maxotics

HI Zach. H.264 is easier because it's throwing out so much color information and is probably tuned to avoid it.  I don't see it in my D600 H.264 either. Anyway, H.264 is not our objective anyway?   I don't have a 5d3, so I don't know how susceptible to moire it is, but I do know that the higher your resolution the less chance you'll get it and you're talking about a camera that has the electronics to write data at a high enough rate to fix those problems.  If the camera is smart about which pixels it reads, then I believe it can avoid moire, even in full frame.   EDIT: That is the case, as I read here: The Canon EOS 5D MkIII does not skip lines. It reads out all the pixels before downsampling. This results in less Moire patterning and aliasing effects than were present in video from the EOS 5D MkII (which used a line skipping technique). My understanding right now is that the Nikon D800 uses line skipping, though I don't have direct confirmation of that through any Nikon source."   Downsampling all pixels implies large buffers and fast (read expensive, battery sucking) electronics.   So you're right, I need to clarify what I said.  The engineering that goes into making a great stills camera is not the same as what goes into making a good video camera.     I'm not saying that cameras can't be improved.  But I do believe, all things being equal, the physical constraints I mentioned work against a one-camera solution.   I'm even surprised by all the negative stuff I read about the BMPCC.  I mean, a lot of people who should know better complain about the battery, screen, certain optical problems, etc.  If they're that hard on the BMPCC, how will they greet consumer cams that the big manufacturers put out?

Andrew, I think you're overlooking engineering issues that are pulling the market apart, between DLSR for photos, and cameras for video.   A DSLR is designed to use a large sensor to get the richest color from wide angle lenses on up.  The physical constraints of diffraction and focal length cannot be marketed away.  In other words, an APS-C sized and above sensor will provide the  high resolution still photographs, better than any smaller sensor, from MFTs on down (in 4:3) aspect.   What that means, of course, is that you must skip sensor lines to maintain the same focal length (EDIT: 5D3 samples whole sensor to avoid this; electronic requirements may be expensive).  So DSLRs are primarily high resolution photo cameras.  If they don't skip lines they have to use crop mode which increase focal length.  Then you can get moire-less video, but again, at the cost of focal length and you put the lens under great resolving strain.   Yes, the MFT cameras do great video, but mostly because they use small sensors that don't skip lines and are optimized for video.  As photo cameras they are not as good as large sensor cameras, mostly because of physics (of light and sensor design).  No professional photographer would pick an MFT camera over a full-frame.     I'm with you in spirit on the article.  But I think you have to temper expectations with some engineering realities.   I spend every day working on my 50D RAW (which you turned me onto) and an EOS-M.  The real question is whether manufacturers believe there is a market in high color depth, dynamic range in consumer equipment.  I believe there is.  I hope there is!

Quick and dirty, as others have pointed out above, Nikon DSLR is higher quality photos, lower quality video G6 is higher quality video, lower quality photos.

Caption: Great, he gets RAW and I'm stuck with Alpo.   I think you should also do some tests with say the cheap Panny 14mm, or something like that.  Most people, definitely H.264 only shooters, are still not clear on what the benefits of these cameras are.  When you put on a state of the art lens they won't understand what's the lens and what's the camera RAW codec. So keep in mind the poor bloke who has some MFT glass from their GH1 and has finally scrapped a thousand bucks together for this camera.  Or keep in mind the guy who has a GH2, is thinking of the BMPCC and is wondering what the footage will look like using lenses he is familiar with.     Looking forward to the in-depth review!

@jgharding. A pin is bent in my CF card reader. It still works. But it makes me nervous. You can probably buy SD cards and readers at the grocery store. SSD drvies? CF cards?! SOL

  And there's no free lunch!   A couple of days was another illustration of what you're talking about.  A band was playing up the block.  I took my 50D and EOS-M to shoot RAW.  The card immediately filled on the 50D (and later discovered that the file got corrupted so I still haven't been able to view it).  I shot a little RAW with the EOS-M but then figured the kids might want a video on one complete song.  So I put it on H.264, put my toy lens on, and shot the whole thing.   Of ALL the videos I've posted I've gotten the most likes and comments about that one.  And they're all right.  I was having fun.  The camera wasn't getting in the way of what and how I wanted to shoot it.

