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

[Michael1]

As has been mentioned even with 1/48 shutter speed you will still have some sharp stills.

That's not a very high shutter speed for capturing clear stills of sports or other fast action - not in the stills world anyway.

 

I have yet to see high quality stills from video that would be comparable to what you would get from a high quality, modern DSLR.  I'm keeping an open mind, though, so if someone can post some along with the video they were grabbed from (so we can see the video wasn't completely compromised to grab stills), that would be great.

 

Michael

[Quirky]

With this many letters after your name you can be assured Maeda is a very important man at Canon...

 

...and that the company in question is very bureaucratic organisation with a stiff, heavy and very slow turning carriage.

 

 

The ability to shift time in post and choose the ‘perfect still’. I’ll give you an example – a model’s hair is blowing in the wind. Going back and forth through a video is like operating the fan in post. You blow the hair around until the position is the most attractive, and choose that frame. 

 

That's just spraying and praying on steroids, isn't it. It sounds more like a solution looking for a problem. Now that you've got your shiny new 4K hammer, every "problem" you see has to look like a nail, doesn't it. ;-)

 

However, the secret sauce behind most great portraits has very little to do with high frame rate shooting, or even resolution.

I'm not anti-4K, nor do I disagree with your thoughts on this article in general, but some of your agruments just seem a bit, um, binary.

 

4K may be ‘only’ 8MP compared to the 22MP of the 5D Mark III but the difference in megapixel sounds much less when you consider it as 4K vs 6K, and just around the corner we have a 6K camera from Kinefinity. The huge 36MP of a Sony A7R is 7K and really, how much resolution do photographers need to make prints, publish books or show in galleries? The reality is 4K is easily enough to do all of that.

 

Making great portraits (yes, making, not taking) has never been about resolution.

Take two well known portrait photographers like Sue Bryce and Peter Hurley, for example. Their work and reputation are known worldwide, and their fancy Canon cameras would already allow them to take both rapid bursts of shots and video of their subjects and shoot like you described above. They could also easily afford a C300 if they so fancied. Both of them do and have already made their "Making Of" videos of their photo shoots, but they still prefer making their client portraits the "old-fashioned" way for a reason. Not because they don't know any better, or wouldn't know how. They both have been making great portraits with less than 4K resolution, too, since the days of film.

 

Apart from a handful of gadget geeks, it's really a non-issue. You either have the skill or you don't, and being able to pick an image from a stream of video wouldn't change that. Nor are there any significant problems in making portraits with stills cameras, either. Stills and video/cinema are two different genres of art.

 

Again, I'm all in for the arrival of the reasonably priced 4K cameras but to me not every every photo session is a nail that needs a 4K hammer. I do see the benefits of picking a still frame off a high quality video stream in general, of course, but that's another story. 

 

I've been shooting photo-video fusion (I don't fancy the hybrid moniker) for a while now, but I tend to prefer having two different cameras, anyway. Whenever I can. For the best results, you're likely to concentrate on just one or the other at the time, anyway. At least I am.

 

 

 

So far image quality on Canon DSLRs when it comes to video hasn’t kept pace with the times.

 

Neither has the stills image quality, at least in their consumer level (APS-C) models. A typical 18-megapixel Canon dSLR is not a valid reference for top image quality, and hasn't been for a good while now. 

 

 

 

Tough move – but stills shooters who are anti-video have held us back for way too long 

 

I know quite a few stills shooters, both online and IRL, but I've never heard of, let alone met a stills shooter who is "anti-video."

I may know some stills shooters who are indifferent about video, though, but that's something very different. 

 

Thus I have never felt like such imaginary curmudgeons could be able to "hold us back" in any way. If Canon choose to ignore the video enthusiasts and the prosumer market, unlike some other brands, I believe the ones that hold us back can be found somewhere behind those ridiculously long job titles mentioned in your article. Fortunately like Nikon, Canon are not the only option we have now.

 

 

and it is time Canon moved video onto a new product line, possibly even without the mirror and optical viewfinder. It would certainly help the flagging EOS M mount if it was to form the basis of a Video EOS line.

