jgharding

parralax barrier 3D (as used in the 3DS) and ultra high resolution actually only work for most consumers (aside from in cinemas) with handheld devices   these are a growth area in moving-image consumption:    All companies, so far, have focused their high-resolution or 3D efforts in stagnant areas of consumption, where consumer habits have not only formed, but have also crystalised and arguably become tradition.   Hand-held habits are still being developed.   Thus, if 4K and 3D have any future, it in handheld, from the point of view of my analysis.   Personally, I find neither 3D or 4K to be particularly attractive prospect nor a necessity, but from the point of view of the broader market and future investment in product development (for alteration of content-consumption practices and thus driving of new-sales based growth), that's where I'd focus my development time, were I involved in such a technology firm as develops such products.   This leaves Apple the prime candidate for actually increasing adoption, as simply making a product thinner and lighter or making small incremental updates can only ever be a stopgap revenue protection measure, since it reduces new-consumer uptake as well as negatively impacting brand loyalty and reputation (somewhat mercurial factors, but important ones).   It also means companies with less to lose, such as Nokia, are more likely to try it, in order to grasp the aforementioned wavering consumers.   Canon, for example, have been in a particularly stubborn protection mode, evidenced by the 550D to 700D to 100D re-using sensor debacle, as well low level of features VS cost to consumer when compared to competitors in both their video and SLR sectors.   In order to maintain brand strength and loyalty (that is to say emotional as well as income capital) this kind of "protection period" must be offset by an attractive step up afterwards  (3D, higher resolution, higher bitrate) but before too much damage is done to the brand identity. This feature must be well positioned to not damage future growth, sales of other units, or destabilise overall market position, but also to be innovative enough to encourage upgrade and new adoption.    It must also not be a gimmick that consumers do not really want, or too small a niche feature (if part of a main line in a large company).   This puts such a feature into the category of high risk because it's hard to determine what the broad market wants, since reactions to recent "innovations" like 3D and 4K have been rather cold, in part dues to the reduction of consumer spending power due to high taxes and poor economy in general. Also, for large companies with many products, putting in features that many niche groups want (RAW capture, cheaper high-capacity memory in iPhones) could damage the market position of other brand products.   As a result, we see little movement across the board. Something of a slump in innovation.   By that analysis though, Canon or Apple must produce something of a jump for their next SLR, video camera or phone, or risk severely impacting brand capital and losing market share and share price at an accelerating rate.   That "jump" is an inherent risk that, if not taken, will inevitably result in loss, but could result in a bigger one. In other words, if they don't move, they start to lose (until Christmas bouys them for a bit) if they do, there's a chance of a big win, or a bigger loss than if doing very little.   In the current climate, most are opting for a small loss, rather than risking a big loss while also chancing a big win.   Like all economic models, mine used above is somewhat full of assumptions, but it does function anecdotally and against other evidence, and goes some way to explaining the actions of companies whose biggest asset is indeed their brand. 

While everyone is scrambling to remortgage their life for anamorphics, I've found some great prices on spherical cinema glass. this can work to advantage ;)

If the Nikon 1 can drop so many RAW frames a second out into a buffer, there doesn't much reason a device with superior processing and heat dissipation couldn't do so (or more) with APS-C. I suppose the biggest issue (aside from intentional market division) is indeed heat. Those canon bodies are pretty densely packe with stuff...

Lets hope this one is actually a step up! I find it hard to get my hopes up now with Canon, but fingers crossed.... A burst mode would be great, as would a real 1080p/50. Hmm... I'm once bitten, twice shy.

Top two for me :   C100 for lightweight and ease of use and if you only neep standard frame rates and glass with EF flange distance.   Sony FS700 if you want more lens options and high speed shooting and 4K future upgrade..

  Everything goes in and out of fashion, but a creative tool is a still a creative tool, and can be used in a multitude of ways.   The washy twee look you mention, usually musically accompanied by a faux ingenue female mumbling a ukelele cover of an 80s pop tune and claims that a product is "real" or "authentic" is, as was pointed out here, usually just RAW or cinelog that's been left quite raw. It's also shallow marketing bollocks, will disappear quickly, and doesn't really change how the same tools could be put to good use in a genuinely creative way.   The aforementioned ads drive me fu***ng mad as well, but don't change the fact that this lens opens up some interesting possibilities...

After chucking the conversation around, consensus seems to be that if the next XD model (7D MKii, something like that) doesn't make any significant improvements (new sensor etc, APSC good video) they'll be really pushing it!    I know videographers are still a smaller market than stills, but not for much longer, and even the stills people are disappointed.   Anyone remember the Wonder Camera? They do believe that video is the future of stills, but evidentyly they're gonna rinse us all on the way there: http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20009746-1.html

That is completely bonkers. What on earth is it from? A film camera where the lenses poke right inside?

Yes it was BD,    Ah that all makes sense, compromised shutter speed and deep focus... suddenly we're back to studio digibeta! Oh dear :S

 Correction: millions ;)

I didn't see HFR, I was watching in standard frame rates, and even someone who didn't know anything said it was "like TV" and "dead", so it seems they really got something wrong aside from the frame rates... hmm...

I watched about half of the Hobbit last night in 1080p.   I was with my girl, I said "what do you think about the look of this film compared to Lord Of The Rings?"   She said "It looks like a kind of BBC TV version of the other films! What's different?"   I explained the very high-resolution  digital Hobbit vs Kodak 200T and 500T film for the Lord Of The Rings trilogy, plus the whole double frame-rate shooting thing (even though this version was 24/25p).   I couldn't have put it better than her though. Everything's just so sharp that I found myself watching the edges of hair instead of faces.   Imagine how bad that'd be in 4K! I remember watching 4K at NAB and ignoring the characters because the gravel roads were so detailed...   It's grainless, unflinchingly sharp and rather stark...    In the cinema though, the whole thing was really enjoyable (and nice and soft on the eyes) even in 3D, but on home monitor it looks rather brittle...