Dr. Brinkley, my father often said 'black and white is true, color is always fake'.  I tell that to my kids but they just laugh.  I showed my daughter "It Happened One Night", it's one of her favorite movies, but she still fights me on watching others.  Digital cinema is truly mind-blowing.  But it can't get the same look as a good 35mm print.  Whether that "look" is good or bad, it is definitely gone.  Glad to see you're still carrying the torch!

Yes, Ben is right.  I'd almost say, 'If you have to ask what CinemaDNG is you can't afford RAW (mental-health wise, if not financially)."  You have to have a lot of expertise to work with RAW footage, in any format.  It is not watchable by itself.  It looks like a green mess.   I'm not saying it's too hard for you or you're not smart enough.  What I'm saying is that thousands of the World's best video and imaging engineers have spent millions of man hours in creating technology/software that will take a camera's sensor data and make a very pleasing video.  To do that, they throw out a lot of information which you can't get back.  IF, and this is a big IF, you want to get your video to have a certain look you may need some of that information that is in the RAW data.  Again, you "may".   But if you don't need that information, if you need video that looks great to just about EVERYONE, then you're re-inventing the wheel.  Because in the end, you have to get to a video that will play on the equipment everyone uses and which, again, gazillions of dollars have been spent making cameras do that out of the box.   I love RAW because it gives you a high dynamic range that I like.  It's also mostly a hobby.    At this point, you can see lots of RAW clips, but few real productions made with RAW because of all the difficulties mentioned above.   If all this resonates with you I'd get the Canon 5D mark III.  It does decent video out of the box, has lots of lens choices, good video, etc.  IF you want to go RAW you can later on.  If you must have high dynamic range, then I would go with the BM camera, because for those who know they want RAW data-source quality and don't care about photography, that camera makes it easier (but NOT easy).   Hope this helps.

Just curious, Ben.  I have limited experience with green screen, but I eventually decided that it was better to have an evenly lit green screen than a brightly lit one with any shadows, or green reflection on back of subject. (Obviously, best to have both well-lit)   That is to say, I couldn't fix the matte by throwing more and more light on it (but maybe I just didn't try hard enough).  I eventually focused on my subjects and just watched that the green screen wasn't un-even.   Also, I found that a dimly lit green screen, around the edges, could be matted out in post.  So more important that I was lit properly in the center of the frame, both subject and green screen.   If those things are true, might help Olly.  

Not owning either camera, I feel this is my sweet spot of expertise :)  The clips I see from the 5Dmiii are staggeringly good.  ML is probably more stable for that camera because the users are more professional.  HOWEVER, my general experience with ML RAW is that the devs spend 98% of their time on new features and 2% of their time on stability.  So if you are going to use ML RAW, once you have your camera working the way you want it DO NOT CHANGE hacks in the middle of your project.  

I don't know, Dr. Brinkley.  It looks like you haven't seen that new color photography thing they have for portraits ;)  You might get worked up about that :)

That's good to hear.  I'm not sure about this stuff myself since I don't do it professionally.  I just know what I see for myself when shooting.  I haven't shot anything for others where I was able to overcome the headaches you mention with RAW.  When I show that stuff to my wife, kids, friends, I can tell they thinking, 'just humor him.'  I've said above that some of the most fun I've had is with a Panasonic GF3 and that $30 CCTV lens.  Recently, the EOS-M with that lens.    You might consider getting an EOS-M.  They're dirt cheap now.  I take it you have Canon lenses.  Even as an H.264 camera it's no slouch.  Probably work for you as a b-cam, family cam. It has a mic in and true exposure lock.  Also, you can run Magic Lantern RAW and get moire-less video at crop, 1280x720 24fps.  Unfortunately, the focus dot "pink dot" issue is a pain.  But if you have all those lined up, you can get some incredible dynamic range shots with that camera that in "limited applications" can give you clips you can't get elsewhere.  You can also do low frame-rate, higher res shots.     You have a very good point.  The BMPCC is a very limited camera in so many ways.  I can get much of it's quality with my EOS-M and have a fantastic utility-knife camera the rest of the time.  My hope is that Canon releases new cameras that have 35MBS, crop mode, CR2 RAW.  They could do that tomorrow.   BM is making everyone wait a year.  I can probably wait another ;)