 

Agreed, an EOS-M line with decent video features would be very nice. Some other manufacturers are already doing some progress with such models, but for some reason Canon don't, and apparently won't, any time soon. You can't really blame those alleged "anti-video" guys for that. 

But all in all, let's hope Canon will do something beyond their Cx00 line, and that they'll be better motivated about prosumer video than, say, Nikon. We'll find out, eventually.

 

Meanwhile, one thing came to mind about the Asian culture and Japanese in particular. I've heard/learned that the Asian/Japanese corporate heads aren't too eager to give us a blunt "no" where a Western one could do so with ease. I believe they'd rather use a polite euphemism to express the negative answer. In other words, sometimes a Japanese no may not necessarily sound like one literally.

[jcs]

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.

 

Hair could be an issue, however with a decent optical flow tracker it should worst cast revert to cross blending in areas that can't be tracked.

 

Rotating tires are also tricky, however folks may not notice:

 

Random patterns such as water spray are also difficult, but it can work reasonably well: 

 

Both shot with high shutter speed on consumer camcorders.

 

Retiming someone walking behind fence posts is another tricky case.

[fuzzynormal]

They both have been making great portraits with less than 4K resolution, too, since the days of film.

 

I'll be the pedantic one and say that film is well beyond 4k, but I get your meaning.

[fuzzynormal]

In other words, sometimes a Japanese no may not necessarily sound like one

 

That is exactly correct from my experience.  

[fuzzynormal]

You should at least bill them for the extra work.

 

Sure did.

[Damphousse]

A lot of home movies are of kids doing sports.

 

Then say that.  Your strategy is good for sports shooting, but not weddings, graduations, birthdays, anniversearies, entire vaction movies, etc.

 

 

 Are average people doing home movies really discriminating about their shutter speed!?

 

No.  Which is why they look like crap with high shutter speed when a ND filter should have been used.  I didn't realize why they looked that way until I got into DSLR video and learned about shutter angle.  I just knew they looked... amateur.

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's not a very high shutter speed for capturing clear stills of sports or other fast action - not in the stills world anyway.

 

I have yet to see high quality stills from video that would be comparable to what you would get from a high quality, modern DSLR.  I'm keeping an open mind, though, so if someone can post some along with the video they were grabbed from (so we can see the video wasn't completely compromised to grab stills), that would be great.

 

Michael

 

That's why the word "some" is italicized.  It's to call attention to the fact most frames will not be ideal.

 

All these strategies have their pros/cons and applications.  It's not one size fits all.  None of this stuff is a panacea.  Heck even with stills I sometimes hike with four different cameras just so I can have the right tool for the job.  And sometimes I do all my stills and video with a smartphone.

[Jeffkevwood]

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).

Arguably the worlds most successful wedding film makers, Stillmotion, shot extremely hight shutter speeds for the years they used DSLRs. It suited their slick documentary style. Most wedding dslr film makers now still use shutter speed to control their exposure so motion blur isn't an issue for them when considering lifting stills. However, composition is and this was the main reason it didn't work too well for me, the few times I tried it. But that's because of the way I shoot video, tight and varied. I foresee a new style emerging from young guys how are starting out with 4k at their fingertips. Sooner or later someone will nail it and achieve a high standard of both stills and video with one camera. It will be very different to our taste now, but I predict that the artistry will surprise us all. I'm just too set in my ways to do it myself :-)

[JESEOS CHRIST]

Canon is only choosing to be responsive to their competitor's decisions to improve video functionality on DSLRs.

They aren't necessarily taking the initiative to be responsive as a direct result of consumer demand.

When it comes down to it, they prefer to follow the lead of Sony and Panasonic.

[fuzzynormal]

Your strategy is good for sports shooting, but not weddings, graduations, birthdays, anniversearies, entire vaction movies, etc.

 

I'll disagree with that.  I shoot 60p/120ss a lot.

 

 

they look like crap with high shutter speed when a ND filter should have been used.

 

Okay fine.  But it's a home video.  It's amateur, so what?  If a dad has the ability to shoot simultaneous video and still of his girl's game, I don't think having a cinematic motion blur aesthetic is high on his list of priorities; which is what I'm on about.

