[Sankar]

Originally Posted by Jaguar

Regarding the file size, any size reduction would result in a loss of quality. You shoot in 1080 for a reason, and don't really bother about the size. Anyways, storage is cheap these days.

Also, if your player supports that format, it doesn't matter if the video file is in the hard disk or SD card. I don't know what is the file format used by 500D and hence with players support that format. But, you can easily convert the files to the required format in a PC.

500D's 1080p HD video is only at 20fps. Atleast 24fps is required for smooth viewing. 720p HD video is at 30fps.

Also there is a time limit you can record HD videos in 500D. Plus the AF doesn't adjust fast enough like in a camcorder when you move the camera around.

My take is that you should not let the Video ability influence your DSLR cam purchase.

Or if video is equally important as is the manual shooting ability a high end prosumer cam might be the best bet.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by Sankar

500D's 1080p HD video is only at 20fps. Atleast 24fps is required for smooth viewing. 720p HD video is at 30fps.

Also there is a time limit you can record HD videos in 500D. Plus the AF doesn't adjust fast enough like in a camcorder when you move the camera around.

My take is that you should not let the Video ability influence your DSLR cam purchase.

I agree!!!

Include rolling shutter and jelly issues, it makes DSLR`s almost useless for video without a huge amount of post processing.

Specially Video on a DSLR is useful when you are using fast lenses. Majority of users will be using kit lenses and overall combination gets beaten by a $500 consumer camcorder.

If you currently have not going to have atleast 85mm f1.8 in your kit for next 2yrs. Then no point focusing on Video as a feature in DSLR body.

Of course this is my viewpoint and i should make it clear, i primarily shoot STILLS.

Thanks

[Torqueguru]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

I agree!!!

Include rolling shutter and jelly issues, it makes DSLR`s almost useless for video without a huge amount of post processing.

Specially Video on a DSLR is useful when you are using fast lenses. Majority of users will be using kit lenses and overall combination gets beaten by a $500 consumer camcorder.

If you currently have not going to have atleast 85mm f1.8 in your kit for next 2yrs. Then no point focusing on Video as a feature in DSLR body.

Of course this is my viewpoint and i should make it clear, i primarily shoot STILLS.

Thanks

Well,
In my opinion, DSLR video can be used for production purposes very effectively and they look particularly attractive when they are available now at 24 fps. Camcorder video typically gives much more noise in darker areas, so for the kind of work I do, I definitely prefer DSLR video more...or maybe footage from a RED camera :P And the rolling shutter issue can be easily corrected, without any HUGE amount of post processing, you just need to know which software to use for post work. Plus Rolling shutter is evident only in fast pans...Now you would not be panning all the time at high speeds in most productions. For instance check out this shot, it is approved to be of production quality. The Video is taken with a 5D Mark2 and the post work done using other software like Nuke and Maya. It didnt take a lot of effort to correct the rolling shutter problem.

YouTube - Lone castle - Nuke 5.2, compositing/matte painting.

So I feel that, the decision to concentrate on the video capabilities of a DSLR is solely dependent on what you intend to do with your camera. Like you shoot primarily stills...I shoot a lot of stills and a lot of video, so yes for me Video in DSLRs matters a hell lot!

Regards,
TG.

[iamswift]

Originally Posted by JackSparrow

It's available in amazon.com for around $700(with the kit lens), which I think is a fairly good price. I have few questions and would appreciate if you or anyone else who has T1i could answer them.
May I know what made you choose T1i over Nikon D5000 and how is the build quality?
Since the video file size is HUGE, do you have any software that reduces the size or do you shoot in 720(30fps) instead of 1020(20fps).
Have you tried playing it on HDTV? Could you do that using any hard drive(once the video is copied onto it) or is it that you have to copy it back to the SD card and play it via the camera. Hope I'm getting my point across. That's what I've read online. Would be great if you or anyone else could throw some light on it. Thanks.

Hi @JackSparrow,
The same dilemma I faced - whether to go for canon-500d or nikon-d5000. I ended up with 500d.
Image quality wise, more or less both are at same levels.

