0
goobersnuftda

Why did Canon sell out for MOV files?

Recommended Posts

Man, I hate, hate, hate MOV files. With Canon being the #1 digital camera in the world, why on earth did they sell out and use MOV files for their HD video on their DSLR's.

Wife's camera is a T2i, I have a 7D and another person at the DZ has a 5D. Everyone is swearing their heads off at the stupid apple MOV HD video files it creates.

Converting MOV files to a more useable format is unacceptable. Each and every time you convert something some quality is lost. I love my Sony CX150 (AVI of course) but the Canon 7D has the ability to shoot HD video at 60 fps for awesome slow motion sequences. Then that stupid apple MOV files are the only thing the damn camera puts out.

Even the apple people hate quick time. It is a crappy player. Every apple person I know installs and uses VLC.

Proof in point... what a HUGE pain in the *** Apple is. Just die already.

Premiere Pro or other NLE

I can not belive how horribly complicated this MOV file format is. Why on earth continue to support it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.mov is just a container.
Like bitching about the bag your grocery store uses.

It's AVC, and that's the beauty/bane of how these cams work. It's still a shit format that happens to allow for quality on the cheap.
The conversion process....lame. Transcoding...THERE is the Apple problem. Not a PC problem; Premiere, Vegas, Canopus...all edit from the original content.
Conversion is only necessary if you're really seriously pushing pixels around. Otherwise...edit native (caveat; if you have a slow/old computer, transcode)

Nothing wrong with the .mov container. It offers quite a few benefits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


Converting MOV files to a more useable format is unacceptable. Each and every time you convert something some quality is lost.



1. Technically, yes, some quality is lost during conversion from *.mov to ProRes for FCP, but can you REALLY tell the difference?
2. For quick and dirty edit, you can drop the *.mov files directly into FCP. You won't be able to scrub real time, but no conversion!
3. I like conversion (Log & Transfer) because I can trim the footage accordingly, keeping only the good stuff on the hard drive. It really doesn't take that much time, unless it's for tandem, where every second counts.

Bill
http://www.4dbill.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote


Converting MOV files to a more useable format is unacceptable. Each and every time you convert something some quality is lost.



1. Technically, yes, some quality is lost during conversion from *.mov to ProRes for FCP, but can you REALLY tell the difference?


Yes


Quote

2. For quick and dirty edit, you can drop the *.mov files directly into FCP. You won't be able to scrub real time, but no conversion!


It's *very* kind of Apple to allow us to sorta half-ass see our footage, even if we can't edit it and output it.


Quote


3. I like conversion (Log & Transfer) because I can trim the footage accordingly, keeping only the good stuff on the hard drive. It really doesn't take that much time, unless it's for tandem, where every second counts.



Otherwise, who cares about losing something by accident, when every other NLE on the planet allows you to keep the original file structure, metadata, etc. All that unimportant stuff just doesn't matter. :S Not to mention the loss of quality, loss of time. Who cares about time when we have non-linear editors that echo the time expense of Moviola/Steenbeck workflows and editing decisions that can't be re-visited once the source is gone.:D:D


It is AMAZING to me how people can defend something based on its branding and pretty vs output, speed, quality, creative ability, metadata, portability, flexibility, shareability....simply because it looks cool.
I once married a drop-dead gorgeous woman. She was a bitch, couldn't cook, stupid as a donkey, but damn...she looked cool on my arm.
Curiously enough, her name was Lisa (same as my first "big" Apple system).

Anyway....if you want speed, don't want to lose time/quality in a convert, use any editor except FCP.
As far as .mov...again...just a container. If it were AVC in an AVI container, Mac people would bitch, too.
.MOV is easily crossplatform compatible.

I don't mind the container at all. It's everything else being said that annoys me. That said...we used to bill by project. Thanks to FCP, we can bill by the hour now. We do love working in FCP when the client is paying by the hour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


As far as .mov...again...just a container. If it were AVC in an AVI container, Mac people would bitch, too.



