[TrueIndigo]

I posted this a few weeks ago on another forum but it didn't generate much interest. I was thinking of Pentax when I wrote it so I thought I would post it here. Over the years no other SLR maker has surprised me with unexpected features than Pentax has.

Following this years' video trends in DSLRs, the base level for video implementation in most cameras this year will probably be 1080p (rather than 720p). But, if a manufacturer wanted to stand out with an unexpected video feature, which would capture the imagination of the indie film makers, my suggestion would be 2k CinemaScope. If video-enabled DSLRs become as widespread in 2010 as live view was in 2009, a camera maker like Pentax (who need to work hard for market share) could really stir things up by offering something other than 16:9 video. If this wide frame size/shape could be windowed/binned from the sensor, it would be a dramatic and playful acknowledgement of many indie aspirations.



Would you like to see such a video option? Any comments and discussion on this welcome. Thanks.

[TrueIndigo]

Some initial thoughts:



1. Is it even possible?

I don't know, perhaps someone can chime in here. The whole thing rests on whether it is easy and therefore cheap to implement (through firmware) and also whether it is technically allowed by the hardware (the sensor and processing pipeline). So, if it is possible and if it is easy, why not do it? Why not include it as a welcome addition to a camera's video modes: 1080p (16:9), 858p (2.39:1), 720p (16:9).



2. Isn't the data rate of 2k too high?

I believe 1080p video should become base level for many DSLRs in 2010. And if they can do 1080, they should be able to do 2k CinemaScope. Why? Because the lesser height of the wide frame area is actually less than 1080. Disregarding compression schemes for simplicity of comparison, a full 16:9 HD uncompressed frame (1920 x 1080) is around 2.073 million pixels, while a DCI spec 2k 2.39:1 frame (2048 x 858) would be around 1.757 million pixels. Even using current engine performance and current codecs (and if recording video at 24/25 fps instead of 30 fps) should easily make the datarate of 2k CinemaScope possible. And since every year manufacturers generally increase the performance of their engines to improve still shooting fps speed, video processing this year will benefit from this too.



3. Aren't indie film makers a niche market?

From a marketing point of view, DSLR video is already here, and will become an expected feature on any DSLR spec sheet in this competitive arena. My point is that in implementing video, a camera maker could think out of the box and use video mode as an opportunity to stand out from the crowd by offering the wider frame of CinemaScope. These are the things that would set the film making forums alight with comment.



4. What if the camera makers fail to see the attraction?

If there is no enthusiasm for it on the inside, perhaps it could be done on the outside: the Magic Lantern effort generated a lot of interest by bringing extra video usability to the Canon, so maybe there could be a future opportunity for an unofficial hack to produce a wide frame? I've also seen a website (Welcome to Pentax Hack) dedicated to Pentax firmware hacks. It's a non-commercial open project, though it was not clear to me what is do-able, just some pretty arcane programming information! An email I sent asking about their progress, particularly any connection with changing the existing video capability, went unanswered however.



5. Why CinemaScope and why 2k?

CinemaScope is a very evocative frame ratio for indie film makers and 2k is a very aspirational figure! This is not to say that a £1,000+ DSLR can realistically impact the RED Scarlet market or the intended user of an uncompressed camera like the Drama. Just as a prosumer camcorder has better resolution and ergonomics than most current video DSLRs. Yet many people still bought a DSLR for video (I was one of them) to see what they could do with the shallow DoF, a large sensor aesthetic, good low light performance and interchangeable lenses. It was a good learning experience. Having CinemaScope in 2k takes things to the next level (rather than just more of the same) by providing an informal cinema camera. It's an exciting idea. It won't be perfect (using the same current codec/datarate), but it might be good enough for no budget just as current DSLR video is forgiven because of it's other benefits. CinemaScope itself won't be suitable for every project, and nor is 2k required for all projects, but it is undeniably an exciting potential.



6. If you want CinemaScope why not just crop 1080?

Yes, if you want CinemaScope on a low budget that's what you have to do at the moment, but with a huge sensor in a DSLR it seems a crime to have to do this. As shown previously, the image area of 2k CinemaScope is actually less than full HD, so I am advocating a more efficient use of the video frame for CinemaScope, rather than crop 1080 and then enlarge it slightly to 2k. I know that in the real world, most no budget indie productions are unlikely to find a theatrical window, so 2k seems unnecessary (just crop 1080 and you have your CinemaScope for a Bluray disc). But almost every film maker starts out on their project wondering if this is finally the project that gets picked up by a sales agent for a limited run somewhere (especially as we start to go over more to digital projection, which does not require the expense of show prints). At the very least, it's very good for morale if the lone film maker can offer 2k CinemaScope for film festival projection. Saves using an anamorphic lens if you can shoot 2.39:1 directly in-camera. Down-sampling a 2k CinemaScope image for 1080 Bluray disc output might help smooth out any aliasing issues with the codec?

