Canon chose a pretty bad format for their consumer digicam and video dSLR products: h.264 in the MOV container, without B-Frames. This creates a kind of format that is very difficult to edit in real time. As I type this, even the fastest desktop PC on Earth can’t decode in real time that footage under Sony Vegas, or even Premiere. As of now, here are your editing options with such footage:

1. Edit as is
It is possible to edit these files as is, by dropping them in the timeline, but you should expect anything between 0.3 and 5 fps. Which means that it’s unbearably slow to do educated guesses on how to cut your project. Additionally, Vegas has very poor support for Quicktime, so after you add a few of these files in the timeline, you should expect crashes.

2. Proxy Files
Proxy files allow you to use small-sized, low-quality copies of the original files that edit faster — and just before you export, you switch to the original files, to export at full quality. Here are tutorials for Vegas Platinum, Pro, and Premiere. The problem with this method is that, at least with Vegas, there’s still a big risk of crashing during exporting (because it would use the original MOV files). Also, exporting is very slow, because the decoding is slow (before it even starts encoding).

3. Cineform
This is the best solution for the problem. You buy Cineform NeoSCENE (or NeoHD), and you drop the files in its utility to transcode them. Cineform is pretty fast decoding h.264, and transcoding the 4:2:0 files to a 4:2:2 format, that’s visually lossless, and easy to edit. The only downsides are that the created filesizes will be double over the original and the gamma will slightly change, but these are a small price to pay for having a stable, and fast format to edit with.

Q&A

Q. Why not use Divide.Frame’s accelerated decoder?
A. Because it’s unstable, and it doesn’t work with all versions of Vegas or Premiere.

Q. What format should I use for proxies?
A. I would suggest you use 640×360 mpeg2 at 1.5 mbps. It’s the easiest format to edit, by far. The Premiere tutorial linked above can be modified to create such proxies rather than its suggested h.264 proxies.

Q. Why not use mpeg2, or XDCam or other high bitrate format instead of Cineform?
A. Because they are not lossless.

Q. Why not use another lossless codec then, like the freeware Huffyuv, Lagarith, Avid DNxHD?
A. Because they are almost as slow to edit as the original files.

Q. How about Matrox’s mpeg2 I-Frame 100 mbps codec?
A. This is a good codec and it works well with Premiere. But it doesn’t work as well with Vegas. More here.

Q. Which format would have been best to be used by Canon?
A. AVCHD for their consumer digicams, and AVC-Intra for their video dSLRs.

Q. How are the Mac users dealing with the problem?
A. The footage has to be transcoded too, to the intermediate ProRES/AIC codecs before it is able to be edited. There is also Cineform NeoSCENE for the Mac too.

I watched the “Fast & Furious” movie tonight, and it was beautifully graded for the most part (its grading was similar to Transformers 2 with saturated red/yellows and teal everything else). However, there was one scene I didn’t enjoy. I didn’t really gave it much thought while watching it, but when I watched the gag reel and they had the same scene, ungraded, then it really popped up in my mind how much natural and nice the ungraded shot was compared to the final one. What do you think?

And this is how I would grade it:

Update: Interesting. The colorist of this movie is the one who did Terminator Salvation among others.

Many users buy an HD 24p camera these days trying to reproduce the “film look” (aka the “movie look”). They think that if they shoot some random stuff in 24p, and do some color grading, and maybe add a bit of grain, their video will look like a movie.

Fat chance. Wake up and smell the coffee.

There are a number of factors that make a video look like a movie. In my experience and personal opinion, here they are, in order:

1. Framing

If your shots are just some random shots of random stuff, you will never achieve the film look. You need to think hard as to how to frame your subject, what’s in its background, what’s in the surroundings, the rule of thirds. Also you need to expose properly, use the right shutter or aperture values for each scene etc. If you dissect video to its primordial state, it’s just a number of pictures in succession. Therefore, you must operate like a photographer would.

2. Audio

IF your video has speech, then you must capture it right. Capture little ambient noise, clear voices, and use a good music score to complement the rest of the scenes. If your video does not feature people talking, then the music used must fit each scene. You might even have to sync each scene with the track’s beats.

