EOSHD grades the Blackmagic camera raw CinemaDNG files

[Shawn_Lights]

Going to have to disagree with you about the inside shots being ugly and the grain looking like digital. I think it's the total opposite.

All have different taste.

[unadog]

[quote name='Shawn_Lights' timestamp='1345779100' post='16362']
Going to have to disagree with you about the inside shots being ugly and the grain looking like digital.
[/quote]

Well, I come from a fashion photography background. The face was ugly, in both the RAW and the grade. I probably could not get beyond that. The lighting was harsh, deep furrows in the brow, etc. And that is not just a product of the resolution.

The grain, well ... not sure what to say. Again, maybe my large format (4x5 or medium format), ISO 100 fashion background. It is hard to seperate the technical from the overall look. There is a lot that goes into a good image.

I did love the look of Shot 3.

[jcs]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345760598' post='16337']
- 5D3 is 720p at best. It is nowhere near a 1080p camera let alone 2.5k
[/quote]

How do you know this? The 5D2 was rated around 700 lines (from a line chart), that's horizontal lines pairs, equaling 1400 pixels. Thus, 1400x788 resolution.
The 5D3, from my and Jason's chart tests is at least 800 lines, to my eye it's 850, or 1700x956 resolution.
Folks will argue about first aliasing artifacts and the detail extinction point- that's why I'm asking for charts for all cameras, so we can make unbiased relative comparisons between cameras (where each person can define their own first artifacts and extinction points).

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345760598' post='16337']
- The codec has tons of mosquito noise in the lows and mids
[/quote]

As shown in multiple tests, the ALL-I codec which you prefer is indeed (sometimes) problematic for high detail, low motion scenes. The IPB codec does a much better job. A firmware update could improve both codecs. More info along with images: [url="http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278746-ALL-I-vs-IPB-IPB-Wins"]http://www.dvxuser.c...vs-IPB-IPB-Wins[/url]

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345760598' post='16337']
- The sensor still skips too much data
[/quote]

If the sensor skipped too much data, we'd have aliasing. The 5D3 is one of the best cameras to prevent aliasing. I would agree that the image is perhaps over filtered (smoothed) to protect upline cameras, or perhaps binning (averaging, low pass filtering) causes the same effect (Canon has not posted a whitepaper on how the video is processed). Post sharpening works great to undo the strong AA. If the 5D2 is good enough for the internet, TV, and the big screen, the 5D3 is even better. What does this have to do with the BMC? Nothing- responding to your comments about the 5D3. The BMC is another tool with its own pros & cons.

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345760598' post='16337']
- The noise grain is blotchy
[/quote]

Here's ISO 12800, shot in almost complete darkness at the House of Blues, Sunset Strip: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbzF2e5beS4[/media]
processed to be much brighter than what the eye sees. It was a bit noisy: Neat Video works great. Where's the blotchy noise? What does this have to do with the BMC? It's something it can't do- extreme low light (the sparkler example is very bright in comparison). Did you add noise or is the noise in the bright example BMC images from the camera? A clean image allows one to add noise grain of choice in post when desired.

Reasonably sharp, detailed, and alias free even after youtube compression? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkFmhKoUEv4[/media].
Vimeo- with original MP4 download: [url="https://vimeo.com/39124220"]https://vimeo.com/39124220[/url]

Each camera has strengths and weaknesses. The BMC will certainly fill a need. One of its greatest strengths for some is a deal breaker for me: raw and associated file size, processing, and data management. I would much prefer H.264 444 10-16 bit (long GOP). The spec supports it. Even H.264 422 10-bit would be great. Nature favors efficiency. The quality from 50Mbps long GOP 422 8-bit is amazing. H.264 efficiency recently doubled: [url="http://phys.org/news/2012-08-mpeg-codec-halves-bit.html"]http://phys.org/news...halves-bit.html[/url].

[Andrew Reid]

Regarding raw and associated file size and data management. You want H.264 4-4-4 10bit long GOP? Well you have it with raw, just convert. You don't need to archive 10TB of raw files if you don't want to.

