THE BEST OF CANON 5D4 IS THE CANON 5D3

[Katrikura]

Hello

I'm new to the forum, however I reviewed periodically since 2 years ago, this is my first post. (sorry for my bad English)

I think the best launch of the Canon 5d4 camera is the Canon 5D3 camera, I mean, apparently there is a lot of expectation regarding the characteristics of 5d4, but as already seen, this should not compete on features with existing 1DC or 1DXii, therefore we 4k, but that new 420 and other characteristic.

Because I say that the best of this release is the 5D3, obviously we should expect a price drop and see how abounded in the used market, as people will want to quickly migrate to the latest model, as is the trend.

Currently the guys Magig Lantern, are working (as they always do) to try to reduce the weight of the video files on Raw, as this is their main limiting due to the ability of writing on compact flash cards. Projects to reduce the size of these files are:

MLV Lite http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=16650

12-bit (and 10-bit) RAW video http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.0

While both papers are under development, there are already some progress and knowing how to work in this community, I am sure that in a short time, we will have these new features available to the community, thus decreasing the file sizes, we can work in higher resolutions, example: Raw Raw 12 bit or 10 bit 2.5k 4k (I'm just speculating), but I think we went over there. So I think that when this is done, we comparisons on RAw 5D3 5D4 vs 12 bit, and we can anticipate what will be the winner.

Another interesting project is the ML community MLVProducer, which allows direct editing of the raw files magic lantern: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=15271.0

Just I wanted to share these ramblings with this community.

Finally I think ESOHD and Magic Lantern, are very similar because they are focused on sharing knowledge about the equipment to serve cinematography and new uses we can give them, so do not get discouraged Andrew, because it effectively, Facebook, is eating content sites like this, but do not contribute anything to the creation of new knowledge, as this is achieved through the exchange and discussion, as is the case here and ML, I also believe that people like Mattias Burling, They contribute in this direction, making analysis such as the JVC LS300.

Long life to EOSHD

Greetings from Chile

Katrikura

[BrorSvensson]

Im excited to buy an mark ii when the mark Iv drops. I know a lot of people who skipped the upgrade to the mark iii because of the not to big changes. I think the mark ii will hit <500$ mark.

[Nikkor]

19 minutes ago, BrorSvensson said:

Im excited to buy an mark ii when the mark Iv drops. I know a lot of people who skipped the upgrade to the mark iii because of the not to big changes. I think the mark ii will hit <500$ mark.

I will get one then, it's a fun camera, the design is so primitive I like it.

[BrorSvensson]

9 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I will get one then, it's a fun camera, the design is so primitive I like it.

the raw video out of that camera is also really something else.

[ricardo_sousa11]

1 hour ago, BrorSvensson said:

Im excited to buy an mark ii when the mark Iv drops. I know a lot of people who skipped the upgrade to the mark iii because of the not to big changes. I think the mark ii will hit <500$ mark.

Had the chance to get one with 49k clicks for 650€, with grip, batteries and 4 8GB CF cards, regret not taking it, have been lurking ebay ever since to try and get something like that, if I find one at 500€ I'll jump on it right away.

[BrorSvensson]

48 minutes ago, ricardo_sousa11 said:

Had the chance to get one with 49k clicks for 650€, with grip, batteries and 4 8GB CF cards, regret not taking it, have been lurking ebay ever since to try and get something like that, if I find one at 500€ I'll jump on it right away.

there's a couple here in sweden selling for 600$, its pretty easy to get one for that price

[Katrikura]

although the price is an important factor, most importantly, are the creative possibilities and offer, due to the depth of color and beauty of raw images.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

The raw hack of the 5D is something unique, simply because the company will take at least two or more geberations of the 5d to reach what the 5dIII is capable of in terms of pure video QUALITY. 

The next generation will definitely have more resolution, as in improve on one element of quality leaving the rest intact (colours, 8bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, rolloff) while the 5D RAW still will have superior colour, 14bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, falloff, just better iverall, aside from one element, less resolution. 

Think about it, if 2K is enough for you, you donlt need moore detail, then there is absolutely no other camera on the market todsy or tomorrow that will give you the 5D 14bit enormous 16+ thousand gradations of each colours they will all give you 256 gradations of colours but more pixels. 

