Canon EOS 300D - $899 6 megapixel digital SLR: This digital SLR based on the EOS 10D's superb six megapixel CMOS sensor and image processor in an inexpensive consumer body similar to the film EOS-300. This camera is designed to take the prosumer end of the digital camera market by storm, everyone is fully aware of the image quality of the EOS 10D (considered by many as the benchmark six megapixel digital SLR), and so a consumer priced digital SLR based on the same sensor is irrefutably attractive to anyone who would have previously considered an 'all in one' prosumer digital cameras.
This camera is probably the most fundamentally important step for digital SLR's since the introduction of the Nikon D1. It will place digital SLR's into the hands of consumers (with a moderate budget) and will probably also have a very strong negative effect on the $1,000 prosumer digital camera market.
I don't think so, $1000 prosumer cams are compact cameras with huge zoom 8x or more and are fast. You can't get that from an SLR and slow lenses. Also the price will come down to maybe $800. No one really wants to change lenses and have problems with dust. Sorry bad analysis unless Canon marketing goes nuts.
for an additional $100 bucks you get a 8 - 55 mm (3x) lens. Although not a huge zoom, for $1000 you do have the option of using prime lenses. Many prosumers are suckers for interchangable lenses (whether they actually use them or not.) look at Canon's success in the prosumer video field with the XL1. But you're probably right, "a very strong negative effect" on the prosumer market sounds like an overstatement.
Steve your mention of the XL1 is right on. It has been huge, even though there are very capable (even 3 chip,) very small, all in one DV cameras. It's basically the only thing a serious person would use.
And think of the photographers who already have money invested in compatible lenses. For those folks the EOS is a no brainer.
But okay, maybe the analysis is overblown. I was just quoting.
Right, those are Canon's words.
I'm hearing good things about a few mini-dv cameras, the 24P for one.
Somewhat off topic but lots of people in the US are going PAL over NTSC. Hooray for Final Cut!
Yeah, I am hearing that too. Is it just because the FPS it makes it easier to convert to film?
You using FCP 4?
Yes, the frames per second rate is same as film. (in US, europe's standard is 25fps) Making the conversion to film easier
Not using FCP yet but I will be.
50 Hz video? Oh, the flicker ... the flickerrrr!
Are you saying the 24P flickers?
I haven't seen 24P native video, that I know of. Perhaps "28 Days Later" is the closest I've come. If 24P is displayed with 3:2 pulldown on a 60 field per second video display, it won't have flicker (at least no more that regular NTSC) but it will have judder. So perhaps I should have said "Oh ... the judderrr!"
I find the 60 Hz field rate of NTSC to be somewhat annoying, mostly because of "field twitter" on fine objects. And the 50 Hz field rate of PAL is quite annoying due to gross flicker. The frequency is just too low. I don't know how the Europeans deal with it. Maybe that's why they have such tiny TVs.
The only reason some film projectors gets away with 48 Hz flicker rate is the room is dark. But 72 Hz is better.
Using an HD set to display SD does something sort of like the spinning shutter in a film projector, doubling the display rate from 60 fields to 60 frames. It does wonders to stabilize NTSC images.
And then there's judder, which is another kettle of fish. 24 fps film (and by extension 24P video) is just awful for judder. I didn't notice it much before I started doing video systems, but now I can't not notice it. Instead of a smooth movement, I often see a jerky series of still images. The illusion works fine when motion is low, but if the camera does a huge pan it's judder-iffic.
"The illusion works fine when motion is low, but if the camera does a huge pan it's judder-iffic. "
Right, it depends on the speed of the pan (or trucking shot)
From what I gather you would only shoot 24fps in video when you're going to transfer to film so as to illiminate the 3:2 pulldown problem. Err.... would that be "pullup" problem when going to 24fps? I'm sure there's an equation, but you see what I mean, a straight frame-to-frame transfer
Sure, if you're going to a film print, 24p makes the most sense. Otherwise it gets messy.
Some people really like the 24p look. At a recent tradeshow, I saw a device that adds "film-look" to video by dropping fields and adding random noise to add judder and grain. It's especially popular for soaps in the far east. Makes the production look more expensive.