  HI, I watched your reel.  Very nice!  You're a professional and, as a tinkerer,  I'm not going to tell you your business :)     However, if you don't mind, I think you're letting certain COMPLETELY justified frustrations get in the way of your adopting this technology.   In my experience (and again, i qualify that as a hobbyist), grading is not the primary benefit of RAW.  After all, as you point out, nothing happens if you can't get the rightly lit, prepared shot in the first place.   Also, bit-rate is a price you pay for RAW, it is not a reason to do it.  Again, you're right about everything, but... (baby with bathwater?)   RAW gives you is the look of natural lighting and skin tones.   Have you worked with a RED, Alexa, BM, Magic Lantern RAW, etc?  If you have, and if all the negatives you talked about were not there (for the sake of argument) which image would you prefer?  I believe, looking at your reel, that you, especially, would prefer RAW shooting.  You shoot natural light, often single source, with much shadow detail.  You're not gimmicky.   Please don't take offense, but I believe you would have lowered the contrast in many of your videos, if you could have.  The video cameras you use make images artificially bright because that's what the CODECs are tuned for to write at certain bit-rates.   I'm not here to question you.  I'm here to say, give them a try.  Don't let a bunch of knuckleheads cloud your judgement.  Everything you say is true, but if may not matter once you fairly balance the pros and cons.  I leave you with a poem that I read when younger, about others who had creative blind spots:   A Pact I make a pact with you, Walt Whitman -  I have detested you long enough. I come to you as a grown child Who has had a pig-headed father; I am old enough now to make friends. It was you that broke the new wood, Now is a time for carving. We have one sap and one root -  Let there be commerce between us.  Ezra Pound

  That's a pretty bold statement "half of the BMPCC".  How do you do that?  The patches for the Panasonic cameras seem to have to do more with removing artifacts, sharpness and inter-frame compression than color depth.  That's been my limited experience.  So I'm very doubtful of that claim, but I'd LOVE it if it were true!     Can you tell me what patch you use to get half the dynamic range of a BMPCC?  I have not seen any GH2 footage that even comes close to the Blackmagic cameras or ML RAW (judged by dynamic range and color nuance, not sharpness).  Can you point me to some links?  I've asked this question, over and over, and no one seems to have an answer except use a flat profile or set sharpness and contrast all the way down.     I've tried.  I haven't got it to work in any significant way.

I've been into photography since my early teens.  Had my own darkroom, mixed my own chemicals, etc.  I don't remember when my first life-changing experience was in photography, but I remember my 2nd.  A few years ago, after a lot of research, I bought a used Sigma DP1.  It was the first time, in digital photography, that I was able to take photographs that had that film look (I won't go into that here, we all know).  Obviously, I didn't have a full-frame before that camera.   My 3rd  life-changing event was a month ago when I took this short clip of my wife with a Magic Lantern hacked 50D   https://vimeo.com/72159787   Now I was getting video that looked like film (yes, I shot Super-8 and a little 16mm back in the day).     If I could buy a BMPCC today I would.  Will it bring me to tears?  Yes, just like the Sigma DP1.  I went through many cycles of wanting to sell the DP1, but finally decided I'd rather have 1 great photo out of 10 then 8 good photos out of 10.   it's the same with video.  I'd rather shoot 2 minutes of RAW video that I know I will love forever, then 20 minutes on another camera.   This isn't to say I won't shoot H.264.  I had a blast shooting this on my EOS-M with my $30 c-mount Fujian yesterday   https://vimeo.com/75122636   All this is a long-winded way of saying, you are right.  This is like the DSLR revolution--for video!   Once your project is finished, I'll be curious to see if you can really go back to H.264 ;)