The factors influenced my decision are:
1. The in-body AF feature missing in D5000. For a beginner DSLR this is very important for me. You could say, this contributed 80% of my decision.

2. Video capability. (I may get strong words from SLR gurus here for mentioning this).
Most of us would not take full length video - say for 1 hour or more. Usually we (atleast I) record the interesting bits that happens at that moment. The video feature really comes handy for those moments. Usually around 5 mins.
Though I own a sony handycam, I rarely use it. I would obviously not carry my DSLR and handycam along. So if my DSLR provides me video capability, that is really good.

In Canon: Video shot in 1080p mode is only 20fps. This means fast moving objects may get blurred. You can use 720p which records at 30fps. This is indeed very good. No effect on moving objects.
In 1080p mode, it takes 5.5MB/s and in 720p mode, it takes 3.7MB/s.
Max size of video is 4GB and hence, in 1080 mode, the max time video can be recorded is 12min and for 720p its 18 mins. This is more than sufficient for me.
In Nikon, the 720p is recorded at 24fps. (less than canon's 30fps).

You can view the sample movie recorded at various modes of canon at below link:
Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 19. Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

The video feature contributed about 17% of my deciding on 500d.

Other minor things includes:
=> 900,000 pixel LCD for canon whereas 230,000 pixels for Nikon.
=> 3" LCD for Canon, whereas 2.7" for Nikon.
=> Swivel screen of Nikon did not impress me much.
=> High ISO range for Canon than Nikon.
=> 15MP for canon and 12MP for Nikon (Not really concerned about this though).

For your question on movie format, I guess this is stored in .mov format. Usually this is playable in computers. If its not playing in computer, you should download codec to play it.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

So I feel that, the decision to concentrate on the video capabilities of a DSLR is solely dependent on what you intend to do with your camera. Like you shoot primarily stills...I shoot a lot of stills and a lot of video, so yes for me Video in DSLRs matters a hell lot!

Yea in the end its an individual decision. Your right, a lot of it can be corrected, post processing but how much post processing is needed and how it can be done an average Joe is not going to know that (the ones who shoot DSLR at Green/Auto mode).

And i don`t get the hype for this 24fps. 24fps was developed to use minimum amount of film during 70mm film days and it got carried onto 35mm. Now that cine are adopting 2K and 4K cameras, what is the point being stuck at 24fps?? when these bodies can do 60fps without breaking a sweat.

I personally do shoot video but it isn't my field and if i do need it one day, i can just borrow SI or Red from the studio, same amount of post processing and same lenses, just more tan double the resolution and higher dynamic range

Cheers

[Torqueguru]

@ITinspector
Well, for those interested in imparting a true filmy feel, 24 fps is quite not a hype.There are a lot of factors that make a movie in a theatre look like a real movie and I believe that 24fps is the most important of them all in making a movie look like a movie.Just my honest opinion.
Regards,
TG.

[JackSparrow]

Originally Posted by iamswift

Hi @JackSparrow,
The same dilemma I faced - whether to go for canon-500d or nikon-d5000. I ended up with 500d.
Image quality wise, more or less both are at same levels.

The factors influenced my decision are:
1. The in-body AF feature missing in D5000. For a beginner DSLR this is very important for me. You could say, this contributed 80% of my decision.

2. Video capability. (I may get strong words from SLR gurus here for mentioning this).
Most of us would not take full length video - say for 1 hour or more. Usually we (atleast I) record the interesting bits that happens at that moment. The video feature really comes handy for those moments. Usually around 5 mins.
Though I own a sony handycam, I rarely use it. I would obviously not carry my DSLR and handycam along. So if my DSLR provides me video capability, that is really good.

In Canon: Video shot in 1080p mode is only 20fps. This means fast moving objects may get blurred. You can use 720p which records at 30fps. This is indeed very good. No effect on moving objects.
In 1080p mode, it takes 5.5MB/s and in 720p mode, it takes 3.7MB/s.
Max size of video is 4GB and hence, in 1080 mode, the max time video can be recorded is 12min and for 720p its 18 mins. This is more than sufficient for me.
In Nikon, the 720p is recorded at 24fps. (less than canon's 30fps).