Oh yes I do agree but when it comes to keeping the world flowing in the easiest most efficient way possible, is it better to please the 5% of the world only to tick off the 91%? It should be the other way around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote


It is AMAZING to me how people can defend something based on its branding and pretty vs output, speed, quality, creative ability, metadata, portability, flexibility, shareability....simply because it looks cool.
I once married a drop-dead gorgeous woman. She was a bitch, couldn't cook, stupid as a donkey, but damn...she looked cool on my arm.
Curiously enough, her name was Lisa (same as my first "big" Apple system).



DSE,
I, too, personally do not care for Apple since they are more about projecting sleek image than having an actual meaty content, but MacBook Pro what bought a couple of years ago for a job, and it's the tool presently use for editing. It does the job well for what I use it for. There always is something better beyond the horizon, but instead of focusing on its weaknesses, I utilize it fully for what it CAN do, because my resources are not unlimited.
Obviously, DSLR/FCP combo is not your preferred choice, if you had one system to deal with, but it gets the job done well for thousands of editors, including me. It's not the fastest, but it really doesn't have to be. My Acura Integra gets me to/from DZ. It’s not very fast, and I don’t have the latest GPS that tells me the most efficient way to get there according to the latest traffic report, but I am content just getting there and back, reliably and smoothly. In other words, it gets the job done, well within my spec.
Shooting and editing is all about the final product. Will most people make better movies, much faster, if they use Sony camcorder/Vegas vs. DSLR/FCP? Most likely not.
Creating good movie is not all about whipping out a quick tandem video in 4-5 minutes. I, as in many other hobbyist and semi-professionals, have one camera and an editing station. It’s all about the final product. Does FCP produce sucky product compare to Sony Vegas? Not really. Is it really THAT much slower the Vegas? Not really. Many many beautiful shorts and movies are created with Apple FCP. I don’t think too many of those editors felt held back, either in limiting artistic expression or by time constraint.
OP was complaining about Canon’s choice of file encoding and Apple’s choice of file conversion. They are set in stone at the moment, and there is nothing we can do to change them. It should not, however, prevent us from creating excellent products.
There are many choices of tools out there and we should use them as best as possible. We all have reasons for choosing, and one isn't necessarily better than the other, especially if both get the job done well within the expectation.

Oh.. isn't it against the forum rule to bad-mouth an ex? :)
Bill
http://www.4dbill.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

It’s all about the final product. Does FCP produce sucky product compare to Sony Vegas? Not really. Is it really THAT much slower the Vegas? Not really. Many many beautiful shorts and movies are created with Apple FCP. I don’t think too many of those editors felt held back, either in limiting artistic expression or by time constraint.
OP was complaining about Canon’s choice of file encoding and Apple’s choice of file conversion. They are set in stone at the moment, and there is nothing we can do to change them. It should not, however, prevent us from creating excellent products.



I disagree.
It's about the time, cost, and creative energy expended in getting from concept to finished content. This isn't a hobby for me. It's a way of life, and editing has been my career in either audio or video for 3 decades plus. I don't have time to fuck around with codec conversions when there is a deadline looming, and I approach tandem and skydiving vids with the same concept. Putting up short vids every other day on FB would be impossible with FCP, simply because of the slow conversions, renders, and edit steps that I can do in a 99.00 tool in minutes, straight off the camera. Then I store the project with selects (same as FCP does with log/transfer, except I'm never converting, and metadata stays intact (which it does not/cannot with FCP).

*Anything* that carries a cost in the above is a detriment. Anything that hampers the creative process due to unnecessary effort/time/roadwork is unacceptable when there are other standards.