  I loved your write-up, Olly.  What I'm about to say applies to all the reviews I read about these cameras.     It would be nice, I think, if we all agreed (again, please, this isn't pointed at you Olly) that high-dynamic range video is ALWAYS going to require very large batteries for professional shoots.  It's just the physics of the thing.  The camera uses small batteries because it is meant to give you a few minutes of near state-of-the-art video quality in a camera you can put in your back-pack.  That said, of course, very helpful to know how one's workaround went, when shooting professionally.  It sounds like your rental house put you in harm's way here.   Memory cards.  Again, nature of the beast.  Professional cards are very expensive.  Will that ever change?   I quoted your line about DSLRs because, except for the 5D III, no camera can do what that camera does.  And the BMPCC is less than one third the price!   I've been doing Magic Lantern RAW on a 50D and an EOS-M.  Just yesterday I was shooting a band for fun and "Bob's your Uncle, the song isn't even finished" the card filled out and I had to go home.  The battery was half drained.   Again, what I'd love to see everyone agree on, is that the memory and battery requirements of these cameras will always be high.  At least in the foreseeable future.     1.  You need, say,  $7 per minute in memory+battery costs.  Of course, you can reuse, re-charge your batteries, but if you're expecting to shoot, say 60 minutes straight, that would be $420.  Perhaps someone else can come up with a better metric.     2. Autofocus will never be a real option for serious work.   3. The GH3, and ALL H.264 consumer cameras can never be a substitute for high-dynamic range footage AS high-dynamic range footage. I'm not saying you can't shoot Casablanca on a GH3.  However, to compare a GH3 against that camera is like comparing a a full-frame against a point-and-shoot.  You're talking about say, a 40 megabyte stream vs a 10 megabyte stream (if not less).  In still photography, would you accept a camera with a sensor one quarter the size of your full-frame?  Not trying to start a war here.  This is fact.  As BurnetRhoades said, a 220Mbit codec. OF COURSE your director was miffed ;)   Again, I loved your review.  But let's all move beyond what are becoming very well-known facts about ALL camera setups of this type. Blackmagic, Magic Lantern RAW, Digital Bolex, and the other expensive stuff Andrew gets to play with these days    You can't take an extra SD card out of your wife's P&S and go out to play.  And you certainly wouldn't take her camera ;)

Until a better answer comes around.  Formatting on the computer allows it to write special "boot" files that will boot from the card.  The EOScard utility will do this.   Formatting in the camera allows the camera to put the directories it expects exactly where it needs/expect them, like DCIM, etc.  

History repeats, over and over again.  Cameras may be able to shoot 4K resolution, but I doubt it will be much different than 1080p, just more pixels without color depth (as others have said above)   I remember when Sony BetaMax came out.  It was great.  Then Panasonic came out with VHS, which was horrible.  No one in their right mind, who compared the quality of BetaMax and VHS, would pick VHS.  Of course, BetaMax was more expensive.  Then the joke was on Sony.   Panasonic came out with VHS recorders that did 8 hours.  Never mind that the quality was un-watchable.  Everyone bought VHS to copy movies off cable, and to save money, using either 4,6, or 8 hour recording qualities.  In short, the public chose convenience over quality.  It was goodbye BetaMax and ANY profit for Sony.     Any manufacturing person in this business for any length of time knows the consumer market is about ease-of-use, bright colors, long zooms, "most" [megapixesl, fill in blank...], and low cost. etc.  Look at instagram!  I digress...   The same problem that did in BetaMax (which favored high bit-rate quality over low-bit rate convenience) would do in any real change in what people spend money for in a video camera.  My guess is that the only thing stopping Panasonic from releasing firmware that allows GH3 RAW is that fact that they keep prices at consumer levels by buying chips, memory, batteries, etc., that assume, at best, a  (100 megabits) 12.5 megabytes write rate.   Increasing the write rate on any camera DEMANDS.   1. Faster more powerful cpus 2. more buffer memory 3. faster IO writing 4. larger batteries (speed drains energy) (additional expense consumer pays) 5. faster, more expensive end-user cards (additional expense consumer pays) 6. faster, more expensive computers to process (additional expense)   Changes in any one of those things can end up with bad reviews from customers who don't understand the trade-offs, etc.  Look at the Nikon D600.  More resolution than Canon.  Then a few specs and now the camera is camera-non-grata.   That is to say, even if the camera can write 38 megabytes per second to an SD card, like the EOS-M, it would get negative reviews by people complaining it doesn't work with their card.  Also, 1280x720 would be the max you'd get.  Are you going to choose crop mode and end up with a long focal length or skip lines and deal with moire?  Try to get any normal person interested in that conversation!   Also, keep in mind, and this cracks me up.  All these people buying those cheap Komputerbay cards.  Andrew pointed out the risk.  Does anyone listen?  I'm sure they want to buy the brand cards, but again, this is the real world of consumer electronics.  Money is tight and manufacturers forget that at their peril.   I've been doing a lot of RAW on the Canon 50D and EOS-M.  Let me tell you, the camera gets hot!  I can shoot 8 minutes on a $65 CF card.  But I'd BE AFRAID to shoot 8 minutes straight.     It remains to be seen if people ever get used to carrying around 50 batteries with their BMPCC.  It remains to be seen, once RAW is more mainstream, if there is enough demand.     The simple fact is high dynamic range video requires brute horsepower.  I see no way around it.  For the manufacturers.  For us.