3. Cutting

Do quick cuts when you edit your movie. Don’t waste your time in shots that are useless and don’t progress the story. For example, just an hour ago I watched an HV20 short film where the editor spent 20 whole seconds showing the actor getting out of a car (different shots with the actor moving one hand, then one foot, opening the door, getting one foot out etc). Get to the point, don’t elaborate on useless shots. If you don’t have enough shots to make a meaningful short film then it’s your fault for not storyboarding before you shoot.

4. Lighting

Without good lighting, you are screwed. Audio and lighting are so underrated among videographers. Your light composition must be part of the emotions you want to convey to your viewers. It’s an extra character. Invest in two 500 Watt lights ($100), and a reflector ($100). And if you shoot outdoors, make sure you have the sun on your back! The best times to shoot outdoors and use the available light is either in sunrise or before sundown (“golden light”).

5. Camera Motion

Modern movies have constant movement in most of their scenes. Either with a dolly or a steadycam. Few shots are completely stationary shot from a tripod (usually TV series do that rather than Hollywood movies). The cheapest solutions here are a Glidetrack, or other cheap steadycam solutions. Overall, consider that you will have to pay at least $300 for them. For longer dolly shots, consider this DIY dolly tutorial.

6. 24p

It helps shooting in that frame rate, but in my opinion you can get away with 30p too if you must. As long as you shoot in a 1/60th shutter speed, your motion can get pretty close to movies’ 1/48th. And even if it might not look exactly right, the rest of the video’s quality or story can make up for the lack of real 24p. Basically, what I am saying here is not that 24p is not important, but that it is just 6th in my list. Not 1st.

7. Grading

Colors set the mood of the movie, so grading is important. Just don’t overdo it with contrast and saturation. Film is traditionally low saturation and low contrast, so lay off the god damn saturation/contrast controls! So, modify your camera’s settings to shoot as “flat” an image as possible, so you can easily color grade it in post. I have set all my cameras’ color controls in the lower values possible (contrast/saturation/sharpness/skin_tone), and that goes for my still cameras too.

8. Shallow DoF

Most people think that if they get an adapter/camera with shallow DoF, they would achieve the film look easily. WRONG. It helps, but shallow DoF is not really a necessity. There are many classic films that had deep focus, like “Citizen Cane” and “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly”, and most recently, “Crank 2: High Voltage”. The quality of your photography, and the immersion of the viewer to your film are more important than blurry backgrounds. 35mm adapters are overrated, and most of such videos I have watched were over-the-top blurry. Besides, if shooting outdoors, you can always get a bit of blur by backing out and zooming in with your camcorder towards your subject, at around 75% of its log zooming scale. You will get just enough background blur to give the illusion to the viewer that this was not shot on video, and at the same time you direct the viewer’s attention to the actual subject. In other words, you don’t always need shallow DoF, and when you really do, you can get just enough of it with a consumer HD camcorder too if you know how to shoot & frame properly. Most of my HV20 videos have enough background blur for example, more than I would care for. Heck, I achieved as much shallow DoF as I needed even with my point and shoot HD digicam.

And of course, there’s the story itself, which is the most important element in a short movie. The reason I didn’t include it in the list above though is because not all videographers shoot short movies. Some just shoot abstract art, or nature and travel pieces, so it’s not always a part of the film *look* quest.

Finally, here are some nice tutorials about some of the points above.

I checked out the state of Creative Commons videos on Vimeo today. Apparently, 25 out of the 36 “most liked” videos tagged with “Creative Commons”, are mine. If you do a search for the words instead of using the tagging system, 14 out of the 60 “most liked” are mine too (and this method doesn’t always yield *videos* licensed under CC).

And this is pathetic. There are so many other greater videos on Vimeo. It might satisfy my vanity, but it’s ultimately a testament to a sad state of affairs in the world.

What I gather from the situation is that not a lot of videographers license their videos under a free license. And many of these “vimeo people”, are yourselves, readers of this blog. Hence the intimidating title of this blog post.

