn't hire a photographer, and decided to pull stills for their small training pamphlet based on the lame video we shot for them.

 

You should at least bill them for the extra work.

[hmcindie]

 Retiming quality (frame interpolation) is also better without initial motion blur.

 

I somewhat disagree with this. For example, sharp flowing hair is a mess to interpolate. But if the original material has motion blur, you can then hide your retiming quite well.