The differebce is HUGE bdtween an image element containing 16 THOUSAND coloyr gradients vs one with 256, the 8bit image will always have that special plastic signature that's immenselly apparent and non filmic when viewed side by side 14bit, the green leaf looks more natural, not a green block, but has all those tiny tiny variations of green and brown and yellow that you can touch and see with your hand when grading the RAW image, much much more realistic and natural and filmic feel, because that's what film had, tons of gradients and we associate it in our minds with film, while 8bit is well, compression, a digital substraction of colours to reduce your file weight, while it can look very good when performed on the final delivery stage after all your manipulation and after you've chosen what to put in that final 8bit container, it's very destructive when perfornaed on the initial shot files and grading and recompressing just destroys the natural colour rendition. 

After all these years of technologic advancement even by CANON I see no other camera making the filmic colours and image structure of the 2009 5d II image in raw. Why does it look so unique and identifiable ? Because it's started with 14bits of colours. Not a coincedense that the only other camera giving the similar filmic image is one that shoots 12bit, blackmagics. 10bit? Not so much, it's nearly identical to 8bit. Welre talking about 256 gradients in 8bit, a thousand in 10bit, 4000 in 12bit, 16000 in 14bit, it's not that 10bit is similar to 8bit just because it's more than 8. Something many forget or don't know. 

Want a camera with an image that can go to theatrical projectiom in cinena, be viewed side by side the 2k Alexa, kodack film? A used 5D MKII with a mosaic Aliasing filter and ML RAW s the cheapest way toget there. You can buy a sony a6300 at the same cost and it will give you more resolutiin, but it will look absolutely worse projected against these cameras at 2k. However, for nature stick footage to be put in a UHD store, the more resolution of the a6300 will be much more desirable than natural colours or lack of compression blocks or fine grain structure. Just saying ts different cameras for different outputs. 

I am shooting the 1DC for what, 2months now? I have shot the 5D III RAW for a similar period and i can definitely say the 5d pure image is the one I would choose to shoot with a narrative feature film for prijection, while I LOVE the 1DC image for everything else, yes it can nail narrative, but the 5d FF RAW image is just one step ahead of the 1.3x APSH 4k 8bit image, it's exactly, exactly the same difference you see when shooting photographs in RAW VS JPEG on a canon DSLR (The 5d shoots the same image 14bit raw format and the 1dc shoots the same 8bit jpeg format). While i think JPEG can look BEAUTIFUL , RAW is simply a higher league of film quality. 

All the camera manufacturing companies and all the consumer audience are chasing one mesely element of image quality and abandoning the many other ones that actually make a bigger impact on quality. Image quality is proven by the 5D III RAW to be WAY more than just HD+ PIXELS! It's lack of digital compression that destroys fine colour gradients (bit depth), high dynamic range that lets us see MORE OF the imsge being projected, the smooth roll off to highlights and shadows, the noise amount AND noise structure and fine size and randomness vs Fixed pattern digital noise, it's bit rate and how it destroys the moving element edges msking blocks around their edges hoping viewers don't see , it's the lack of chroma subsampling that cuts colour information in half and in quarter giving stair stepping pixels on each colour subject in the image again hoping the viewer won't notice, it's the sensor size and depth of field amount, it's thr lebs rendition of detail and background/foreground, the lens bokeh look, flare look, colour temperature, distortion, fringing, 

and we leave ALL OF THIS and just improve on one element? Higher resolution? What genius came up with that decision? ENOUGH. 2K is enough (see alexa and c300 and  5d raw resolution at large size screens and determine by yourself)) 4K is DEFINITELY more than enough. STOP right there at 4k. Now improve upon the long list of image quality elements you've been ignoring for years!

[sanveer]

27 minutes ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

The raw hack of the 5D is something unique, simply because the company will take at least two or more geberations of the 5d to reach what the 5dIII is capable of in terms of pure video QUALITY. 

The next generation will definitely have more resolution, as in improve on one element of quality leaving the rest intact (colours, 8bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, rolloff) while the 5D RAW still will have superior colour, 14bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, falloff, just better iverall, aside from one element, less resolution. 

Think about it, if 2K is enough for you, you donlt need moore detail, then there is absolutely no other camera on the market todsy or tomorrow that will give you the 5D 14bit enormous 16+ thousand gradations of each colours they will all give you 256 gradations of colours but more pixels. 

The differebce is HUGE bdtween an image element containing 16 THOUSAND coloyr gradients vs one with 256, the 8bit image will always have that special plastic signature that's immenselly apparent and non filmic when viewed side by side 14bit, the green leaf looks more natural, not a green block, but has all those tiny tiny variations of green and brown and yellow that you can touch and see with your hand when grading the RAW image, much much more realistic and natural and filmic feel, because that's what film had, tons of gradients and we associate it in our minds with film, while 8bit is well, compression, a digital substraction of colours to reduce your file weight, while it can look very good when performed on the final delivery stage after all your manipulation and after you've chosen what to put in that final 8bit container, it's very destructive when perfornaed on the initial shot files and grading and recompressing just destroys the natural colour rendition. 