So I ask you: why don’t you license your videos under a free license? As long as you don’t shoot commercial projects, or recognizable people (who haven’t signed an image release contract), why not specifically license your videos under a Creative Commons license? What keeps you from spending 2 more minutes to divulge the license in your video’s credits or description on its Youtube/Vimeo page? You see, if you don’t specifically license your work, it automatically falls under the “all rights reserved” law. Nobody will be able to reuse your video under these conditions. It’s locked.

Is this what you really want? To no one be able to re-use your work for remixing, or as stock footage? If yes, why? Why not share with the world? Why not make the life of others easier (including commercial entities if you choose to)? Is your video such a major masterpiece that you feel that you could financially benefit from it in the future? Honestly, the truth is that for 99% of you (and me), I doubt it.

Your artwork and your name can only live on if others re-use your art and give you credit for it. Not if you leave your videos rotten in a Vimeo or Youtube URL that no one is visiting anymore after a few years. Think wide-angle here.

Besides, Creative Commons is the only way to win the RIAA/MPAA war. It’s the Gandhi approach: if you don’t buy their stuff and use freely available art instead, RIAA/MPAA will eventually cease to exist. There is no way to win that war with the current copyright laws (that no one in DC seems eager to change), or knee-jerk reactions like with the Pirate Bay crap. The only way to win the war is for the consumer to choose a different provider. But for the consumer to do that, YOU must help. YOU must create ENOUGH ART licensed under a FREE license to TURN the boat around.

You see, even the independent scene is not enough to turn the boat around. Back in 1939, the previous RIAA-alike organization died because of the indies taking over their market when the royalty prices went up. Twenty years later that new organization, previously “indie”, had become the new tyrants of the market. History repeats itself, so it’s not *just* indie stuff we need to endorse this time, but art licensed in such a way that prevents the next RIAA or the next MPAA from getting reborn with another name. And Creative Commons is perfect for that. It’s even better than Public Domain in some cases, because PD works are not legal in some countries. CC licenses have been “ported” to many countries’ legal systems instead.

Please view the excellent presentation here to help you understand more about how this works. I have also written an article here that explains what CC means for videographers.

Think about the whole thing tonight, before you go to bed. Think about where you are situated in the world, and what you give back to it in the intellectual level (rather than just your cold hard cash via taxes).

A few quick shots from Sausalito’s coast, overlooking San Fransisco. We stopped there after visiting Muir Woods this morning. Too bad SF was completely under the fog during shooting. It’s the second time that I go to Sausalito trying to get that shot with SF only partially in the quick-moving fog, but it has proven to be elusive so far.

The timelapses were all shot with the Canon SX200 IS digicam in video mode. Tilt-shift effect added in post. HD version, and download of the video here.

At last, a new video! I have missed the whole experience from start to finish. I shot the following within 20 minutes today. I shot it in 30p and then slowed it down 25%, and exported at 24p. HD version, and download of the video here.

I love how the shooting turned out, and how easily Canon SX200 IS’ footage can be color graded. It’s the most amazing sub-$500 HD digicam in the market right now. I even wrote a review for it, read it if you are interested in a P&S camera with usable footage.

I love the shot at 1:15. I was just shooting that flower, and that girl just walked into the frame out of nowhere, dancing! It’s one of the best shots I have ever shot — even if it was captured by accident.

Andreas pointed on Twitter to this beautiful film on Vimeo, a film that some claimed it was shot with an HV20, others with an XH-A1. I emailed its director, and he confirmed that he shot this with a Canon HV20, and a Cinevate Brevis35 adapter. This is the most “liked” HV20/30/40 video on Vimeo ever, ahead even from “White Red Panic“! Enjoy!

A great comment on the HV20’s Canon 7D forum thread, by Fleshoff:

“Kind of funny reading the other forums…
- The RED fanboys are trying to justify the mythical Scarlet
- 5D owners are throwing a hissy fit on their lack of 24p
- GH1 owners are suffering from buyer’s remorse,
and I think the HV owners are counting how much cash they have.”