You can view the sample movie recorded at various modes of canon at below link:
Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 19. Movie Mode: Digital Photography Review

The video feature contributed about 17% of my deciding on 500d.

Other minor things includes:
=> 900,000 pixel LCD for canon whereas 230,000 pixels for Nikon.
=> 3" LCD for Canon, whereas 2.7" for Nikon.
=> Swivel screen of Nikon did not impress me much.
=> High ISO range for Canon than Nikon.
=> 15MP for canon and 12MP for Nikon (Not really concerned about this though).

For your question on movie format, I guess this is stored in .mov format. Usually this is playable in computers. If its not playing in computer, you should download codec to play it.

Originally Posted by Jaguar

I know I am so getting into trouble by saying this, but a very experienced photographer & Nikon user told me a couple of days back that don't even compare the 500D with D5000. Either pickup the 500D or stretch my budget to the D90. One disadvantage of the D5000 that I can think of is no support of in-body AF.

Regarding the file size, any size reduction would result in a loss of quality. You shoot in 1080 for a reason, and don't really bother about the size. Anyways, storage is cheap these days.

Also, if your player supports that format, it doesn't matter if the video file is in the hard disk or SD card. I don't know what is the file format used by 500D and hence with players support that format. But, you can easily convert the files to the required format in a PC.

Thank you iamswift, jaguar and others who have put forward their suggestions and opinions.
I understand that DSLR camera's are basically for stills but would like to have a camera with video(HD) option. I don't shoot hours of videos but just to capture those few memorable moments(short videos--5 minutes max) would be an added advantage.
Based on all your posts, online reviews and my personal needs, I have decided to go with the Canon 500D.
Thank you all.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by rkbharat

Do not want to argue, but just for my understanding, how is in-body AF Motor relates to beginner DSLR

Also though I am no expert from any angle, I feel two reasons that cause the tilt are pretty least priority from photographing perspective. I wish you could have done the comparison from Pictures and taking pictures perspective and not goodies

Ya one can argue nikon has better image and actual higher usable ISO range than canon due to the design of the sensor, it might be low in resolution pixels are larger than canon and effectively effective-pixel pitch (not ACTUAL pixel pitch) is reduced, resulting higher Sensor-Resolution.

in-body af does affect beginner user, in terms of using cheapest prime but that is pretty much it. Almost all of the newer lenses are afs and all of the DX lenses which are meant for beginner users are afs. So if the person is using 50mm f1.8 it will matter, otherwise not.

Apparently there is a new Nikon 50mm f1.8 is in works ***but no one can predict what Nikon will do except our dweeby overload Ken Rockwell***

***Sarcasm

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@ITinspector
Well, for those interested in imparting a true filmy feel, 24 fps is quite not a hype.There are a lot of factors that make a movie in a theatre look like a real movie and I believe that 24fps is the most important of them all in making a movie look like a movie.Just my honest opinion.
Regards,
TG.

I could be wrong, but i was under the impression that 24 is the minimum frame rate to play a video without any frame lag.

Can you explain some more on 24fps topic.

Thanks

[janitha]

Originally Posted by it_inspector

Can you explain some more on 24fps topic.

Thanks

Meant for the good old film feel!
24p - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by janitha

Meant for the good old film feel!
24p - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the link but nowhere on the whole wiki does it explain, how 24p makes a film look real, how 24p came into being and why 24p was decided to be the international standard.

And I am referring to TG`s comment and simply asking for explanation as to how 24p makes a film look real. As i believe making a film look real has nothing to do with frame rate.

As a fact during a film shoot frames can vary anywhere between 20-70 and it won't matter a single bit. Since shooting has nothing to do with it, it all matters is during PLAYBACK.

Consumers are driven mad by DSLR manufacturers as to how many frames are recorded and everyone keeps thinking that 24p will be best while it really doesn't matter as long as it is above 20p.

24p was made the standard because it was the SLOWEST speed to sync with MONO audio. Higher speeds were possible but that meant more film used and wasted. Before that mute films used 20p.

There is no real relation between human eyes and 24p, otherwise all of the computer games and games player on consoles would be hard coded to stick at 24fps and not reach up-to 150fps.

