Jump to content

Why video is a good idea on the 240


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know that probably 99% of the users of this forum has no interest in video. And frankly, neither do I.

 

However.

 

In my neck of the woods, at least for working photojournalists, more and more news media are expecting video clips to go with just about any story.

 

In my opinion, the 5D mark 2 is to blame for this, when editors went "Oh you can make video too! I demand a movie as well!!".

 

Fortunately they arent expecting feature-lenght documentaries, but there is certainly a pressure to deliver 2-5minute clips from everything from breaking news to investigative stories.

With all medias moving towards much heavier online presence this becomes a vital selling point for all journalistic uses.

A very important point is that video, if streamed, is harder to steal and brings more advertising money. So the distinction between a PJ and a VJ have in practice been eradicated.

 

Myself and several other colleagues in this business own both Leica and dslr systems (mostly canon) but in order to serve todays editors find ourselves carrying either both systems or just the canon.

 

So, what the M enables, is the ability to do a job with only one system, for example a M and a M9 (for backup or extra lens), rather than having to carry a separate DSLR system to get those video clips.

 

And lets not forget the ability to shoot video with an optical viewfinder AND be able to focus it accurately!

I do not exactly enjoy holding my canon at arms lenght while staring at the screen and struggling with the lousy autofocus (in video).

 

This means the 240 can pay for itself to a much higher degree than, say a M9/ME with its limited ISO and the Monochrom with its mono-only.

 

So be it that the M is not quite as good as the Monochrom in black and white, and not quite as good as the 5D3 in video and long lenses. A smaller kit is much more maneuverable and discrete. (although not quite as discrete as an iphone!).

 

So while video might not be a big deal today, the coming years we will see that it will be very hard to survive as a professional photographer without offering video as one of your products.

 

The M240 ticks that box, but we have yet to see how well...

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest borge

For those types of 2-5 minute clips an iPhone or any modern phone will provide decent enough 1080p quality video files that are good enough.

 

If you need higher quality a 1080p dedicated video camera isn´t expensive or large to carry around at all, and in all cases it provides the best results unless you explicitly want to play with shallow depth of field for video clips.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t get me wrong, I’m very much of a traditionalist (just ask my children); but, it seems to me that there is a large group among us that is not a little miffed that video is even in the new M’s capability in any form at all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For those types of 2-5 minute clips an iPhone or any modern phone will provide decent enough 1080p quality video files that are good enough.

 

 

True, the iphone is good, but only in very good lighting, and only when the 35mm-ish lens is suitable. Setting focus and white balance is possible, but very impractical. There are add on lenses, but these are even more impractical.

 

My point being that the video Dslrs have already set the benchmark that others are expected to follow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You can see the rolling shutter in the John Dooley preview. It's quite pronounced.

 

I think I said this earlier in another post - I think the lack of HDMI goes to show what we can expect from this and I see that Video is a side effect of CMOS rather than a distinct effort to offer it so I'm not expecting miracles. I'll happily eat my hat though.

 

But at the same time I think it's really important Leica jump in at some stage. While I will always be a photographer (I can't bring myself to even say stills!) for much of 'the market' it is the future unfortunately and I totally understand why people want it now. It really has it's applications. At this rate who knows what we will be shooting in 15-20 years time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A rolling shutter is the standard way of implementing an electronic shutter with a CMOS sensor. At the start of the exposure the sensor pixels are reset one after the other, then at the end of the exposure the pixels are read out in the same order. Since the exposure intervals of each pixel are not the same, the upper part of the sensor captures a slightly different slice of time from the lower part of the sensor. This gives rise to the ‘rolling shutter effect’, namely distortions of moving subjects. Wikipedia has several examples for this: Rolling shutter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Cameras with CMOS sensors generally use a mechanical focal-plane shutter for still images but a ‘rolling’ electronic shutter for live view and video.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael, why did someone(Leica or someone else) state that rolling shutter may be less noticeable because of the way the sensor output on the M video is averaged in a scheme that is somehow different than dropping pixels?

 

Also, how does the higher bit rate of the M video differ from the 5DIII? I think the 5DIII and the Sony F3 are limited to 35Mb/s. I thought the bit rate of the M was higher than what would be expected - something like 45Mbs and Leica said they may be able to make it even higher with firmware.