As far as I know, white balance is recorded, and can be used in post, but it not necessary because RAW is capturing each red, green and blue pixel data and saving it.  It is truly RAW, unpackaged, unadulterated.  All the picture style stuff is only used by the in-camera JPEG/H.265 processing.  In fact, that's the first thing one notices about RAW.  Not sharp and color bland.    In post production you can pick which color is white and the software will adjust every other color in relation to that.  But most people go way beyond that!     In fact, there are a lot of decisions you need to make before you can even start creating a watchable video from your RAW data.     Hope this helps until someone more knowledgeable comes along :)

The Komputer Bay cards are essentially factory seconds.  Some work fine, others don't.  That's in Andrew's guide and was happy he warned me about it.  I just bit the bullet and bought a brand-name (Toshiba in my case) 16GB 1000x for $65.  If you can return it, do so and pay for name brand card.  There are enough headaches in this stuff, as you're experiencing ;)

No problem with MLV except you'll need to convert to RAW first to take easy straight to Cineform route.  You can choose which to shoot in your camera by which module you choose to load, raw_rec, or raw_mlv.  (MLV will be better in future, but right now, really gives no benefit.)   If you don't have the on-off button turned all the way up past 'on', to line above, you can't change shutter speed.  I know, it's a crazy irritation ;)  Anyway, quick fix.  

Yes, Andrew's guide is fantastic.  However, the guide someone insinuates that you have to use Resolve or Adobe products, etc to appreciate RAW.  Obviously, Andrew was excited and out slaying the "RED One" dragon  :)   What I suggest is you take your RAW files (make sure you don't shoot MLV for now), open them in RAWanizer, and output to Cineform 422 directly.  You don't even need to create the DNG files and TIFF files.   You can use these settings to improve the CODEC to its maximum (a little sharpening and quality increase)  f is framerate:   "{OutputVideoName}.avi" -422 -d4 -f24 -q5   Then take the Cineform AVI file and put it in your NLE.  Just add a little contrast (because it takes a while to get used to low contrast images in this video age).  You can also boost the saturation a little, maybe sharpen.   I know many of you will laugh at what I'm saying.  But I believe even RAW to Cineform with a few tweaks blows any consumer H.264 out of the water.  It won't look sharper, but it will look more natural, life-like, nuanced.   The best qualities of film.   Save anamorphic for later.   Save your RAW files of course.  You can always work with them again in other software to get the most out of them.   Hope this helps!

They want to sell what they can develop relatively easily, CODECs and chips, instead of what really diminishes the quality of most video, from production to display--low dynamic range and as NTSC used to be mocked as, "Never The Same Color" twice.  That said, I doubt consumer video will change much, in that regard.  Data requirements just too high.  What Panasonic could do is allow Vitaliy to hack the GH line into producing RAW video.  Doubt that would ever be a press release though!

Isn't it well known that the 50d has aliasing issues in non-crop mode?  Did you shoot anything in crop mode?  Of course, 5x crop makes getting a good wide angle on the 50d very difficult.   I don't know why you'd sell your 50.  The body isn't worth a ton and there are many things the 50d can do, with and without ML, that the BMPCC can't (I assume).    These tests are very useful.  I actually thought your test a positive one about how good the 50d is, compared to one's empty mailbox ;)

The more I read this thread the more I agree with Paulio.  Get the Gh2, a very active community both on EOSHD and PersonalView.  I have a $100 GF3 and I think it probably takes better video than the 7D.  I have that camera with a $30 Fujianan lens and it's a blast!  For straight video, Panasonic gives the best bang for the buck.   RAW is VERY, VERY difficult and expensive.  I've been working with it for a month and I think the minimum you need is 50D, $400, 10-20mm lens, $500, 16GB 1000 card, $65, external sound recorder, $100, a fast i7 PC, a terabyte external hard drive.  You should know something about ffmpeg in my opinion and basic photo editing.  Experience using a NLE is mandatory of course.  You should know what DNG is.   Lastly, if you don't have a clear reason why you want RAW you don't want it.   I seriously think of quitting it every few days.  And I've been working with video for decades.     Again, those Panasonic cameras do fantastic stuff.  Even with my RAW stuff, I have the Panasonic nearby when I need a sanity check.