After all these years of technologic advancement even by CANON I see no other camera making the filmic colours and image structure of the 2009 5d II image in raw. Why does it look so unique and identifiable ? Because it's started with 14bits of colours. Not a coincedense that the only other camera giving the similar filmic image is one that shoots 12bit, blackmagics. 10bit? Not so much, it's nearly identical to 8bit. Welre talking about 256 gradients in 8bit, a thousand in 10bit, 4000 in 12bit, 16000 in 14bit, it's not that 10bit is similar to 8bit just because it's more than 8. Something many forget or don't know. 

Want a camera with an image that can go to theatrical projectiom in cinena, be viewed side by side the 2k Alexa, kodack film? A used 5D MKII with a mosaic Aliasing filter and ML RAW s the cheapest way toget there. You can buy a sony a6300 at the same cost and it will give you more resolutiin, but it will look absolutely worse projected against these cameras at 2k. However, for nature stick footage to be put in a UHD store, the more resolution of the a6300 will be much more desirable than natural colours or lack of compression blocks or fine grain structure. Just saying ts different cameras for different outputs. 

I am shooting the 1DC for what, 2months now? I have shot the 5D III RAW for a similar period and i can definitely say the 5d pure image is the one I would choose to shoot with a narrative feature film for prijection, while I LOVE the 1DC image for everything else, yes it can nail narrative, but the 5d FF RAW image is just one step ahead of the 1.3x APSH 4k 8bit image, it's exactly, exactly the same difference you see when shooting photographs in RAW VS JPEG on a canon DSLR (The 5d shoots the same image 14bit raw format and the 1dc shoots the same 8bit jpeg format). While i think JPEG can look BEAUTIFUL , RAW is simply a higher league of film quality. 

All the camera manufacturing companies and all the consumer audience are chasing one mesely element of image quality and abandoning the many other ones that actually make a bigger impact on quality. Image quality is proven by the 5D III RAW to be WAY more than just HD+ PIXELS! It's lack of digital compression that destroys fine colour gradients (bit depth), high dynamic range that lets us see MORE OF the imsge being projected, the smooth roll off to highlights and shadows, the noise amount AND noise structure and fine size and randomness vs Fixed pattern digital noise, it's bit rate and how it destroys the moving element edges msking blocks around their edges hoping viewers don't see , it's the lack of chroma subsampling that cuts colour information in half and in quarter giving stair stepping pixels on each colour subject in the image again hoping the viewer won't notice, it's the sensor size and depth of field amount, it's thr lebs rendition of detail and background/foreground, the lens bokeh look, flare look, colour temperature, distortion, fringing, 

and we leave ALL OF THIS and just improve on one element? Higher resolution? What genius came up with that decision? ENOUGH. 2K is enough (see alexa and c300 and  5d raw resolution at large size screens and determine by yourself)) 4K is DEFINITELY more than enough. STOP right there at 4k. Now improve upon the long list of image quality elements you've been ignoring for years!

I have NEVER really figured this one out. 

Nikon images seem to be far more acceptable to heavy grading. I suspect that the 14-bit is limited to ML, and for photos, most Canons are still 12-Bit. Some serious f@ckup with Canon's image processing team. 

Also, I am curious whether the Panasonic Cameras (especially the 4k ones) will be able to handle RAW (Atleast 12 bit), with a hack. I don't know why, but I find that the Panasonic cameras seem to have a lot more potential than the Canon ones. IMO. 

 

[Nikkor]

48 minutes ago, sanveer said:

I have NEVER really figured this one out. 

Nikon images seem to be far more acceptable to heavy grading. I suspect that the 14-bit is limited to ML, and for photos, most Canons are still 12-Bit. Some serious f@ckup with Canon's image processing team. 

Also, I am curious whether the Panasonic Cameras (especially the 4k ones) will be able to handle RAW (Atleast 12 bit), with a hack. I don't know why, but I find that the Panasonic cameras seem to have a lot more potential than the Canon ones. IMO. 

 

I think the reason nikon raw images don't fall apart as much as canon's is because the shadows are cleaner, as soon as you start going crazy with clarity,etc... you bring up a lot of noise. But if you overexpose, or expose to the right on the Canons you can get a lot out of those files (nikon cameras don't like overexposure, I made the test long time ago and it screws up too fast compared to canon.

[Oliver Daniel]

1 hour ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

The raw hack of the 5D is something unique, simply because the company will take at least two or more geberations of the 5d to reach what the 5dIII is capable of in terms of pure video QUALITY. 

