Newsmeldung von slashCAM:Questions & Answers relating to HD video with the Canon 5D MKII of rob - 3 Nov 2008 09:58:00 Colleagues of Provideocoalition.com have a longer interview with Chuck Westfall, Technical Advisor for the Canon HD video capabilities of Canon's much discussed Canon 5D MKII HD video DSLR led. Be dealt with include: Max ISO for HD-Video, Microphone-Connections, exposure latitude, monitoring via HDMI and more
This is an auto-generated entry
Here is the link to the news with links and images on the pages Slashcam Magazine
Antwort von Cocoa_Magazin:
I can these "journalists" do not understand. Such an opportunity and such unprofessional questions! We know everything! Why not, he asked:
Why NOT 24/25/50p? Why NOT manual controls?
Antwort von Zizi:
Me would be on the test pictures Slashcam interested!
Slashcam: please Tests the Canon D5 in the video and take the field in the database!
Can someone tell how the picture sharpness impression and performs against an HV30?
Antwort von rob:
Hello together,
- The Canon 5D MK II is already requested for a Testleihstellung - we hope they will soon test in terms of video can be ...
- We still have a couple questions about the tech. Possibilities and limitations in terms of HD video of the Canon 5 D MKII Canon forwarded to - look, when we know more details ...
... So soon more ...
Many greetings
Rob
Antwort von Cocoa_Magazin:
http://www.videotreffpunkt.com/thread.php?threadid=7413&hilight=schreiben + to
I have made synonymous! Of course, so far no reply - how trauig!
Antwort von dvcut:
5DS EOS Mark II, p.29. Nov. live in Frankfurt experience, perhaps with Redrock DSLR Cinema - if you deliver on time :-)
http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/eos5dm2/02.html#01
Antwort von baerenbold:
To get things right - in the interview stated that the depth of field (depth of field) will increase with smaller sensor size.
That is not true. It does not depend of the size of the sensor, but the focal of the optics from.
The longer the focal, the lower the depth of field.
Since I have smaller sensors, but synonymous always need to use shorter focal lengths to cover the same angle to get, this "wrong" view disseminated.
Antwort von r.p.television:
To get things right - in the interview stated that the depth of field (depth of field) will increase with smaller sensor size.
That is not true. It does not depend of the size of the sensor, but the focal of the optics from.
The longer the focal, the lower the depth of field.
Since I have smaller sensors, but synonymous always need to use shorter focal lengths to cover the same angle to get, this "wrong" view disseminated. Of course, the Schärfenuntiefe synonymous of the sensor size.
Who did you like the Bears because aufgebunden?
It is true that the sharpening (un) deep synonymous of the focal subject is - in relation to the target area but is a correspondingly larger Schärfenuntiefe with larger sensor or film surfaces.
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Baerenbold
The statement in the interview but agree ...
.... you're going to get less depth of field with the larger format,
.... (depth of field) will increase with smaller sensor size. Wiki:
The depth of field (DOF) is the portion of a scene that appears sharp in the image. So basically true statement.
But quite apart from the depth is absolutely no "optical law" of the fixed assets is dependent on but just a down to what size of the scattering circle our eyes Recording still feel as sharp.
But this is of some factors, such as the display area (TV or movie), so after the enlargement of the recording format, as well as the viewing distance of the visual acuity of the observer-dependent.
Also play "objective factors" such as the magnification (the subject of focal distance and results) and the selected aperture herein.
Those who do so on Focal and / or target area is limited, the case did not meet
Antwort von Jake the rake:
And it also means
Schärfentiefe
Link2
Antwort von WoWu:
That is the question:
I tend to depth, perhaps because the depth of Google finds 14,400 times, deep-focus, however, 25,400 times. Also, I think we s.Schärfering so synonymous sharpness an AND not blur from the ... it's drum.
Antwort von Jake the rake:
Depth of focus is probably easier of the tongue. I think you (whoever that is always synonymous) has pointed geinigt that both forms of expression are valid ...
Antwort von WoWu:
This agrees well ..
... I think synonymous, the term is synonymous to all the best full-length trigger discussions.
Beautiful is just that every two terms under the same understanding.
Antwort von Valentino:
To get things right - in the interview stated that the depth of field (depth of field) will increase with smaller sensor size.
That is not true. It does not depend of the size of the sensor, but the focal of the optics from.
Wrong, wrong and wrong again!
The sharpening area, as was made clear by the sensor size affects.
What unfortunately is not true that the sharpness level with a longer focal or
zoom through a focal Kure increased.
The sharpening level is always the same. If I were an "A" object to 1 meter schraf body and the aperture remains fully open that the object "B" 9 meters behind something always blurred.
Still, I make the image with a 50mm optics with a normal 35mm clippers and then a writer with a 24mm Image Optics do, the object "B" as blurred as in the 50mm Optics.
