This post was mentioned on Twitter by kotecinho: @misterperry this is useful? http://bit.ly/ivkZ3...

no software

watch the background and you can see it – there is one car to car shot where the barn behind is very very bent

but did it ruin the experience of watching ?

Oh another point on DSLR – I use a $700 ‘steadicam’ – flying your favorite cinema rig will need a $70000 steadicam

hard economics to fight

S

If you had shot this exacting footage with the $8,000 Panasonic HPX300 camcorder CMOS+r.s. sensor, for instance, you would have had beaucup de rolling shutter nastiness. Amazing how the EOS 5D2 can indeed handle this problem better than a dedicated video camcorder could. But alas, seeing is believing.

can you see any rolling shutter

S

Let’ say you shoot at 1080/24p with a electronic rolling shutter camera. For each and every frame, you are recording app 2,200,000 pixels, all at different times separated by nanoseconds. As long as you have a CMOS camera with r.s., there is indeed precious little that the mfrs can do to reduce these artifacts.

Jello is one manifestation of rolling shutter artifacts, others are wobble, skew, bent vertial lines, and flash banding. Some of these man basically the same thing, of course.

“Bourne-like moves” did not work too well for most folks watching the Bourne movies in cinemas, even though those were shot with 35mm film cameras by a crazed director and DP, apparently. If you want to screw up your image bad enough and want to deliver nothing but a headache and eye-ache to your audience, you can do that with practically any film or video camera ever invented.

For rolling shutter in the DSLRs, we do not need to talk about “extreme whip plans,” either. Lock down the camera on a tripod. If you then introduce fast or super-fast subject motion front of the lens, you will still have pkenty of r.s. artifacts to give you a headache. But yes, when you do any panning at just about any speed faster than dead slow, you will add more.

‘The “rolling shutter” or “jello” effect – is significantly improved over previous models. So much so that we did not hesitate to handhold the camera and do “Bourne-like” moves. It’s close to being a non-factor – but the effect is still there when you shoot extreme whip-pans (that would be unusable on a 50 foot screen regardless of the camera it was shot with.)’

MY TAKE: But why bitch about a Canon camera, or any other camera for that matter, BEFORE it is even launched, I mean? And if you should indeed need all those nifty video features, get a video camcorder with the proper accessories instead.

“…. the D300s i tried seemed to have noticeably worse rolling shutter issues…”

MY NOD IN AGREEMENT: Yes indeed. Another advantage of 3CCD sensor cameras. You know — the ones that use the far superior ELECTRONIC GLOBAL SHUTTER technology.

@Jeff #9 THROUGH 11: Regarding the alleged advantages of the DSLR method of videography….

Light sensitivity = yes indeed.

Depth of focus = in photojournalism, that would be probably one of the disadvantages of shooting fast-paced video with oversized sensor cameras having ridiculously shallow DOF. Unless you have a seasoned asst. cameraperson/focus puller following the DSLR shooter with a wireless follow focus system in hand.

Incredibly low price – agreed.

“…trying to create an argumentative atmosphere…”

MY TAKE: Not really, but I also do not fancy people who are so rabidly blind, that they urinate blood every single time someone uses a level head and points out that for a $1,500 price of a still camera, you cannot really get a $50,000 dedicated video camera with broadcast-quality features. You know what I’m saying, Jeff? Or are we really to believe that a DSLR is the best video camera in the whole wide world right now, regardless of price?

But hey, maybe some folks here have a secret temple hidden deep in some jungle, where they can freely fetish and idolize DSLRs on a 24/7/365 basis. I wouldn’t at all be surprised, as a matter of fact.

“I guess you have never put a $20,000 camera in a crashmo and had it come back toast…”

MY RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE: No, actually I had never done that, Jeff. For starters, as I am not a cameraman or a cinematographer or even a photojournalist, why should I have done that?

“a small HDV camera attracts unwanted attention but a camera like this wouldn’t.”

MY TAKE ON THE ABOVE: An amazing fact, indeed.

“if you don’t believe there has been an evolution in video quality in this new crop of DSLRs…”

MY TAKE: Of course not. For starters, you have a major mis-match between sensor resolution and captured image resolution. I mean… you have let’s say a 21MP sensor that captures, at an absolute maximum, an approximately 2.2MP image (at 1080p) or an app. 1MP image (at 720p).

I mean, what’s next? Will Nikon launch a 100MP sensor DSLR — you know, that one that will still only capture video at either 2.2MP @ 1080p or 1MP @ 720p? Wow! That would be really impressive, huh?

Moving on, how is the attainable video quality really with these DSLRs? Not all that good, I’m afraid. You have got a troublesome, highly compressed codec of the prosumer type, interframe instead of intraframe recording, no 4:2:2 chroma subsampling, poor quality audio, and so on.

But, like we have established before, a DSLR is indeed cheap, and the lenses for one are really, really cheap, so for the price, one cannot really expect miracles, right?