 

What person wouldn't want to shoot both things simultaneously?  Maybe an enthusiast concerned with getting an idealized photograph, but most others will utilize the high-resolution to their advantage and get stills they otherwise would not have captured.

 

I'm still surprised over the dismissive reaction that this capability offers consumers.  It's a cool new tool that offers interesting abilities.  Yes, even for "pros."

[fuzzynormal]

composition is and this was the main reason it didn't work too well for me, the few times I tried it. But that's because of the way I shoot video, tight and varied.

 

Exactly.  It's not that the newer resolution technology is getting in the way of creating stills, the style between the disciplines is the bigger issue. Personally, I foresee "still-lifting" as a supplemental tool.  Useful when appropriate.

 

The way I shoot documentary montage sequences doesn't lend itself to great photos, but the way I film certainly works in the editing booth.

 

I also agree that someone will create a hybrid style that does do both at the same time and will do it very well.  It'll happen sooner rather than later.

[etidona]

A wedding ceremony could be done at 1/50ss and take stills from the video, but only the ceremony IMO. I would never use that technique on a portrait/group/glamour shot. (Sciorio does that but he is selling animated portraits, not photos and video separately)

I will test that in the ceremony ASAP: imagine doing the same work with half the personal required to take photos and videos from multiple algles, without that annoying "click click click" all around in the audio track!

[sandro]

Honestly I don't believe this a bit! There's no way in hell we're gonna get a 550d successor that actually shoots even real 1080p, that could compete with their own high end cameras

[estarkey7]

Really hoping they can actually follow through with any of this. The next couple months are going to be a huge deciding factor for me as to whether I decide to stick with Canon or jump ship...

You took the words right outta my mouth! I have been doing a fair amount of video work with my Canon 60D, but as I gravitate more toward indie film making (but don't want to lose out on the photo gigs on the side), the Panasonic GH4 has me pricing my Canon kit for sale on ebay as we speak! 

 

The moment I see 10-bit 4;2:2 to an external recorder over HDMI is the day my Canon kit is going bye bye!

[Talkinggod]

I have been making nice stills from Video flow since 2006 at that time with a Z1U and after effects ..  When I first discovered it I knew back then that picking frames from a stream would be the future.  We are not exactly there yet but it's coming ...   "Stills"  are a thing of the past in the next 5 to 15 years ..

[nazdar]

Canon? LOL

[animan]

I have been making nice stills from Video flow since 2006 at that time with a Z1U and after effects ..  When I first discovered it I knew back then that picking frames from a stream would be the future.  We are not exactly there yet but it's coming ...   "Stills"  are a thing of the past in the next 5 to 15 years ..

 

except if youre serious about photography youll want to have control over all the different elements including having motion blur or not for effect, as mentioned by many, certainly possible but not ideal

[AndrewM]

Here is a feature I have been thinking about that might make people happy. Sticking to US timing, if you are shooting 30p with a 180 degree shutter, then you are looking at a 1/60s exposure, with an exposure every 1/30s. If your camera is capable of 60p, then it can clear two images off the sensor in 1/30s. There is time (at least theoretically) to get off another (shorter) exposure between each frame of 30p.

 

Originally I was thinking more about getting off a really quick short exposure to give you some more latitude with highlights when you work with the main 30p frame (as long as there isn't too much motion between frames). But you could also have that second stream be your stills stream, with full control over exposure (as long as it is sufficiently less than 1/30s).

 

Of course, that would require your camera to be able to encode essentially 2 30p streams, which is more work than 1 60p stream, but at least conceivable.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

Why do we have to kill things? :D Photography is not going anywhere. This is simply another form of practising it. And no arguing, yes many will use the technique soon. It's another tool for photo/videographer to shoot with, some will use it and some won't. Both are the future!

[Paolo]

Canon has been cashing in on the success generated from 5D MKII, and truly they have not cared to be on the right side of things that way. I use the C300 which is a really good camera, lovely image BUT lacks SO MUCH! and at $13k I really do not think it is justified.

 

They need another game changer IF they really want to stay in this game.

 

The GH4 it is only the beginning.