 

Also, Leica has decided to use 4:2:0 bit sample rate which should be better than the 5DIII and the Sony F3 which use 4:0:0. How will this effect the quality improvement of the M?

 

If, Leica's implementation of video with high bit rate and higher color bit sampling with sensor and pixel averaging works well, might we expect excellent video from the M?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly. Hand-held video from an unstabilised camera like the M (Typ 240) is just useless junk.

 

Uselss junk? Olaf strikes again. So any mise en scene film is useless junk to you then?

 

Steadycam setups were invented for the purpose of stabilisation before in camera stabilisation existed. It's served the TV and motion industry well for a long time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steadycam setups were invented for the purpose of stabilisation before in camera stabilisation existed. It's served the TV and motion industry well for a long time.

 

What's the gain in terms of luggage if you carry a Steadycam setup with your M instead of a "real" video camera with internal IS and - perhaps - a nice zoom lens?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the gain in terms of luggage if you carry a Steadycam setup with your M instead of a "real" video camera with internal IS and - perhaps - a nice zoom lens?

 

Hi Phillip, I've seen some crews with VERY small steadycam set ups which fold up very small. It's been enough for me to strike up a convo with them about it. I would hazzard a guess it would be in the favour of the M here in terms of size and baggage.

 

If and when I venture fully into film I think it would be with something like the Blackmagic Cinema Cam. They seem to be all the talk nowadays given their price point. Tiny in size 2.5K motion for $3K US and apparently a 4K on the way. Check it out - Blackmagic Design: Products

 

The new Canon 1D C looks phenomenal too with 4K filming and you can lift a 4K stills TIF too. It's meant to be very good. I don't know wether to be scared or excited.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

But at the same time I think it's really important Leica jump in at some stage.

 

Well, they certainly are all in on the cine lens side of things. They make wonderful cine lenses for the motion picture industry. I think that is part of Leica Camera AG? I would imagine Leica is in close contact with the motion picture industry because of this association and probably have a pretty good idea what is important. Although, no HDMI output seems to be a non starter for those here that seem to know something.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A monopod (which I often carry anyways) will take care of stabilization.

Just that it will be possible to get away with a even smaller and lighter one with the M than with dslrs.

 

However, with a optical viewfinder and full control over focus, it should be able to get pretty good even without a monopod or stabilized lenses , my hope is that good old leica M shooting technique will go a long way. At least a heck of a lot longer than holding a 2kg camera at arms length.

 

At any rate, I am waiting to see a proper review of the Ms video capabilities, or at least some downloadable raw footage to peep at.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Steadicam appears to weigh about 5kg while the blackmagic camera is 1.7 kg. Given that the Leica M is by no stretch of the imagination a video camera, I'd rather bring the blackmagic thing if video quality was really an issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Leica has preserved the best of the rangefinder experience and photo quality of the M9, the video with the M240 will be a useful feature for me. For family travel with a DSLR or M4/3 I have shot video and edited it after the trip with great results from the standpoint of documenting the trip in a more complete way. There is nothing quite like preserving family moments with the added sound and motion of video. If the photo quality is still there, which is beginning to look like the case, then this is an added benefit as you can shoot video and great stills with one system. On top of that you can use the 80-200 f 2.8 R lens when you need it.

 

I do have concerns about the lack of stabilization as progress in that area on cameras such as the OMD is getting pretty functional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

why did someone(Leica or someone else) state that rolling shutter may be less noticeable because of the way the sensor output on the M video is averaged in a scheme that is somehow different than dropping pixels?

I have no idea since one has nothing to do with the other. Dropping pixels is bad because it gives rise to colour moiré, and averaging pixels on the sensor prevents that. But the rolling shutter effect is caused by the delay between the exposure intervals of pixels wide apart on the sensor; averaging neighbouring pixels has no bearing on that.

 

Also, how does the higher bit rate of the M video differ from the 5DIII? I think the 5DIII and the Sony F3 are limited to 35Mb/s. I thought the bit rate of the M was higher than what would be expected - something like 45Mbs and Leica said they may be able to make it even higher with firmware.

The higher bit rate allows Leica to use only I-frames, i.e. there are no dependencies between frames. Essentially each frame is an independent JPEG picture.

 

Also, Leica has decided to use 4:2:0 bit sample rate which should be better than the 5DIII and the Sony F3 which use 4:0:0. How will this effect the quality improvement of the M?

It does improve sharpness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...