The only thing that takes more time with raw is transcoding it to an editing proxy. You don't need to grade it all if you don't want to, just bake a DSLR style picture profile into it at the transcoding stage then do the normal light 5D Mark III grading with the Fast Colour Corrector in Premiere. Also you conveniently forgot to mention the internal ProRes recording option.

The 5D Mark III at ISO 12,800 is incredibly soft. The noise on the BMD is not destructive like it is on a DSLR. You are getting less than 600 lines of res at ISO 12,800 on the 5D Mark III and all the Neat Video or turning NR off in-cam will not bring it back. Because the noise is blotchy and compressed and the sensor is skipping too much data to deliver its faux 1080p. I mention the sensor downscaling because it is absolutely KEY in where the 5D Mark III fails. Downsampling if you do it well is actually beneficial, nobody not even you would claim it helps the 5D Mark III's video quality. Downsample one of the 22MP JPEGs in Photoshop and compare it to a video frame - and do it to a wide angle shot with lots of trees or something not a close up shot. You will see a huge difference.

I don't see this mystery IPB codec advantage some claim over the ALL-I codec. It just looks a bit more compressed. Because it is. I am convinced some people may actually be a little bit blind or at least imagining pixels!

Do you have a link to Jason's chart test of the 5D3? If you don't it is no problem, because I think it proves nothing.

Use eyes. Point them at screen.

[jcs]

AFAIK- [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]H.264 4-4-4 10bit long GOP isn't supported yet- perhaps someday soon.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]I'd believe 600 lines at ISO 12800 if you could show it with a line chart. The example I posted is sharp enough given the conditions.[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Again the 5D3 isn't skipping pixels, else we'd see aliasing. Soft due to binning (averaging, but not skipping pixels) is likely. Averaging pixels is low pass filtering (cuts high frequencies: detail).[/font][/color]

[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Downsampling a still frame and comparing to a video still is something I have been recommending for a long time. It shows what is possible with the sensor, given enough processing power. I agree that cameras advertised as 1080p should actually provide 1080p, or 1000+ "TV Lines" (horizontal line pairs). There has been confusion regarding 1080p and specs of 1000+ TV Lines: 1080p refers to vertical resolution and and 1000+ TV Lines refers to horizontal resolution. To honestly capture 1920 pixels, we need at least 960 TV Lines (horizontal line pairs).[/font][/color]

Here again is Jason's ISO 12233 line chart test: [url="https://vimeo.com/39517721"]https://vimeo.com/39517721[/url]. Post sharpening is fair to remove the effects of the strong AA filter. If someone posted a line chart for the BMC it would show the relative performance differences between the cameras in terms of resolution, acuity, and aliasing.

My $700 (when new a few years ago) Panasonic TM700 is at least 100 lines more resolution than the 5D3 (~900 line pairs). It does great in bright light, but degrades rapidly as light diminishes.

ALL-I:
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/16978/50370de5de8e7_ALLIsm.jpg[/img]

IPB:
[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/16978/50370e0a9cd38_IPBsm.jpg[/img]

Full sized images here (mid page): [url="http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39999"]http://cinema5d.com/...hp?f=30&t=39999[/url]

[Xiong]

Wait... are we debating about a 2.5K 12-bit RAW camera with a 5D Mk.3? Am I not seeing something? Im not entirely the tech guy when it comes to this stuff, but the 12-bit RAW alone sold me on this camera, no more gimped color space. The only thing the 5D had going for it was its low light and full frame. Two of which are not that important to me, using the high iso of a 5D seems like a last resort kind of thing. 2.5K is perfect for 1080p video, alot of leg room if you need to crop or stabilize shots in post.

Im sorry but looking at the footage of the BMCC, it looks quite phenomenal to anything ive seen from a 5D. Am I not seeing it correctly? I loved the grain as well, its not what you'd get from a GH2 or 5D, which is more purple square blotched noise then film grain.