Why this is so, one can in a Slashcam News after reading the somewhat older should be.
Only by changing the aperture or the image device size can influence the depth of field.
Please do not talk like crazy but recovery times on the Materrie properly informed.
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Valentino
As far as the theory ..
.... But as I already wrote above, DOF is not measurable, but a subjective size and each practitioner will you confirm that an exemption with a moderate telephoto setting is much easier than the wide.
Why is that?
The human perception is primarily blur s.der refraction s.den edges, because a fuzzy gray area is of a sharp gray area hardly differ.
In a tele setting is the remote object 9m significantly bildfüllender than a wide angle setting.
The blur can s.den edges faster perceived.
In addition, use of mechanisms such as e-camera sharpening the edges in a not so bildfüllenden object (9m away with wideangle setting) significantly massive than in a large, bildfüllenden object.
The remote object is thus sharpening the edges of the camera electronics virtually pulled out of the blurring.
You see, it is therefore perfectly, if synonymous subjective difference between the focal lengths.
DOF is now no measurable size.
Furthermore, do I not synonymous, that
baerenbold the focal lengths of the different devices has meant that, of course, from the target surface and result of 50mm (film) up to 5mm in camcorders represent.
These differences in focal lengths showed obviously drastic differences in terms of DOF.
But this is just a guess, why else would he write it.
Antwort von r.p.television:
What unfortunately is not true that the sharpness level with a longer focal or zoom through a focal Kure increased.
The sharpening level is always the same. [/ b] If I were an "A" object to 1 meter schraf body and the aperture remains fully open that the object "B" 9 meters behind something always blurred.
Still, I make the image with a 50mm optics with a normal 35mm clippers and then a writer with a 24mm Image Optics do, the object "B" as blurred as in the 50mm Optics.
Why this is so, one can in a Slashcam News after reading the somewhat older should be.
Only by changing the aperture or the image device size can influence the depth of field.
Please do not talk like crazy but recovery times on the Materrie properly informed. Probably correct, but how WoWu already said, the perception of depth (or depth of focus or blur synonymous bla bla) is very subjective. At high focal lengths, the background blurred and clearly the main motif is clearly distinct from the foreground or background aloof.
Antwort von Jan:
Here it is so wrong, I had not thought that professionals on what it could fall.
Ok, I will give you the link to Tamron.de, a well-known lens manufacturer and its depth of field compared with different focal lengths! and visors.
Test the test image with Aperture 11 and 50 mm and then with the same aperture 11 with 200 mm, are not as clear! Un the other, or depth of impression - is what is happening on the eyes!
Any theory of Prof. Dr. Gewürschtel of XYZ might not be entirely wrong, but you can see a difference immediately. Den hab ich synonymous with the FX 7 at full 20x zoom of view, because I am with about 8-10x almost never free an object could provide, but with the 20x and at the same aperture!
tamron.de/Schaerfentiefenvergleich oder der hier :
DOF Master.com VG
Jan
Antwort von WoWu:
Jan,
then you have to read the remarks misunderstood something, because that was the tenor of my speech, including the grounds that it
very probably another exemption impression on different focal lengths but identical target area has.
I can understand your observation, synonymous rptelevision could be determined.
Or have I missed something now?
The initial statement was the first correction, that the formal interview content is correct.
The core of the objection was just that a changing DoF
while s.der Tagetgrösse (sensor) is ascertained, but not focal s.der.
Is that what you meant, and not the effective focal change in the target area, it would obviously not true, because the focal size of the target with course changes. (Not the equivalent focal length).
Valentinos opinion was that the DoF with no focal changes. My response, and of the rptelevision, contradicted this impression and I could still additional arguments and justifications for hardening attach.
Insofar confirm you now only what is already fairly clear.
Or have I misunderstood you now?
Who is actually wrong because according to your opinion?
And yet I would add that the synonymous Calculator bare theory because DoF s.den various additional parameters in addition to solid, in no calculator takes into account Wrede and not just brute force and size is certainly no measurable size.
And the images synonymous series are not really suitable for the demonstration, because they do not allow for analysis, because in that wide field sharp objects are the same with 20m Height pane picture taking, as in the telephoto range of objects a few centimeters, is a comparison almost impossible. Especially when the whole thing with an open aperture makes, such as the diffraction adjusted.
Antwort von Jan:
You really lagst yes Wolfgang. Or synonymous RPT Sorry
I was very surprised that just sees things differently Valentino & saw, because he is actually a very good professional is.
The DOF Master Page so you can see that in other focal and the other parameters the same depth of field changes. I've understood this but synonymous.
VG
Jan
Antwort von leznik:
Much of the confusion comes mostly, therefore, that does not distinguish between exemption (ie the blurring of the background) and the depth of field (the "hot" area in front of the camera) is distinguished. These are completely different things, but behave similarly, so will the Verwechlung.