And you truly think Vegas isn't _that_ much faster than FCP....put me up against say...Billy Goldenberg He's a pretty fast/good editor (wait...we already did that, and doing it again in Tel Aviv next month). ;)

What acquisition formats have you worked with that you'd feel comfortable comparing to AVC from a DSLR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I sent a request through the Canon technical help form to see what Canon's answer and rational was behind the MOV format. I wanted their best option to convert the MOV file to an AVI format that is much, much more user friendly and mostly compatible with the rest of the world.

In the end, I was run around the bush for a bit and when the yapping stopped, they disappeared without answering anything. I think the Tech's at Canon should run for political office :)

================

Thank you for contacting Canon product support regarding the video file format used in our EOS Digital SLR cameras. We value you as a Canon customer and appreciate the opportunity to assist you.

Thank you for your input. Here at Canon, we take feedback like yours very seriously, and I will make sure that your comments are submitted to our suggestion box for review by our management team. Thank you for taking the time to write to us about this, and please do not hesitate to submit other suggestions or comments in the future.

Please let us know if we can be of any further assistance with your EOS 7D.

Thank you for choosing Canon.

Sincerely,
Dirk
Technical Support Representative
==========================

I guess some people can make a whole career out of CTRL CTRL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I sent a request through the Canon technical help form to see what Canon's answer and rational was behind the MOV format. I wanted their best option to convert the MOV file to an AVI format that is much, much more user friendly and mostly compatible with the rest of the world.



The first statement just isn't true.
AVI is a container (paper bag that contains labeled groceries)
MOV is a is a container (paper bag that contains labeled groceries)
Install quicktime (free) and every NLE on the planet will edit it natively (well...not the company that developed Quicktime:D, they want a conversion first). It's funny, because back in the days of Road Pizza, Apple intended to make Quicktime ubiquitous and capable of editing, playing, encoding everything under the sun. They did a good job (IMO) of having it open everything, regardless of whether it's on Windows or Mac.
Get QT Pro and you can render to several other codecs. IMO, it's worth the 30.00 to own the Pro version.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Though part of what you say is true, I see your quote from above:

Quote

*Anything* that carries a cost in the above is a detriment.



The reason why PC's are #1 in the world at 92% (apple at 5%) and Android at 37% (apple at 27%) is due to cost and the ability to be open and free from constantly paying licensing fees. CNet Video of top 5-really good

Making a video present then "opening the wrapper" to change the format is free for AVI. The apple "wrapper" you just get to keep everything the same but have to pay $30 for each computer you want to use to change the format for the other 92% that the world uses. Apple .... a company for the shareholders NOT the computer user. Awesome company for scamming $$$, the reason why AVI is everywhere for free. If you could have wrapping paper that you to open, change, edit, convert etc. and rewrap for free why on earth would you pay $30 for wrapping paper that allowed you to do the same thing?

In a way I guess I answered my own question. The reason why Canon sold out to loser apple is for $$$. apple knows damn well that they will make $$$ for people who want to get away from the stupid MOV format and move into the 92% of the world. Canon gets a little "somethin -- somethin" for signing that contract.

I know that Canon would never put the proper warning on their #1 brands of DSLR cameras though.

"WARNING, in order to keep the price of this camera down, we have taken $$$ from apple and you are forced to putz around with the MOV format. If your name is not "Stephen Speilberg" and you can not shoot a 100% perfect video on each and every take, you will have to pay apple $30 for each person and computer that uses this camera and wants to edit the video to a format 92% of the world accepts for free. Please take that into consideration when looking at the compeditors HD video format (Sony CX HD cameras) which are right beside this box"

I know I may sound bitter and harsh but come on. To be the #1 DSLR camera in the world and to be just about the best there is then as you run the 100 yard dash you stop 1 foot from the finish line because you "got lazy and took a payout" is such a sad thing to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you don't need QT Pro to open/edit/read these files. It's FUD to suggest people NEED it. Extra benefit...yes. But the free version of QT offers the same quality as the 30.00 version, just fewer benefits.

Share this post


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.

0