Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Make video with 40d

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Anonymous

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 1:52:21 AM7/4/09
to
Can it be done?

noauth

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 2:10:36 AM7/4/09
to
Can it be done?

DaveJ

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 2:33:02 AM7/4/09
to
On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 07:52:21 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org>
wrote:

>Can it be done?

Time-lapse videos perhaps.

Vance

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 2:53:34 AM7/4/09
to
On Jul 3, 10:52 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> Can it be done?

I think the people with CHDK are working on a video hack based on
using the Live View mode, but I haven't actually seen anything on it.
There is a rumor that a hack exists, but, again, I haven't actually
seen a link to it, or the mention of a source.

Possible? It might be. Will it be done? Maybe. Has it been done?
Probably not.

Vance

Charles E Hardwidge

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 4:02:20 AM7/4/09
to
"Vance" <Vance...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:54805e0a-3214-422d...@l5g2000pra.googlegroups.com...

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/40D

Had a look at it and the discussion but so far its vapourware.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

Are They Really This Dense?

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 5:06:37 AM7/4/09
to

Oh dear. I guess you'll just have to purchase a high-quality P&S camera to
get the built-in video modes with 106 levels and types of video
compression. And learn that all the propaganda about DSLRs has been just
that and only that, all along. Can you handle that? Probably not.

Annika1980

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 11:36:15 AM7/4/09
to
On Jul 4, 1:52 am, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
> Can it be done?

That's simple. I've even made videos with the Totally Digital D60,
which doesn't even have Live Mode.

http://www.vimeo.com/2532816

J�rgen Exner

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 11:51:43 AM7/4/09
to
Are They Really This Dense? <at...@noaddress.com> wrote:

><bo...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>> On Jul 3, 10:52 pm, Anonymous <cri...@ecn.org> wrote:
>>>> Can it be done?
>>> Possible? It might be. Will it be done? Maybe. Has it been done?
>>> Probably not.
>Oh dear. I guess you'll just have to purchase a high-quality P&S camera to
>get the built-in video modes with 106 levels and types of video

Dear Are

Actually if you want video a much better choise would be to get a video
camera in the first place.

jue

Are They Really This Dense?

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 12:53:03 PM7/4/09
to
On Sat, 04 Jul 2009 08:51:43 -0700, J�rgen Exner <jurg...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Not necessarily true. Many of the still-frame cameras with video built into
them rival many consumer-grade video cameras being made today. They also
have much better quality optics attached to them. This has already been
tested and compared in many forums online. Most people who automatically
assume that you need a dedicated video camera for the highest-quality video
are amazed they've been wrong all this time. Surprised, but not
disappointed, they now leave their video-cameras at home, collecting dust.

Earlier CHDK Powershot cameras with only 640x480 video resolution can't
even work with the limited bandwidth of conventional SD card rates, not
even the Class-6 or150x cards, when you turn up the camera's video quality
to its highest settings. Unlike a dedicated video camera with a smaller
sensor and fewer pixels, they bin the pixels in these higher megapixel
sensors for better video image quality and light sensitivity. They are
forced to do this (pixel-binning) because you have to get the same FOV on
the larger sensor in a lower-resolution video format. I can regularly shoot
noise-free video long after sunset with my P&S cameras. Up to about the
time that I need to get out a flashlight to see my way around. More proof
of them implementing pixel-binning. I don't recall if the CHDK gurus have
enabled the HD video-compression option settings on the SX1-IS Powershot
yet, but if they do, or already have, that will easily surpass
consumer-level HD-video cameras when they turn up the quality settings. A
company who also has a vested interest in selling to the video market will
intentionally degrade the video quality in their still-frame cameras so as
not to cut into their other cash-cow projects. People are finding ways to
bypass this marketing tactic and get the best (or even better than the
best) of both worlds all in one device.

You can lug around two different cameras while on vacation to get both
media formats if you want. I bet that doing so will make you look and feel
like a real "pro". But others who have actually compared and tested these
things are finding that that is no longer necessary. Those who lug around
both cameras don't look like a "pro" any longer, they only end up looking
like the "pro idiots" that they are.

botox

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 5:21:08 PM7/4/09
to
Apart from dedicated professional grade HD video cameras the highest rated
prosumer HD video camera, in terms of capture quality, is the Canon 5d Mark
II.
It is inconvenient to use for making complex HD videos but it can be done
and is being increasingly done . . .
I only know what I read, not what I make up.

Further Info

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 6:30:08 PM7/4/09
to

Not really. Due to the larger apertures on the lenses for a DSLR, stopping
it down enough to get a functional DOF for videography makes the light
levels nearly useless. Open it up for the required light-levels and you
can't focus on more than an ear or nose at any one time. They overshot the
mark. A good plan that falls severely short in real-world use.

Ray Fischer

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 7:31:18 PM7/4/09
to
Further Info <fi...@info.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 4 Jul 2009 14:21:08 -0700, "botox" <fac...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Apart from dedicated professional grade HD video cameras the highest rated
>>prosumer HD video camera, in terms of capture quality, is the Canon 5d Mark
>>II.
>>It is inconvenient to use for making complex HD videos but it can be done
>>and is being increasingly done . . .
>>I only know what I read, not what I make up.
>
>Not really. Due to the larger apertures on the lenses for a DSLR, stopping
>it down enough to get a functional DOF for videography makes the light
>levels nearly useless.

That makes very little sense.

> Open it up for the required light-levels and you
>can't focus on more than an ear or nose at any one time.

And yet people use the camera to take focussed still photos all the time.

--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net

Pete D

unread,
Jul 4, 2009, 11:17:11 PM7/4/09
to

"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a4fe646$0$1620$742e...@news.sonic.net...

Just keep in mind Ray that when you respond to the man with two dicks you
can just make it up like he does.


Annika1980

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 12:23:06 AM7/5/09
to
On Jul 4, 6:30 pm, Further Info <fi...@info.com> wrote:
>
> Not really. Due to the larger apertures on the lenses for a DSLR, stopping
> it down enough to get a functional DOF for videography makes the light
> levels nearly useless. Open it up for the required light-levels and you
> can't focus on more than an ear or nose at any one time. They overshot the
> mark. A good plan that falls severely short in real-world use.

Apparently you haven't heard about the CHKDICK firmware upgrade.
This not only allows the FAB 5D2 to shoot in almost any wavelength up
thru infrared and ultraviolet, but it also adds GPS functionality and
live satellite imagery thru it's Live View mode. This is particularly
useful when you want to see what's just around the corner.

P.S. Your fly is open.

Paul Furman

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 3:09:53 PM7/5/09
to

That's the advantage of the format; to get a Hollywood look which
doesn't look like made-for-TV handycam crap.

--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

Alan Browne

unread,
Jul 5, 2009, 3:12:09 PM7/5/09
to

Utter baloney. Good video includes appropriate DOF for the subject,
theme, effect that the videographer is trying to achieve.

0 new messages