BTW, some directly-out-of-the-camera clips from the 7D, here. The camera is already out of stock in the… pre-order page of Amazon.

(Updated below.)

Online rumors today place Canon 7D’s tomorrow announcement to mention 1080p at 24p/25p/30p, and 720p at 50p/60p. *If* this is true, and if the bitrate used is the same as 5D’s (~40 mbps), then we are looking at the best video dSLR in the market today.

Sure, quality-wise and low-light won’t be as good as in the 5D, but by the time you resize down to 1080p the 18 MP of native sensor’s image capturing, the quality difference will be almost visually eradicated between the two cams. And given that the 7D will purportedly have audio-in, HDMI-out, all the manual controls as the 5D, overall it makes it a better camera (because of the added frame rate choices, which are so important for video).

I already talked to JBQ about the 7D, and he agreed with me that this is the camera I need. This is the major step up I needed over my HV20. And since we already have EOS lenses, it will be a “relatively cheap” upgrade for me.

There is no way Panasonic or Nikon can match any of that in the near future. End of story. Who ever went with the GH1, and its horrendous 17 mbps bitrate, made a mistake (especially since the 7D will have a similar price, according to rumors). Sure, the Panasonic cams have continuous AF, but that’s the only thing they do better, and it’s not enough to save them from the unfortunate situation. The low bitrate, and the need for pulldown removal for its PF24 footage are the reasons I decided to not go for the GH1. I like the products I actually buy to be near-perfect and convenient, and the 7D comes closer to that ideal than the GH1 does.

And I know a lot of people who already have the 5D Mark-II, and won’t be happy if they don’t get the same frame rate support too (although it might be impossible in their case, because of the 5D’s hardware design). Make sure to check the video below, right on the spot about the situation:

I will update this post tomorrow, after getting the real scoop from the official press release and not rumors.

UPDATE: And so the official specs are out. The 7D can do all of what the rumors said, and even more:
1. It now shoots in REAL 24p and real 30p (meaning, 23.976 and 29.97 fps). Canon has just gain my respect back for doing that. It shows that whoever is managing their dSLR department LEARNS FAST.
2. The 7D can shoot at 50 mbps, while the 5D “only” does 42 mbps (compare this to HDV/AVCHD ~25 mbps). This, according to dpreview’s preview article. I will know for sure when I get some real footage directly out of the camera. But so far, it seems that indeed, the 7D has even more bitrate than the 5D! Update: The bitrate is actually 48 mbps. Still, better than in the 5D, and way better than HDV/AVCHD.
3. The camera can do both PAL and NTSC frame rates. This is VERY important for Europeans who want to either shoot 24p/25p slowed-down music videos, or theatrical motion pictures.
4. It costs just $1900 with a kit lens, or $1700 without. This is DIRT CHEAP for what you get for your next video camera. Think that a consumer camcorder like the HF-S10 had an MSRP of $1500, and it is such a bad camera compared to the 7D in terms of visual quality and manual controls. The only thing a camcorder can do better than the 7D is continuous autofocus.

The only thing missing for me though from the 7D, or at least not mentioned in reviews so far, is zebra support. It’s the only additional feature I would like, and it’s easily fixable by software alone.

In conclusion, let me say this: BUY THIS CAMERA. This is NOT ONLY the BEST video dSLR in the market, but also, the BEST video camera/camcorder in both its price range and a price range up to $7000, hands down. So basically, you get an amazing camera, that has SUPERIOR image quality than any of the prosumer camcorders below $7000, it has shallower depth of field, it is smaller, and it costs a FRACTION of what these camcorders do. Sure, prosumer camcorders can do other stuff that dSLRs don’t do, but when taking into account only the BASIC MUST-HAVE features in a video device, the 7D simply does them better.