[karl79]

Pentax are the only one with a high res 3:2 video mode (K-7's 1536 x 1024) in a DSLRs, so they've done an unusual format before, why not again?
Many DSLR videographers are complaining about the fixed cropped sensor use in video mode, making a true 2k cinemascope readout possible would definately be a bomb and attract tons of videographers over night.
I read and post a lot over at DVXuser.com, there's plenty of threads and posts about using anamorphic lenses on videoDSLRs and those guys pay hundreds of dollars for these lenses even though they know focusing will be a pain in the a** as they'll have to adjust focus on 2 lenses simultaniously, also the footage gets very soft most of the times.
Though they're also after the typical anamorphic lens flares, there's a huge interest in shooting the cinemascope format, and just to make people recognize Pentax' great, organic looking video mode, such an implementation would surely pay off I guess.


EDIT: TrueIndigo, aren't you member at DVXuser as well??

[johnmflores]

I just joined DVXuser myself, and Pentax hasn't gained much traction among the video crowd. The dSLRs with the most interest seem to be the 5DII, 7D and GH1. The K-x got some attention for awhile, until people found out that there were no manual controls.

2k CinemaScope would be an interesting proposition, but only if Pentax addresses some of the other needs of people shooting video, namely full manual control and additional, standard formats, i.e., true 1080P @ 24 and 30FPS, 720P @ 60 FPS. Stuff like a built-in peaking filter would also catch their attention.

Pentax does a pretty good job of designing cameras for still photographers (as opposed to being more marketing and/or gimmick driven). They could certainly apply the same user-centric approach and make a dSLR that makes some headway.

[jogiba]

I would be satisfied with 1080p 60 with the new Epson high-end EVF w/1.44MP resolution (800x600xRGB), SDXC slot (Eye-Fi connected) , full manual controls for video and FF sensor.

[TrueIndigo]

karl79: "They've done an unusual format before, why not again?" -- Yes, that's what I thought.

karl79: "Anamorphic lenses on video DSLRs and those guys pay hundreds of dollars for these lenses" -- I don't know how easy it would be to implement a wide frame, but if it is easy, and if Pentax really did it, I can imagine that the need for anamorphic lenses would go the same way as 35m adapters in the video DSLR era.

karl79: "Make people recognize Pentax' great, organic looking video mode" -- The Pentax video image is satisfyingly distinctive. It's a mystery to me that these affordable, small, weatherproof cameras are so under reported on the usual film making forums.

karl79: "TrueIndigo, aren't you member at DVXuser as well?" -- yes, that's me under the same username (TrueIndigo). I used to post in the Alternative Imaging section of DVINfo a while back, but using tethered industrial cameras became less attractive after the video DSLRs appeared.

johnmflores: "The K-x got some attention for awhile, until people found out that there were no manual controls." -- I'm hoping manual exposure, 1080p and 24/25 fps become standard video spec from Pentax this year to make them more like-able and keep parity with competitors.

johnmflores: "Pentax...could certainly apply the same user-centric approach and make a dSLR that makes some headway." -- do you think any Pentax employees read these threads? I'd like to think it's just good business sense to listen to what users are saying about your products. So, please Pentax, look into the 2k CinemaScope option; it would be a huge distinguishing video feature if you want to make a lot of people very happy.

[osv]

I just joined DVXuser myself, and Pentax hasn't gained much traction among the video crowd. The dSLRs with the most interest seem to be the 5DII, 7D and GH1. The K-x got some attention for awhile, until people found out that there were no manual controls.

from a professional video standpoint, no manual controls is a complete deal-killer, as is the use of a bloated obsolete codec like mjpeg, the lack of 1080p capability, glass that can't hold focus while zooming, etc.

pentax doesn't get much interest because they haven't delivered a quality video solution on their dslrs, period... in the finest pentax tradition, by the time we do get all of the above, the next generation of the competition will have moved on to much better features, and we'll still be playing catch-up.

and it's not just pentax, the entire vdslr genre is rather like putting lipstick on a pig... per camcorderinfo, the measured resolution of the best canon vdslr is far less than what i can get from a $700 canon hd camcorder... and then there is the audio interface, even canon doesn't have an audio level meter.

so the whole vdslr scene desperately needs to mature, pentax is just the worst of an immature breed... in two or three years we'll be able to look back and see how bad it really is, but for now some of you people need to understand what the limitations really are... you buy a pentax for the still picture quality, whatever video it takes is just a toy that you can play with, and learn from.

[karl79]

from a professional video standpoint, no manual controls is a complete deal-killer, as is the use of a bloated obsolete codec like mjpeg, the lack of 1080p capability, glass that can't hold focus while zooming, etc.

What's wrong with MJPEG? I prefer a highrate MJPEG footage over h.264 anytime. Pentax MJPEG compression is good enough even for some tight post processing.

Zoom lenses? How about the great manual primes you can get so cheap in the bay?
Pentax made some of the best primes ever and you can use them.

pentax doesn't get much interest because they haven't delivered a quality video solution on their dslrs, period...

I was impressed by the time of the K-7's nice organic looking video, similar to Nikon's but with a much higher bit rate. I shot video with the Canon 7D and 5DmkII as well but I just don't like their harsh image. Pentax may not have delivered a quality video solution (the competition didn't either) but they delivered one of the nicest, most filmic looking video-image with the K-7.

er camcorderinfo, the measured resolution of the best canon vdslr is far less than what i can get from a $700 canon hd camcorder...