Today 24p is hyped like nothing else and there is such a huge development for making equipment available to show 24p, actually its wrong to call it development, since despite having equipment available to use 60fps we are still forcing manufacturers to go 24p route.

Please point me out if i am wrong.

Originally Posted by iamswift

What I meant is economic perspective of a beginner.
I thought lenses without AF would be more cheaper than those with AF.

Actually Dx afs lenses are cheaper compares to Fx/FF lenses.

Thanks

[Torqueguru]

@ITInspector
Shooting 24 p makes a lot of sense, especially today when a lot of HD content is streamed over the internet. Progressive video at 24P is the most efficient way of capturing HD content for internet streaming, in terms of size. But yes 24 p is not the most important feature you should be looking for especially when its not too tough to downconvert.
Another fact that is overlooked is motion blur. At 24p, the motion blur you see is almost identical to that of true film, one of the reasons for the "look" of a movie. At frame rates higher than that, motion blur gets lesser and lesser. To induce that motion blur while downconverting is surely more work than capturing it at 24 fps in the first place.
Regards,
TG.

[proton]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@ITInspector
Shooting 24 p makes a lot of sense, especially today when a lot of HD content is streamed over the internet. Progressive video at 24P is the most efficient way of capturing HD content for internet streaming, in terms of size. But yes 24 p is not the most important feature you should be looking for especially when its not too tough to downconvert.
Another fact that is overlooked is motion blur. At 24p, the motion blur you see is almost identical to that of true film, one of the reasons for the "look" of a movie. At frame rates higher than that, motion blur gets lesser and lesser. To induce that motion blur while downconverting is surely more work than capturing it at 24 fps in the first place.
Regards,
TG.

Here ya go!

Quote
Motion Characteristics In Camera: 95% of your film effect is in the motion characteristics. Film has 24 frames per second. NTSC video has 60 fields or 60 distinct pictures per second. Soap operas are cheesy because the hyper-realistic look is far less forgiving than the dreamy look film’s slow refresh rate affords. It’s harder to hide the mistakes. Some cameras now offer ways to achieve a film motion effect. The most popular is the progressive scan option also known as the frame movie mode you can find on the Canon XL-1, Canon GL-1, Sony VX-2000 and even the old Panasonic AG-EZ1. With this setting, it records 30 full resolution frames per second instead of 30 interlaced frames per second. Since you’re watching 30 pictures instead of 60, the motion more closely approximates film. I’ve observed that with the GL-1, normal settings in sufficient light make for crystal clear pictures, but the frame movie mode results in increased noise even in the midtones. The theory is that since the video garbage is held onscreen for twice as long as usual, it becomes more apparent. You may get better results with the other cameras. They have bigger CCDs, thus less inherent noise. The Sony VX-1000 and 2000 also offer a slow-shutter feature. Set the shutter to 1/30 and you get a very pleasing, fluid film motion. Supposedly this results in some loss of vertical resolution. Beware, some cameras offer a setting sometimes called strobe or film. This effect is achieved by taking a field out of the video. The result is a film like motion, but it also cuts your resolution in half resulting in ugly alaising (stairstepping). Don’t do it. A common myth is that by shooting with PAL gear you can achieve a film look because it’s 25 frames per second. Although this offers decided advantages if you plan to transfer to film, it doesn’t really make for film motion. Remember, you’re still looking at 50 fields per second. As an example, Temptation Island 2 is shot on PAL DVCAM. It still looks like video.

HOW TO MAKE VIDEO LOOK LIKE FILM

[amitk26]

Originally Posted by proton

Here ya go!

NTSC video has 60 fields or 60 distinct pictures per second.

Slight correction it is not 60 distinct pictures per second that 60 is the frequency of update. 60 Hz was selected because it was same as the frequency of AC power supply in north America so the interference can be avoided. This was never done keeping any aesthetic properties or better Video representation in mind. PAL system selected 50 Hz for the same reason in countries where AC cycle was 50Hz.

To explain the difference between TV systems and Film ,NTSC and PAL are system designed for TVs ( analog transmission ) where you do not broadcast digitally encoded full frames like in case of streaming video on internet. In analog transmission continually progressing frames are transmitted.