And let me say something else too. I think that RED with their upcoming Scarlet camera has a huge competitor now. Not only the basic Scarlet model is much more expensive, but it also has a smaller sensor than the 7D. Sure it does 3k, but unless you use it for cropping to reframe a bad shot, *you don’t need* 3k. I think that the 7D is the camera that will give RED a really, really, really hard time in the lower-end market. Jim Jannard, RED’s billionaire and very active in the community founder, already started a forum post complaining about his 5D not having all what the 7D does in video mode. I felt by reading his message that he wasn’t really talking about his 5D (he’s a billionaire anyway, he can buy whatever he wants), but he tried to make existing 5D owners to despise Canon for releasing the cheaper 7D and offering more video features in it. At least, this is how his comment stroke me as. Sneaky. Update: That forum thread is now deleted, hah!.

As for the GH1. It’s a complete joke compared to the 7D. Completely and utterly a joke. 17 mbps and pulldown removal simply kill the usefulness of this camera. Unless you already have a buttload of lenses for it and so it doesn’t make sense to switch to Canon, you better sell the bloody thing and get a 7D. Same goes for any other Panasonic and Nikon existing *or* upcoming camera. They just don’t compare to the 7D. And especially for Nikon, the future looks gloomy since they haven’t been able to do anything useful with video so far. They still use MJPEG for Christ’s sake.

Pre-order a 7D at Amazon.

Geeks.com sent us over the popular Kodak Zi6 digital camcorder along a PEAK 16GB Class 6 SDHC Memory Card, Samsonite C441 mini backpack and a Samsonite TM90BK molded digital camera bag.

The Zi6 is Kodak’s answer to Flip’s ultra-popular line of digirecorders. It is able to shoot in VGA, 720/30p and its main distinctive feature is its ability to also do 720/60p. It can also capture 3 MP interpolated still images.

The Zi6 incorporates a USB male port in its body, so you can connect it to a PC without a USB cable. It has an SDHC card slot, an RCA-out and a component-out. It also wrist-wrap and tripod holes. Finally, there’s a slide-in ON/OFF button, and a macro/normal focus mode for the fixed lens that the camera comes with. On the front of the camera there’s the joystick that controls playback, recording, zooming digitally 2x, volume up/down, and cycling through the various modes. The button on the right switches from recording mode to playback mode, while the button on the left deletes or pauses the currently actively clip when in playback mode.

Overall, there is a good ease of use with the Zi6. The controls are simple and to the point. There are no manual controls whatsoever, or advanced notions. The device does the job as it was designed to do, and adding the 60p feature makes it more valuable than the Flip (even for more advanced video users this can be a useful feature at times).

Quality is what you would expect too, from a low-bitrate 720/60p cam. Not very good and not terrible either (I’ve seen worse). My main complain is that the footage is so over-contrasty that it can’t take any color grading in post. The lens is only a hair better than a good cellphone lens, while the binary nature of the focusing system doesn’t help with shooting versatility. I also noticed that in low-light conditions the camera drops frames (so you will only get a real 60p shot under a very good light). Interestingly, the microphone is not too bad at all, it is in fact better that Flip’s.

Battery life is so-so, with shooting capability of about an hour. The Zi6 comes with the rechargeable batteries and a charging station.

My biggest complaint about the Zi6 is that it doesn’t make sense. Like the Flip, it is a product that offers no value other than ease of use. I placed the Zi6 next to the Kodak V1073 that I reviewed a few weeks ago, and the V1073 is almost half the size! I can’t understand why anyone would buy the Zi6 rather than the V1073, when the V1073 can shoot 720/30p too, it has 3x optical zoom, more controls, and it can shoot very nice (for the price) still images.

So it makes no sense to buy a brick like the Zi6 (or the Flip) when for the same money you can get a real digicam that does the job much better, and it’s physically smaller too! In fact, the Samsonite TM90BK camera bag did not fit the Zi6, but it did fit easily the V1073 and the Panasonic FX150. It fit nicely on the Samsonite C441 bag though, along a dSRL and two lenses.

Overall, the Zi6 has one and only one good point: its 60p ability. If you are in desperate need of some good slow-motion, on the budget, then this isn’t a bad deal. But don’t expect this camera to make it easy for you to shoot small masterpieces like some on Vimeo. It’s possible for some types of videos, but it won’t be easy.