[Anvh]

But why do you need shutter control?

Beside the people that know what they are doing can make this with a K7... so good luck explaining things

You Tube

You Tube

[userage]

The standard to use in film is 24fps with 1/48 equivalent shutter speed. Different shutter speeds and frame rates give the video completely different looks and feels. I don't think you understand why its important, you can't just mix shutter speeds in a film. Every single film for almost a century has been shot with 24fps and 1/48, the only film to be released that isn't is Hobbit, and if you have seen that in HFR you should have been able to notice it felt a lot different to a regular film. I can't explain this to you very well just by writing so if you don't understand it, then well just leave it.

IMO that Uncle Jack video isn't doing your argument much justice. I think you should have a look at a comparison of a video at 30fps and 1/100+ shutter and 24 with 1/50 to notice a difference.

Also not just in the case of films. But if your shooting a sporting event then higher fps and shutter speed would be beneficial. There's different times for different things, same with still photography, you can use the shutter speed for different effects. Its the same principles for video.

[Anvh]

faster speed make it look more jumpy but sharp, slower speed smoother but blurred
sport is shot with short and most action movies, the rest use slower speeds most of the time.
I know what it does but i can't see why an amateur would find this so important while the codec is even far more limiting factor....


as for jack, was not meand for shutterspeed but to show what can be done with pentax.
It's all story telling and if you don't have a good one you won't come far, no matter how technical correct you movie might me...

[userage]

Pretty much close to 100% of all movies use 24fps 1/48 shutter speed.

But we aren't talking about amatuers though? Amatuers can use the video mode on auto there is no issue with that. The codec can be limiting as the more you compress it the harder it is to grade the footage, the current codec in the K30/01 is worse than the Kx/7/5's in terms of quality. A beginner isn't going to care, to them if it says 1080p then that means the quality is great. But pro's will care and I don't see why Pentax doesn't try to market to them.

I don't dispute that, but giving us manual control just gives us a lot more freedom. I've said I really like the video quality from the K5, and the codec is quite color correction friendly. Its just manual control would make it all that much better

[fuent104]

faster speed make it look more jumpy but sharp, slower speed smoother but blurred sport is shot with short and most action movies, the rest use slower speeds most of the time. I know what it does but i can't see why an amateur would find this so important while the codec is even far more limiting factor.... as for jack, was not meand for shutterspeed but to show what can be done with pentax. It's all story telling and if you don't have a good one you won't come far, no matter how technical correct you movie might me...

You are incorrect about the application of shutter speed to the moving image. "Shutter angle" is what determines whether an image looks smooth or choppy. A shutter angle of 180 degrees is what has been determined to be the smoothest. This can be achieved either by shooting 24 frames per second at a shutter speed of 1/48 second, or by shooting 30 frames per second with a shutter speed of 1/60 second per frame.

If you can't see the difference between Uncle Jack, which was shot at 30fps, and a movie shot at 24fps, that is fine. However, professionals use DSLRs extremely frequently for video production, and any professional cinematographer (such as myself) wants to have control over as many of the parameters as possible. It's part of expressing yourself artistically. Why wouldn't someone want to have the option of controlling every parameter?

24fps video was one of the biggest breakthroughs in consumer video of the last decade. It is far, far more important in determining the aesthetic of a movie than the codec is. The codec is not even in the same conversation. You can't see a codec on screen, but you can see a frame rate.

And if you think it's only low-level professionals who use DSLRs for video, that is also incorrect. I know a cinematographer who shot a commercial that aired during the Superbowl two years ago, and he frequently shoots professional projects with his 7D.

[kadajawi]

But in all honesty, when you get to te point where "shutterspeed" for video maater for you i think it's time to get a video camera for it....

I disagree. Video cameras are great when you don't want to care about anything. Point, shoot, done. They have good auto focus. They have a decent microphone. Their exposure meter works well, they can quietly focus, zoom, change aperture, ...

A DSLR has none of this. You'll have to manually focus. You'll have to add a decent microphone, perhaps with an external recorder. A DSLR is most useful for people who want full control.

The MJPEG codec is quite ok.

The big question is: What is so hard about letting us set the shutter speed?

Ps: I quite like the video my K-5 produces. Even when compared to video cameras. Consumer grade video cameras are convenient, that's all.

[Anvh]

@fuent104 you can not read it seems....
For the first part please explain it to me better since to me you're incorrect.

As for jack read my post again, like is said I DID NOT PUT THE VIDEO THERE TO SHOW THE SHUTTERSPEED!!!

For the rest that's all your opinion, and sure you can not see the codec on the screen but i cearly see it when i try to grade my film and oh boy do you see the quality differnce there and finally also in the output.
So yes you can see the differnce in IQ quality between the differnt shots...

And i don't think that, i only said that you're better off buying a real video camera these days since they are getting cheaper.
Two years ago isn't now.
Now you can get for 2000 pounds a video camera with propper codec and the manual controls you need in a device design for that. So compared to that the whole DSLR is simply lacking and therefore i say if video really matters to you you can just as wel buy a propper video camera instead of using awkwardly your DSLR...
That option wasnt there 2 years ago.


@kadajawi, i'm thinking about a different class of video camera....

[userage]

@fuent104 you can not read it seems....
For the first part please explain it to me better since to me you're incorrect.