  Really? Do the setting not affect video? I must admit I haven't tested...   Cleaner or not, I still prefer having higher bitrate so noise is easier to separate in post with something like Neat Video. Unless of course they get upped bitrates onto Digic V, then it'll be the best of both worlds.

Huge! Probably looks very nice, long minimum focus etc...

  I'd still need to see proof of cleaner ISO.   Plus I usually turn off in camera NR and denoise in post. Plus Magic Lantern let's me shoot at higher bitrates, meaning noise is easier to remove.   So any worthwhile comparison between the two would need to be stock 700D vs 600D denoised in post with Neat Video from ML high bitrate files, for example.Until that, no sale.

Can you convert to DNG using this: http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5486 then pull a sequence through After Effects to make Cinema DNG? Just off the top of my head... I don't have this camera at the moment

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!

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...

Yeah it's a bit weird. It 's a certain kind of look that suits a certain kind of story or style I think. There do seem to be some ads and promos now where it's completely out of place, almost distracting. With great power comes great responsibility etc... 

The one upside to this is I've been able to spend elsewhere while not upgrading camera bodies. I've tried out various different models, bought and sold a few of the other big players, but my image taste and how I use my own gear meant that I just stuck with the 550D and (later) the mosaic filter and Magic Lantern.   All the others had more resolution (GH2, Sony mirrorless models, RX100) but I just liked the final image more from the Canon, even though I have to deliver it at 720p. Kind of how some directors just like 16mm, even though 35mm has more resolution and truer colour, you know? Mainly it was with people in motion, faces, I just liked those shots more.   So that technically makes me a loyal customer, right? But I'm feeling pretty insulted, because they want me to buy a 5D MKiii to get a small upgrade. I could go get one if I wanted, but why shell out the cash for the tiny gain over what I have now? I resent that. Plus there's no S35 crop mode for some weird reason, and I don't always want DOF that shallow. I want to keep that look I have now, but with more of the same.   With my personal kit they're saying "OK, have another little bit on top for £2000, you'll still have to hack it though (5D MKiii), or have a lot more fidelity for £5000, but in that model you get a crap codec and no high-speed (C100), because we'll sell you those manufacturing-and-research-cost free additions for a total of £11000 (C300). What a silly way to behave. I just don't think it's big or clever, or sensible in the long run. It makes someone who would otherwise stick with the brand try out every other thing that comes along. That damages reputation, and countless long-term relationships with the brand, which is now seen as quite arrogant.   So I'm a current consumer customer and someone who influences the purchasing decisions in my broader friendship network. I also influence hire and purchase decisions at production companies.    Recently I've been assisting in speccing more jobs with higher-end gear for adverts and suchlike. So when I come to spec up do I choose Red Epic, Alexa or C500? Usually Epic because of the RAW Codec and high speed, sometimes Alexa if it's a more drama based piece (XR model with high speed will mean more hires), as it gives you a movie or BBC TV look depending on lenses (Cooke or Zeiss etc) and lighting. But never the C500. Because in that arena, the comparative spec is very poor, they lose the hire every time.   What goes around, as they say...   Brand loyalty is usually a concern for large companies, but Canon appear to urinating on it.

I wouldn't think so, just add a little more weight at the bottom. If you were at 1.5KG maybe, but 100G should be cool...   I've gone overweight on similar things before. It's harder to use the heavier you get, but not impossible.

C300 is rented a lot at this company because it provides a great, forgiving image, ease of use, EF lenses, all the cameramen know it (I learned it in an afternoon, it's easy), it's light, portable and scalable, records to CF, the workflow is fast in Premiere and so on. No downsides to hire!   It is wildly overpriced to buy, but hire on budget is very cheap, comparatively, when you're talking about a day or two of shooting on a five-figure budget, which is not uncommon in corporate land.   It really does kick the Canon DSLRs into touch, though it can look quite electronic and dead with the wrong glass (IE Canon glass ;)) IMO.   But the buy price... not worth it.   The C100 looks nice too, shame about AVCHD though, and the ridiculous and quite frankly insulting removal of 720/50p from a 5000 pound moving image camera.

Haha! Perhaps he's very clumsy! Or just a lot of junk shop trawling...   It would be useful to the right person, but there seem to be a bit of market exploitation at the moment around these kinds of lenses: really silly prices. There's a bit of a fashion in promo videos for very wide aspects (promo video fashions come and go incessantly) so all the prices have rocketed.   The worst promo fad is for coloured signal flares. If I see another video with someone running around a beach in slow motion with signal flare, I'm gonna retire.

They just seemed to stop at 550D/5D MKii and throw out innovation for profit squeezing. It's a shame, cos it will actually harm the brand in the long run. The images are always good, but the attitude to the market now is pretty horrid.   Instead of capitalising on a reputation of changing the game by upholding that reputation, they used that reputation to squeeze as much profit as possible from as little expenditure. It's just a bit dull and sad.   Year after year of the same products, pointless disabling of features . It means my 550D with Mosaic Filter and MAgic Lantern makes a more usable image than a stock 6D.   There are plenty who believe the 5D MKiii is a worse stills camera in pure image terms than the MKii. The video is pretty similar, just alias free.

A broken Lomo missing most of the glass, yours for £1200! Astonishing!   http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LOMO-Zoom-Anamorphic-lens-35opf19-1a-for-Konvas-Kinor-Arri-Red-/360615187571?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item53f6571473   I'm shooting in 4:3 from now on.