Those who are really interested, there
Antwort von Jan:
This is unfortunately wrong, as the depth (or depth), not only before but after the synonymous sharpness level. And the changes synonymous with the choice of different aperture, focal length, etc. ...
Somehow, everyone has their opinion ....
VG
Jan
Antwort von werner sternath:
Depth of focus is probably easier of the tongue. I think you (whoever that is always synonymous) has pointed geinigt that both forms of expression are valid ... mostly agrees with the depth of deep focus on, and when the depth of field so as möcht tiefenschärfe you are always right.
werner
Antwort von werner sternath:
it will surely be a while until a suitable video camera or a video apparatus is fototauglich
Yesterday I was canon d5 MARK2 free video movies and have the following findings.
Canon D5 MARK2
1. the auto must always be re angetippt and is not as functional camcorder in the long
2. in video mode, there is no image stabilization, it is virtually impossible with telecharger free hand to film
3. by a chip cmos sensor is compared with a 3-chip sensor to the periphery farbreißen
4. the monitor is fixed, from the hips to film is not possible
5. they need to film the fastest memory chip does nothing else
6. Mikcrofon is mono, you can but a micro-stereo?
7. Aperture and Iso during the film can not be adjusted and will be auto selected
8 And 1920x1080 pixels remain synonymous with Full 1920x1080 pixel sensor, it will stop of 5616 x 3744 to 1920x1080 zusammengequetscht
werner Sternath
Antwort von WoWu:
@ Jan
I was very surprised that just sees things differently Valentino & saw, because he is actually a very good professional is. This can be seen as synonymous not categorically say that. Valentino has at least in terms of standards rather large figure, although the selected sample was unhappy.
From a magnification of about 0,017:1 can the influence of Focal still mathematical proof (less than 9%), but he has virtually no meaning more so.
So it is with the magnification of objects (up to) 1.60 m (and less obviously), the format will be shown fill.
If a larger object, ie smaller magnifications-(buildings, landscapes, etc.) are shown, the focal with values that are greater than 10% are included in the calculation.
However, Valentino has not tell us how big the object in the example is, of course, he has necessarily right and both wrong, because there can naturally a child of 1.50, but slightly larger synonymous ...
In this respect, all of Law, as so often the case with this issue.
@ Leznik
The Internet calculator posted is quite peculiar.
It gives me (in spite of intensive effort really) have not succeeded, when using the above example, data on the same (posted) result.
You figure ...
Antwort von leznik:
The Internet calculator posted is quite peculiar.
It gives me (in spite of intensive effort really) have not succeeded, when using the above example, data on the same (posted) result. I do not understand fully. What results posted? The results in the sample table to get out already. For example the first entry:
Crop 1
Aperture 2.0
Focal 35
Object Camera 1:01
Object-Background 2:50
There is then the depth of 1cm in addition, the expected s.gerundeten values in the table lie. With camera-object distance 1009 fits exactly.
Antwort von Valentino:
... I was very surprised that just sees things differently Valentino & saw, because he is actually a very good professional is.
Oh Thanks, I knew garnicht here will be viewed as an expert ;-)
So my view, to visually illustrate:
Antwort von Jan:
The author of the report has used the technology said little (or I've read about it). It may be because a large or very small sensors act.
If it is very small sensors are, therefore, small video camera or digicam sensors, then the images would look different.
You might even waive no object at 8 and Focal Aperture 40 mm, synonymous if you ran very close to go.
I have the ad nauseam with customers Digicams tested, eg the Panasonic TZ 5 with 1 / 2.33 "CCD with 28-280 mm focal. If you go to, and synonymous s.das object seh do is get close to a face as sharp as the background - quite far away.
When set 280 mm and approximately 3 m away is the background blurred - the exemption can be managed.
For smaller sensors is the increased focal definitely not a means to this end have to be sharpness.
With the small 1 / 4 "sensors SonyFX 7 I with 20x optical zoom synonymous achieved much better results than 1 / 4 of the distance
with 5 x Zoom.
VG
Jan
Antwort von Valentino:
When set 280 mm and approximately 3 m away is the background blurred - the exemption can be managed.
For smaller sensors is the increased focal definitely not a means to this end have to be sharpness.
If you are just a little sense of focus had, but you would have noticed that the images with the specified focal small to suggest maybe even APS-C but in no case less.
Nevertheless, the photos are not as nice as with a Spiegelrefelx (digital or analog) and a 50mm focal. But why is this so? Simply because your whole gezoome background is very compressed and thus the picture is very flat. I would say the picture loses s.Depth.
This principle is one example of where 3D shooting but mostly very very rare and weitwinklich telephoto settings are to be seen, because in the telephoto setting Räunlichkeit lost.