For sports/action the temporal characteristics of 60 field video provides much more realism and immediacy, but I suppose it depends on what look you want. If money is no object, 48 fps IMAX may offer the best spatial/temporal/gamut performance. One can dream.
|
- jim 9-19-2003 12:08 am
I don't think so, $1000 prosumer cams are compact cameras with huge zoom 8x or more and are fast. You can't get that from an SLR and slow lenses. Also the price will come down to maybe $800. No one really wants to change lenses and have problems with dust. Sorry bad analysis unless Canon marketing goes nuts.
- mikeSlr 11-23-2003 4:43 pm
for an additional $100 bucks you get a 8 - 55 mm (3x) lens. Although not a huge zoom, for $1000 you do have the option of using prime lenses. Many prosumers are suckers for interchangable lenses (whether they actually use them or not.) look at Canon's success in the prosumer video field with the XL1. But you're probably right, "a very strong negative effect" on the prosumer market sounds like an overstatement.
- steve 11-24-2003 7:25 pm
Steve your mention of the XL1 is right on. It has been huge, even though there are very capable (even 3 chip,) very small, all in one DV cameras. It's basically the only thing a serious person would use.
And think of the photographers who already have money invested in compatible lenses. For those folks the EOS is a no brainer.
But okay, maybe the analysis is overblown. I was just quoting.
- jim 11-24-2003 7:35 pm
Right, those are Canon's words.
I'm hearing good things about a few mini-dv cameras, the 24P for one.
- steve 11-24-2003 7:51 pm
Somewhat off topic but lots of people in the US are going PAL over NTSC. Hooray for Final Cut!
- steve 11-24-2003 7:55 pm
Yeah, I am hearing that too. Is it just because the FPS it makes it easier to convert to film?
You using FCP 4?
- jim 11-24-2003 7:58 pm
Yes, the frames per second rate is same as film. (in US, europe's standard is 25fps) Making the conversion to film easier
Not using FCP yet but I will be.
- steve 11-24-2003 8:47 pm
50 Hz video? Oh, the flicker ... the flickerrrr!
- mark 11-25-2003 11:25 am
Are you saying the 24P flickers?
- steve 11-25-2003 6:11 pm
I haven't seen 24P native video, that I know of. Perhaps "28 Days Later" is the closest I've come. If 24P is displayed with 3:2 pulldown on a 60 field per second video display, it won't have flicker (at least no more that regular NTSC) but it will have judder. So perhaps I should have said "Oh ... the judderrr!"
I find the 60 Hz field rate of NTSC to be somewhat annoying, mostly because of "field twitter" on fine objects. And the 50 Hz field rate of PAL is quite annoying due to gross flicker. The frequency is just too low. I don't know how the Europeans deal with it. Maybe that's why they have such tiny TVs.
The only reason some film projectors gets away with 48 Hz flicker rate is the room is dark. But 72 Hz is better. Using an HD set to display SD does something sort of like the spinning shutter in a film projector, doubling the display rate from 60 fields to 60 frames. It does wonders to stabilize NTSC images.
And then there's judder, which is another kettle of fish. 24 fps film (and by extension 24P video) is just awful for judder. I didn't notice it much before I started doing video systems, but now I can't not notice it. Instead of a smooth movement, I often see a jerky series of still images. The illusion works fine when motion is low, but if the camera does a huge pan it's judder-iffic.
- mark 11-25-2003 8:38 pm
"The illusion works fine when motion is low, but if the camera does a huge pan it's judder-iffic. "
Right, it depends on the speed of the pan (or trucking shot)
From what I gather you would only shoot 24fps in video when you're going to transfer to film so as to illiminate the 3:2 pulldown problem. Err.... would that be "pullup" problem when going to 24fps? I'm sure there's an equation, but you see what I mean, a straight frame-to-frame transfer
- steve 11-26-2003 12:51 am
Sure, if you're going to a film print, 24p makes the most sense. Otherwise it gets messy.
Some people really like the 24p look. At a recent tradeshow, I saw a device that adds "film-look" to video by dropping fields and adding random noise to add judder and grain. It's especially popular for soaps in the far east. Makes the production look more expensive.
For sports/action the temporal characteristics of 60 field video provides much more realism and immediacy, but I suppose it depends on what look you want. If money is no object, 48 fps IMAX may offer the best spatial/temporal/gamut performance. One can dream.
- mark 11-26-2003 3:25 am