This is my thought, you get 2.5K with good RAW codec and 13 stops of dynamic range compared to a 1080p (which could be questionable if its 1080p) soft image(which can be sharpened in post) full frame camera. Both around the same price? You'd be mad not to got for the BMCC! Its the obvious choice! No more recording limit, more input/output options.

Either we're really nitpicking here or im just not smart enough to see the bigger picture.

[bwhitz]

[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1345781766' post='16364']
The quality from 50Mbps long GOP 422 8-bit is amazing.
[/quote]

Not in terms of motion quality. I can always spot the crappy look of Long-GOP encoding. Temporal compression on captured footage will always look cheap. And then 8-bit color-space? Don't even start on that... 8-bit can look good... but never "great". And it's not even worth talking about in the same breath as 12-bit color space.

[cameraboy]

this guys are best camera testers u can find on the net ...
http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III----alles-.html
their results show no more than 600 lines for 5D3...

[Pierre_move]

Ah c'mon people. The relatively short DSLR era for shooting real good video is slowly ending. Finally again the video cameras will be for shooting videos and still cameras (DSLR's) for taking stills. It's just way too problematic to cross these two things into one without problems.

Long live the BMC, Kineraw and Bolex*! Thanks for freeing us from the goddamn DSLR's. Finally :)

And Canon producing a similar camera some day? Well yes of course.. the technology progresses, cpus get more powerfull, displays getting more hires and of course the sensors get more DR, resolution and less noise as the time goes on. You would be retarded not to have a 4k raw video even on a compact digital camera one day with so much powerful hardware being available from so many companies for a dime.

But Canon successfully attacking the cheap cinema camera market at this moment?? Naaah.. what bothers me is most that the C300 is cool but it still has the "canon" colors and not enough DR. It's the taste of the "color science" department in that company that makes me feel uneasy during editing. Same goes to Panasonic and Sony. It's no wonder the big guys go to Alexa or Red - those cameras have a specific more neutral "taste" (ok there was a change with Epic for Red) which even the old school guys like. It will take some time until the other big companies will understand this that they have to provide a more neutral look without them putting too much of their own juices into it.

[unadog]

[quote name='Pierre_move' timestamp='1345801259' post='16390']And Canon producing a similar camera some day? Well yes of course.. the technology progresses, cpus get more powerfull,
[/quote]

I am not convinced that Canon has released their video-centric, pro-sumer follow-on to the 5D2 yet.

The 5D3 is a really great, all around stills camera, with somewhat improved video (still probably the best all around DSLR video, with the D800 about/almost tied.)

The T4i is a pretty nice, entry level stills camera, with about the same quality as the $8,000 1DsII from 2004, at 1/10 the price, $800. It has decent video, a few newer features that are first out of the gate on a Canon DSLR that will show up on later models - touch screen, face tracking, silent auto focus for video, integrated phase detection. But it is a consumer stills camera.

The Canon EOS M mirror-less is for non-photogs explicitly (a repackaged T4i), although it will bed a nice form factor for video.

The big question is whether Canon releases the Big MP Full Frame camera next this fall, because of the D800 (they have had one in test for years), or the little brother to the Canon 1DC, with all of the "free", firmware related features that they can put in, but fewer of the higher end, high priced features - processors, memory, bandwidth, etc. that cost real money.

The BMC is a great idea. We all know that something like the 18MP chip in the $800 T3i/T4i, along with the dual Digic 4/5 processors in the now $1,100 Canon 7D, are **perfect** for video, if handled correctly: offloading of the sensor, downsampling, compression or not, HDMI out, codec, bit rate, etc.

As a still photog, I have shot RAW+JPEG for 10+ years. RAW for most final images. JPEG in sRGB, Picture Style, Sharpened, etc. so that I can post 800 fashion images to the web within 3 hours of a shoot, for the models to review, so that they can learn what they look like, etc. Or so that I can throw 20+ top selcts right out of the camera to the web. We obviously don't have RAW yet.

We need both! We need GREAT+ images, straight out of the camera, 99% baked and ready to use for the client & ourselves & for the web. We can't afford daily rushes and hours of processing every day when we are already workinhg 12 hours, and a good colorist/editor/tech is just as expensive as the DP.

