Bruno

Also, a 16mm sized crop would be great. Full frame, 35mm and 16mm crop modes would give us the best of three worlds, leave no lens unused!

If this could be made fully reliable it'd make the 5D iii a great camera: you have standard mode for all your events and quick turnaround stuff, and RAW for your big projects. Ace!
 
There does seem to be a lot of odd artifacts at the moment (those vertical lines in out of focus and distant areas, some very jagged edged and square noise) but I'm sure it can be sorted, they've done so much work already.
 
I've used Magic Lantern a ton, donated way back in the day and have been spreading it like wildfire, I'm glad they just don't stop!
 
One request would be: APSC/S35 crop mode. I have some old cinema glass that wasn't designed for 135 frame. Is this possible?

BMD are doing it for way more than 10 seconds at 4k with a camera that costs not much more, so obviously it wouldn't be impossible, would it?

At this day and age I don't see why a 7D2 couldn't shoot 2k raw for constant video if that's what Canon decided to, not just 10 seconds, hell the BMD pocket camera does it for half the price, so why the skepticism?

Asking for a 1 second raw burst, or even a 10 second raw burst, is thinking extremely small, if you're gonna wish, wish big, we don't want canon or anyone else thinking that's all we wish for, do we?

Absolutely, what videographer shooting hours of footage a day will process all that non-standard aspect ratio raw footage just for a bit of sharpness the client won't care about anyway for content that's probably web-only? And this is assuming the hack actually works...
 
I don't think most casual hobbyists would go through this trouble, either, which is why I don't think Canon is crippling anything video-wise (intentionally). Their debayering algorithm for stills (and video) is softer at 100% than Adobe's or DXOmark's and the in-camera processing throws away a lot of highlight detail. That soft algorith, alone might account for some of the difference in image quality between these raw video grabs and what the camera offers up as h264. Likewise I think peaking is useful, but it's very slow as ML implements it... None of the hacks are really production/casual hobbyist ready 100%. The C100/C300/C500 line is more a matter of crippling in increments, but dSLRs are still cameras first and foremost and the video is good enough for most.
 
I'm unsurprised that the 550d has the highest resolution of the previous line of dSLRs. Loved that camera!
 
Lastly, nearest neighbor downsampling has little to do with pixel binning as regards image quality. Nearest neighbor downsampling is after debayering is done. So you're downsampling all the interpolated data for each given channel. With pixel binning, every third pixel of a sub-1080p stream is red or blue with to weak an anti-aliasing filter to do anything. So the frequencies that alias are much lower than those that would alias in a downsampled still.
 
Because we lack the tools necessary to make really beautiful images on the cheap consistently (art design, lights, lenses, a big crew, talent) it's easy to get focused on image quality on the cheap and it is a valid pursuit. But it's kind of its own pursuit. I mean you can always rent an Alexa package for a week for about the price of a dSLR package.

You know an LCD screen is not the same as looking through a viewfinder...
Also, they've been using measuring tape to focus for over 100 years of film, maybe more than their eyes.  :)

You know an LCD screen is not the same as looking through a viewfinder...
Also, they've been using measuring tape to focus for over 100 years of film, maybe more than their eyes.  :)

True. I've said this before, but I've worked with many high end Super 35mm film scans and they don't look sharp, not at all.
They probably compare to a Canon 5Dmk3 in terms of sharpness at most, and they're often sharpened in post.
 
That softness is an important part of film's aesthetic. We don't necessarily have to mimic film with digital, digital is a different look, and should be taken advantage of for what it is, but many people focus on the wrong aspects IMO.

I'm actually not in a PAL region at the moment, but I ordered the PAL version of the camera exactly because of that.
It's a shame Sony won't make these cameras world cameras.
 
Anyway, when shooting 60i (30p in fact), have you tried playing around with the shutter speeds and see what looks better?
Have you used 1/50? (the closest to 1/48, which would be the same as an 180 degrees shutter in a film camera)
Some people here defend that 1/40 looks more cinematic than 1/50, maybe you could try that as well?
 
I think that might get you closer than using optical flow retimes. At least for handheld or locked camera footage it should look pretty good.
Smooth pans or dolly shots could still look a bit jittery though...

RED is compressed raw and the theaters are filled with VFX blockbusters shot with them :)

An external audio recorder designed specifically  for DSLRs.
 
http://tascam.com/product/dr-60d/overview/

Now seriously, how can one possibly not get at least one of each?