The next generation will definitely have more resolution, as in improve on one element of quality leaving the rest intact (colours, 8bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, rolloff) while the 5D RAW still will have superior colour, 14bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, falloff, just better iverall, aside from one element, less resolution. 

Think about it, if 2K is enough for you, you donlt need moore detail, then there is absolutely no other camera on the market todsy or tomorrow that will give you the 5D 14bit enormous 16+ thousand gradations of each colours they will all give you 256 gradations of colours but more pixels. 

The differebce is HUGE bdtween an image element containing 16 THOUSAND coloyr gradients vs one with 256, the 8bit image will always have that special plastic signature that's immenselly apparent and non filmic when viewed side by side 14bit, the green leaf looks more natural, not a green block, but has all those tiny tiny variations of green and brown and yellow that you can touch and see with your hand when grading the RAW image, much much more realistic and natural and filmic feel, because that's what film had, tons of gradients and we associate it in our minds with film, while 8bit is well, compression, a digital substraction of colours to reduce your file weight, while it can look very good when performed on the final delivery stage after all your manipulation and after you've chosen what to put in that final 8bit container, it's very destructive when perfornaed on the initial shot files and grading and recompressing just destroys the natural colour rendition. 

After all these years of technologic advancement even by CANON I see no other camera making the filmic colours and image structure of the 2009 5d II image in raw. Why does it look so unique and identifiable ? Because it's started with 14bits of colours. Not a coincedense that the only other camera giving the similar filmic image is one that shoots 12bit, blackmagics. 10bit? Not so much, it's nearly identical to 8bit. Welre talking about 256 gradients in 8bit, a thousand in 10bit, 4000 in 12bit, 16000 in 14bit, it's not that 10bit is similar to 8bit just because it's more than 8. Something many forget or don't know. 

Want a camera with an image that can go to theatrical projectiom in cinena, be viewed side by side the 2k Alexa, kodack film? A used 5D MKII with a mosaic Aliasing filter and ML RAW s the cheapest way toget there. You can buy a sony a6300 at the same cost and it will give you more resolutiin, but it will look absolutely worse projected against these cameras at 2k. However, for nature stick footage to be put in a UHD store, the more resolution of the a6300 will be much more desirable than natural colours or lack of compression blocks or fine grain structure. Just saying ts different cameras for different outputs. 

I am shooting the 1DC for what, 2months now? I have shot the 5D III RAW for a similar period and i can definitely say the 5d pure image is the one I would choose to shoot with a narrative feature film for prijection, while I LOVE the 1DC image for everything else, yes it can nail narrative, but the 5d FF RAW image is just one step ahead of the 1.3x APSH 4k 8bit image, it's exactly, exactly the same difference you see when shooting photographs in RAW VS JPEG on a canon DSLR (The 5d shoots the same image 14bit raw format and the 1dc shoots the same 8bit jpeg format). While i think JPEG can look BEAUTIFUL , RAW is simply a higher league of film quality. 

All the camera manufacturing companies and all the consumer audience are chasing one mesely element of image quality and abandoning the many other ones that actually make a bigger impact on quality. Image quality is proven by the 5D III RAW to be WAY more than just HD+ PIXELS! It's lack of digital compression that destroys fine colour gradients (bit depth), high dynamic range that lets us see MORE OF the imsge being projected, the smooth roll off to highlights and shadows, the noise amount AND noise structure and fine size and randomness vs Fixed pattern digital noise, it's bit rate and how it destroys the moving element edges msking blocks around their edges hoping viewers don't see , it's the lack of chroma subsampling that cuts colour information in half and in quarter giving stair stepping pixels on each colour subject in the image again hoping the viewer won't notice, it's the sensor size and depth of field amount, it's thr lebs rendition of detail and background/foreground, the lens bokeh look, flare look, colour temperature, distortion, fringing, 

and we leave ALL OF THIS and just improve on one element? Higher resolution? What genius came up with that decision? ENOUGH. 2K is enough (see alexa and c300 and  5d raw resolution at large size screens and determine by yourself)) 4K is DEFINITELY more than enough. STOP right there at 4k. Now improve upon the long list of image quality elements you've been ignoring for years!

Oh bloody hell. 

Now you've got me interested in ML 5D mk II. I've never used it for raw video. Kind of like the idea of using an "old dinosaur", adds to it in some emotional way. 

The manufacturers have skipped making 1080p near perfect in favour of brittle, highly compressed 4K images. What we are getting is insanely high resolution images with poor compression artefacts - when what we need is lovely 1080p with thick, chunky images.