But we also need highest quality, malleable, 12 bit, high data rate files, for best "artistic" or "contemplative" work.

It's coming. In bits and pieces from different directions. FS100, FS700, C300, C500, 1DC, BMCC, GH3, .....

Cheers!
Michael

[unadog]

The overall issue, I think, is that a camera is a whole "ecosystem", basically the basis of your "Brand/Style/Look." Who you are, what you are "selling" to the client or marketplace.

Going back to the 1DsII days again, I remember pro's that had been using the 1Ds complaining that it took them 1 year to find the "look" that they wanted with the the 1Ds. Damned if tehy were going to upgrade to a new camera, and have to spend another year just to find what they were looking for in the next camera ...

(The 1DsII was the first camera that made me stop shooting 6x7 negative film on my Mamiya's: the first all around digital camera that was really **there** to do pro work. We do not have the equivalent DSLR video camera to that 2004 still camera yet - maybe within the next year?)

That, to me, reflects the "ecosystem" from an artistic standpoint. It isn't auto focus, or frames per second, or AdobeRGB, or sRGB, or 8 bit or 12 bit, RAW or JPEG, in camera sharpening or post sharpening - IT IS ALL OF THAT TOGETHER, plus the photog/DP/director.

We have to be just like other artists picking tools. Pick up a camera. Learn it. Find what you like - a color, the way it renders a certain blue, red, green. A sharpness or blur, the way it smears around the edges (Holga, old lenses, etc.) Build on that. Explore. Devise a project, mood, feel, look, esthetic. Learn the tool so that it becomes intuitive. I probably shot a minimum of 40,000 images a year on the 1DsII until I knew exactly what I wanted out of that camea, for my work, and exactly how to get it.

You can use any camera currently out there if it accomplishes what you want to do. there is no one camera that is best for anything.

The BMCC is a niche camera in many ways in the "DSLR" market.

First - obviously - no stills!

That is either:

[indent=1]1) good,[/indent]

[indent=1]2) bad, or[/indent]

[indent=1]3) irrelevent. [/indent]

For me, I bought the 5D3 recently mostly because I needed High ISO still images in low light. I also like the autofocus in low light for stills.

So the question isn't: $3,000 for the BMCC, or $3,000 for the 5D3.

It is: $3,000 for the 5D3, full stop. Then for video:

Can I justify another $3,000 for video? Are the incremental improvements worth the depreciation of XXX per year ($1,000 first year, $450 second is my guess on the BMCC)

Will I also need a full video camera like the FS100? XH-A1? Should I just buy one of those, and add the GH2? T4i? or the BMCC? What is the total cost of my video kit?

Rambling - gotta run. I hope that reads OK.

Michael

[HurtinMinorKey]

What are the chances Canon puts out a 5D-C (@ $4000) with 1080 raw?

[Andrew Reid]

[quote name='HurtinMinorKey' timestamp='1345857689' post='16447']
What are the chances Canon puts out a 5D-C (@ $4000) with 1080 raw?
[/quote]

Well considering the $15,000 1D C doesn't have raw, zero %.

It is 8bit MJPEG!

[HurtinMinorKey]

^I guess in order for it to be "raw" it (5D-C) would have to be 14-bit too, right?

The 5D-C still woulnd't be 4k. Also it wouldn't have the slick sensor readoff like the c300 to reduce aliasing and jell-o. It's probably just wishful thinking, hoping Canon will pull through.

Kinda like that time I thought Star Wars Episode I had a chance to be good..... :angry:

[lafilm]

Andrew,

I hear ya. For $3 grand you're right. The Blackmagic cannot be beat. I guess I'm pumped about the new 4k because of the DSLR form factor (and some other cool things the cam does) but it is 5 x as much cash. I cannot argue with that statement and the Blackmagic does look incredible for that price point.

[plotter]

Not to dig up an old thread, but I think this video clearly shows the BMCC's superiority over the 5D3.

 

https://vimeo.com/49875510