Now seriously, how can one possibly not get at least one of each?

I think there's two things going on here, the MoVi thing, and Laforet's "short", one is awesome, the other is incredibly terrible.

This thing obviously has a lot of potential, it's a novelty and they're charging for that, realistically this thing could be sold for well under $5k. But they were the first to provide it at this level of completion and useability, so let them milk it while they can.

Laforet's short however seems to me like a terrible demo. Most people have mentioned the out of focus and poorly framed shots, bad editing and poor filmmaking in general, most shots are totally unmotivated, and worse of all, there's nothing here in terms of camera movement that I haven't seen before. Watch a film like Hannah and and you'll find plenty of fluid steady shots, much better shot, so he missed his chance of showin off the specific skills this thing might have.

I think there's two things going on here, the MoVi thing, and Laforet's "short", one is awesome, the other is incredibly terrible.

This thing obviously has a lot of potential, it's a novelty and they're charging for that, realistically this thing could be sold for well under $5k. But they were the first to provide it at this level of completion and useability, so let them milk it while they can.

Laforet's short however seems to me like a terrible demo. Most people have mentioned the out of focus and poorly framed shots, bad editing and poor filmmaking in general, most shots are totally unmotivated, and worse of all, there's nothing here in terms of camera movement that I haven't seen before. Watch a film like Hannah and and you'll find plenty of fluid steady shots, much better shot, so he missed his chance of showin off the specific skills this thing might have.

I think it would totally change the thousands of DSLR short films you see on vimeo these days. Instead of being shot wide open, with shallow depth of field and most of the important subjects out of focus, they would be shot wide open, with shallow depth of field, most subjects out of focus and badly framed and feature loads of smooth flying shots.
 
Just joking here! Kind of...

I hate it when they do (lame) product demos and call it short films, then it's neither one or the other in the end.
This "short" was terribly staged, camera was all over the place, crossing the line shot after shot, poor composition... if they had just done an objective and carefully planned demo they'd have spent their money better, but I guess they were paying for the Laforet hype and publicity, not for a good short film.
 
This equipment is welcome and I'm sure it will find its use, its price is not expensive for high end film making, but in order to be revolutionary as they're trying to make it, it would have to cost a fraction of that.

I think it would totally change the thousands of DSLR short films you see on vimeo these days. Instead of being shot wide open, with shallow depth of field and most of the important subjects out of focus, they would be shot wide open, with shallow depth of field, most subjects out of focus and badly framed and feature loads of smooth flying shots.
 
Just joking here! Kind of...

I hate it when they do (lame) product demos and call it short films, then it's neither one or the other in the end.
This "short" was terribly staged, camera was all over the place, crossing the line shot after shot, poor composition... if they had just done an objective and carefully planned demo they'd have spent their money better, but I guess they were paying for the Laforet hype and publicity, not for a good short film.
 
This equipment is welcome and I'm sure it will find its use, its price is not expensive for high end film making, but in order to be revolutionary as they're trying to make it, it would have to cost a fraction of that.

Maybe a really huge Philip Bloom signature sand bag that lets you shape an entire film set out of it with just a few pumps?

Well, there's also tripod, steadycam, etc. stabilization :)
A new kind of steadycam would be extremely handy, imagine something that could balance any camera without time consuming micro adjustments to weight, etc. Could be good. It's probably totally unrelated though.

Maybe a really huge Philip Bloom signature sand bag that lets you shape an entire film set out of it with just a few pumps?

Maybe a really huge Philip Bloom signature sand bag that lets you shape an entire film set out of it with just a few pumps?

Maybe a really huge Philip Bloom signature sand bag that lets you shape an entire film set out of it with just a few pumps?

that's another reason I've not bought a new body. Lenses yes... But body hire is good for things with budgets

I shot two videos in one weekend with the FS700 and used my own lenses. 250 pounds of hire for all the kit and the metabones EF adaptor and batteries and cards and so on... On the budget.

When it's unbudgeted shoots or personal things I can use what I've got. I suppose i could buy something for both... But I haven't a need at the moment. But I want to ;) it's lust really.

The busiest camera guy I know doesn't own anything. Not even a tripod. The other busiest has a C300. Theres loads of ways to do it!

It is a fair point, if you have a totally awesome story and shoot it and get picked up you're less likely to need to need to care. It's pretty competative out there though...

That's what I love about cheap video cameras like DSLRs, I can constantly practice, and then I I wanna use a red for a day, I can make magic without bankruptcy. Woop!