As for jack read my post again, like is said I DID NOT PUT THE VIDEO THERE TO SHOW THE SHUTTERSPEED!!!

For the rest that's all your opinion, and sure you can not see the codec on the screen but i cearly see it when i try to grade my film and oh boy do you see the quality differnce there and finally also in the output.
So yes you can see the differnce in IQ quality between the differnt shots...

And i don't think that, i only said that you're better off buying a real video camera these days since they are getting cheaper.
Two years ago isn't now.
Now you can get for 2000 pounds a video camera with propper codec and the manual controls you need in a device design for that. So compared to that the whole DSLR is simply lacking and therefore i say if video really matters to you you can just as wel buy a propper video camera instead of using awkwardly your DSLR...
That option wasnt there 2 years ago.


@kadajawi, i'm thinking about a different class of video camera....

I don't even know what your trying to say anymore.

But on point to the video cameras. How many are there that have a decent size sensor?

Sony VG30 APS-C - £2000, AVCHD 2.0 at max of 24mbps

5D II FF - £1100, H264 max of 50mbps

Panasonic GH2 M43 - £500 AVCHD at max of 200mbps (with hack)

Clearly that video camera bridge hasn't closed as much as you say. Especially since a lot of awards are given out to films that have been shot on DSLRs..

[Anvh]

Maybe not as much but they are certainly getting there.
RED camera's are getting cheaper every year for example and with BMC you have a camera for $2000 that can shoot in RAW.

Why would you limit yourself to decent size sensor?


But no matter how you turn it, a DSLR is made and design to shoot stills, it just happends to be also suited to shoot video with it but that's always an afterthought.
Rolling shutter and things like that are pretty bad for example...

[userage]

The BMC is a great camera but this thread is still about making Pentax competitive compared to Canon/Panasonic/Nikon/Sony in terms of video.

Low light and DOF mainly.

Rolling shutter is getting better over time, its not even that bad really unless your doing lots of panning shots its not that noticable, and yes but our point is DSLRs are great for amateur film makers and low budget indie films. For someone who has a decent budget and is planning on premiering on the big screen they obviously would not use DSLRs, but not everyone can afford to rent REDs

[Anvh]

But BMC is also enterting the frame and also other cheaper video camera.
Canon, Sony and Panasonic are in a position that they also have real video cameras, don't forget that.

At the moment Canon is winning that battle it seems, their lens mount is getting more widely use with other video camera's as well.
So in all honesty i don't think pentax should persue in a war to get the best video mode since the battle has already been fought.
Let them fist compete with the still front and then they can tackle the nice market...
Or pentax should come with a real video like canon c or sony VG serries, that would be intersting for the right price.
Look a K-01 type of camera with all the correct controlls and aimed for video could be a winner.


lol... rolling shutter not noticable but the differnce in shutterspeed is... come on guys, if you can see the differnce between the shutter speeds you can also surely see the rolling shutter
As for RED, the system is getting close to the $4000 mark, it's now easily in range for the bigger indie productions.

[Gimbal]

I don't get it Anvh, you don't want Pentax to improve because one can always buy another system instead?
What if I already have a bunch of lenses and it would be nice if I could use them to shoot video as well, preferably with a little more control, without buying into a new system. I'm not that big on video, but when I do shoot it would be nice to be able to control the camera.

[Anvh]

They can surely improve, nothing wrong with that but it hardly matters for the market.

Or do you think pentax will sell a lot better with a good video mode?
But that doesnt mean only more control, but actually better video all around, better codec, more DR, less rolling shutter, ect.

But I see it as a waste of effort for pentax, to the point that they have to do it because other have it as well.
Maybe that the market where the BMC is getting might be interesting, but Pentax don't have video know how.
So i see it; that video for DSLR is becoming less interesting every year because real video camera's are getting cheaper.
You can off course use your Pentax lenses on most video cameras, there are adapters for it, if video is that important to you.

I rather see Pentax improve the still side of things then the video side, beside that i use the Pentax for video as well.

[userage]

Well, Canon improved the video on their DSLRs, and it clearly opened a new market to them. Coupled with Magic Lantern, a good amount of people buy Canons just for video.

I believe there are a few films that made a decent profit that were made with Canon DSLRs. Act of Valor comes to mind, they made 80 million.. Like Crazy also was bought for 4 million. These films had pretty decent budgets $12million and $250,000 respectively.

Just because the BMC is coming out and its a good deal doesn't mean people won't be interested in DSLRs for video shooting anymore. The Nokia 808 Pureview has 41megapixels and a decently big sensor, does that mean people will no longer buy compact cameras?

Either way. I don't see what is wrong with Pentax at least being in line with the competition with their video mode..

[Anvh]

what is a "good amount of people"
beside that you're breaking your warrenty by using hacked firmware...

Nokia example is a bad one... it actually proofs me right
A phone that also take photos VS a real photo camera = DSLR that take videos vs a real video camera
BMC is not the only one, everyone is starting to make cheaper video camera's because of the DSLR getting beter video, i believe because of that that it is a dying market for the DSLR.
Mini S35 Camera from Kinefinity: 2K RAW in a RED EPIC-Style Body, Priced Under $6K - NoFilmSchool

There is of course nothing wrong with better video for DSLR, i never said that. I'm only saying that it becomes less intersting every year.