Looking at the ACTUAL readout, Pentax K-7 provides the best possible resolution together with the Canon 5DmkII of all current video DSLRs so far, including the competitions "1080p". By now, the 700$ camcorder does provide more resolution, but it can't give you DoF, a large, light sensitiv sensor or the possibility to change lenses.

but for now some of you people need to understand what the limitations really are... you buy a pentax for the still picture quality, whatever video it takes is just a toy that you can play with, and learn from.

I understand that there are no limitations except technical ones. Some people, like Nuno, just don't concentrate on these limitations but the benefits and produce great stuff.

[jogiba]

and it's not just pentax, the entire vdslr genre is rather like putting lipstick on a pig... per camcorderinfo, the measured resolution of the best canon vdslr is far less than what i can get from a $700 canon hd camcorder

The top of the line $1,400 Canon HF21 camcorder comes with a fixed lens that starts at a 35mm equivalent 43.5mm and that is a showstopper for most indie filmmakers. The VDSLRs are only a year old and already set the world on fire with short films. A consumer camcorder is just like a P&S still camera for consumers with video to match.
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veMIfsPQBGo[/yt]
M-JPEG @ 6400 & 12,800ISO:
"The stills and motion were captured using only available light through the windows (to the right of frame) just after sunset. The camera settings where used at 6400 and 12800 ISO."
Bohl Family Portraits - marcusbell's Photos

Canon Digital Learning Center - Sample EOS 5D Mark II Video: Reverie

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8324034&amp[/vimeo]

[osv]

What's wrong with MJPEG? I prefer a highrate MJPEG footage over h.264 anytime. Pentax MJPEG compression is good enough even for some tight post processing.

ask yourself why pentax is the only vdslr that uses mjpeg.

it's very inefficient.

Zoom lenses? How about the great manual primes you can get so cheap in the bay?
Pentax made some of the best primes ever and you can use them.

the point is that you can't zoom with primes.

I was impressed by the time of the K-7's nice organic looking video, similar to Nikon's but with a much higher bit rate. I shot video with the Canon 7D and 5DmkII as well but I just don't like their harsh image. Pentax may not have delivered a quality video solution (the competition didn't either) but they delivered one of the nicest, most filmic looking video-image with the K-7.

it's true that nobody has gotten it right yet, but pentax is trailing the pack by a big margin... terms like "organic" and "harsh" are meaningless in the world of video compression; if you like soft low-resolution video, put a software filter on the canikon video, and it'll look similar to a pentax video clip.

your bitrate comparison is wrong, btw, because it's apples vs. oranges, the codecs are not the same.

Looking at the ACTUAL readout

i don't know what you mean by that, but whatever it is, it's not a measurement of video resolution.

yes, talent always shows through in the end, but if hardware didn't matter, there would be no market for high-end video cameras... if hardware didn't matter, you'd be shooting video with your cell phone camera instead of your pentax.

[jogiba]

ask yourself why pentax is the only vdslr that uses mjpeg.

All of the Nikon VDSLRs including the new D3s use mjpeg.
Nikon D3s - Nikon Digital Cameras - Photoxels

ArtFx Training gets up early and tests the brand new NIKON D3S in extreme light conditions!
The night pictures were taken at 12000 or 14000 ISOs.

[vimeo]http://vimeo.com/moogaloop.swf?clip_id=8137275&amp[/vimeo]

M-JPEG @ 6400 & 12,800ISO:
"The stills and motion were captured using only available light through the windows (to the right of frame) just after sunset. The camera settings where used at 6400 and 12800 ISO."
Bohl Family Portraits - marcusbell's Photos

MJPEG is the fastest to decode and edit. This is due to the fact that each frame is encoded separately using JPEG compression. It takes the least amount of processing power to encode, edit or playback.

[osv]

All of the Nikon VDSLRs including the new D3s use mjpeg.

"Nikon defends D3X's lack of video
"We have to match the right features with the right products."
Nikon defends D3X's lack of video | News | TechRadar UK

nikon isn't serious about putting video on a dslr.

MJPEG is the fastest to decode and edit. This is due to the fact that each frame is encoded separately using JPEG compression. It takes the least amount of processing power to encode, edit or playback.

which also makes it totally inefficient.

mjpeg is bloated garbage.

[jogiba]

Why are you posting stories what Nikon said in 2008 ? The latest pro DSLR from Nikon is the D3s with MJEPG HD VIDEO.

[osv]

Why are you posting stories what Nikon said in 2008 ? The latest pro DSLR from Nikon is the D3s with MJEPG HD VIDEO.

the d3s is NOT a top-of-the-line camera.

how come you can't tell the difference between a $5k camera and an $8k camera?:

"D3s is priced at $5,199.95, while D3x is priced at $7,999.99.
D3s features a 12 megapixel 36x23.9 full frame (FX) CMOS sensor, while the D3x has a 24.5 megapixel 35.9x24 full frame (FX) CMOS sensor."
Nikon D3s vs D3x

[karl79]

osv...

honestly man...

what's you're point joining this discussion anyway?