So each frame in NTSC has 525 scan lines ( 625 in PAL) and there are approx 30 Full frames ( 29.97 actually) or 60 interlaced frames per second.

Now the question is if it is approx 30p ( full frame) it should be better and more crisp then film as the link previously provided seem to indicate, Well this is not the case because still the NTSC / PAL scans a limited number of lines per frame so information encoded is still less.

So if you translate the video information provided per second it is still inferior to 24 FPS Film where full 24 frames were being provided shot at 35 MM or 16 mm analog film.

Motion blur does not play much part as human eye may not perceive the difference of 4 FPS.

[it_inspector]

Originally Posted by Torqueguru

@ITInspector
Shooting 24 p makes a lot of sense, especially today when a lot of HD content is streamed over the internet. Progressive video at 24P is the most efficient way of capturing HD content for internet streaming, in terms of size. But yes 24 p is not the most important feature you should be looking for especially when its not too tough to downconvert.
Another fact that is overlooked is motion blur. At 24p, the motion blur you see is almost identical to that of true film, one of the reasons for the "look" of a movie. At frame rates higher than that, motion blur gets lesser and lesser. To induce that motion blur while downconverting is surely more work than capturing it at 24 fps in the first place.
Regards,
TG.

Yes delivering HD content at 24p makes sense but that is during playback and has nothing to do with shooting at 24p.

My point is still why shoot film/digital at 24p??? What are these benefits of shooting at 24p both with film/digital???

Originally Posted by proton

Here ya go!

Quote
Motion Characteristics In Camera: 95% of your film effect is in the motion characteristics.

That is relevant to Ananlog world and was adopted with serial data transfer otherwise there would be 3,07,200 transmissions on 3,07,200 channels to transmit a VGA image refreshed at required rates or normally known as parallel data stream. With serial data transfer when data is received it needs to be update at different refresh rates depending upon the transmission. Going from 50hz to 60hz isn't that hard, simply every 5th frame is repeated and human eye cannot see the difference.

We are discussing the frame rate which film were shot at and why it is still used in digital. So far everyone keeps saying there is a huge benefit shooting 24p but no one is able to explain what is this huge benefit.

Originally Posted by amitk26

Motion blur does not play much part as human eye may not perceive the difference of 4 FPS.

Correct. Motion blur doesn't play huge role anymore. It was used to get the human eyes to deter from jittering caused by fast panning. If any one wants to check it out, watch casiono royale on a true HD at 24p using a blu-ray disc. It is more evident with a Projector than a Plasma/Lcd.

As to why these are not evident in a Cinema Theater, well cine projectors used dual shutters and few other techniques to reduce this jittering.

Thanks

[proton]

Okay this is going to be an encapsulation of what we read in the links.

You may find that it will involve:

1. Extrapolation
2. Reiteration
3. Analogy

(Groan! Why do I get the feeling I’m back at my philosophy forum, duking it out with adherents of opposing views?!).

Anyhoo:

24 fps was chosen because it was the least frame rate acceptable to the human eye, and as mentioned, for audio synch purposes. 20 would have been okay, but since the AC frequency stateside is 50hz, 24.97 stayed for TV's NTSC(Google 24.97fps for clarification). Europe chose 30fps to match its 60hz frequencies, but 24 is the linear editing standard (Hollywood rulez!), and that’s why the Canon 7d is so good.

A high frame rate (150 fps for gaming) increases realism, while a low fps introduces a dream like quality to the rendering (read, very good for escapist material like movies!). 60fps with HD video camera equipment is great for news broadcast or Rose Bowl footage, but counterproductive for Sleepy Hollow or LOTR! So explaining the effort to grab at 24fps native and avoiding converting, and intoducing artifacts.

An analogy is with HD, where the increased resolution required extra make up to be applied, to hide the flaws on the likes of Angelina Jolie's and our own Piggy Chops’ (Priyanka to you Aussie plebes) faces!

Since we run with the PAL standard, 3:2 pulldown does not apply. But the fact remains that we do get 60 complete picture frames per second with SD broadcast, albeit interlaced, ie half resolution.