Ive got other raw cameras on my radar, and maybe this 5D II for fun! 

 

[Kino]

Ebrahim,

Why stop at 14 bit? Surely, the Sony F5 is "better" with true 16 bit RAW. I'm sorry, but paper specs mean nothing to me, just as if you put the FS7's 10 Bit 4:2:2 S-log3 image next to the 12 bit RAW you get from the same sensor in the FS7 or FS700, you will see that the S-log3 image has far more dynamic range. Not all RAW is created equal and the implementation of RAW can vary dramatically from one camera to another.

The 1DC 4K image in C-Log is for me the most amazing video image I have ever seen from a DSLR. Perhaps the Leica SL with its 10 bit 4K 4:2:2 external will give it a run for its money as it also has Log, but I've barely seen any footage from that camera at all. The 5D 2K RAW is fine for HD applications. However, I would never choose that above the 4K 1DC. For future proofing, at the very minimum you must shoot in 4K nowadays. My personal view is that my next camera should shoot in 5K (for effective downsampling to 4K, as a CMOS Bayer sensor should only be rated at 75% of its listed resolution) or that it should resolve an amazing level of detail in 4K such as with the 1DC and 1DX II.

[Inazuma]

What is the RAW like of the 5D2 vs the 5D3? And how about vs something like the BMPCC?

[Katrikura]

3 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Oh bloody hell. 

Now you've got me interested in ML 5D mk II. I've never used it for raw video. Kind of like the idea of using an "old dinosaur", adds to it in some emotional way. 

The manufacturers have skipped making 1080p near perfect in favour of brittle, highly compressed 4K images. What we are getting is insanely high resolution images with poor compression artefacts - when what we need is lovely 1080p with thick, chunky images.

Ive got other raw cameras on my radar, and maybe this 5D II for fun! 

 

Dear Daniel Oliver: Initially I felt I had to make a tedious process to convert raw files, but eventually felt I was working as a craftsman, because although it was a long process, I have total control over the final result.

5 hours ago, Ebrahim Saadawi said:

The raw hack of the 5D is something unique, simply because the company will take at least two or more geberations of the 5d to reach what the 5dIII is capable of in terms of pure video QUALITY. 

The next generation will definitely have more resolution, as in improve on one element of quality leaving the rest intact (colours, 8bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, rolloff) while the 5D RAW still will have superior colour, 14bit, codec, grain, dynamic range, falloff, just better iverall, aside from one element, less resolution. 

Think about it, if 2K is enough for you, you donlt need moore detail, then there is absolutely no other camera on the market todsy or tomorrow that will give you the 5D 14bit enormous 16+ thousand gradations of each colours they will all give you 256 gradations of colours but more pixels. 

The differebce is HUGE bdtween an image element containing 16 THOUSAND coloyr gradients vs one with 256, the 8bit image will always have that special plastic signature that's immenselly apparent and non filmic when viewed side by side 14bit, the green leaf looks more natural, not a green block, but has all those tiny tiny variations of green and brown and yellow that you can touch and see with your hand when grading the RAW image, much much more realistic and natural and filmic feel, because that's what film had, tons of gradients and we associate it in our minds with film, while 8bit is well, compression, a digital substraction of colours to reduce your file weight, while it can look very good when performed on the final delivery stage after all your manipulation and after you've chosen what to put in that final 8bit container, it's very destructive when perfornaed on the initial shot files and grading and recompressing just destroys the natural colour rendition. 

After all these years of technologic advancement even by CANON I see no other camera making the filmic colours and image structure of the 2009 5d II image in raw. Why does it look so unique and identifiable ? Because it's started with 14bits of colours. Not a coincedense that the only other camera giving the similar filmic image is one that shoots 12bit, blackmagics. 10bit? Not so much, it's nearly identical to 8bit. Welre talking about 256 gradients in 8bit, a thousand in 10bit, 4000 in 12bit, 16000 in 14bit, it's not that 10bit is similar to 8bit just because it's more than 8. Something many forget or don't know. 

Want a camera with an image that can go to theatrical projectiom in cinena, be viewed side by side the 2k Alexa, kodack film? A used 5D MKII with a mosaic Aliasing filter and ML RAW s the cheapest way toget there. You can buy a sony a6300 at the same cost and it will give you more resolutiin, but it will look absolutely worse projected against these cameras at 2k. However, for nature stick footage to be put in a UHD store, the more resolution of the a6300 will be much more desirable than natural colours or lack of compression blocks or fine grain structure. Just saying ts different cameras for different outputs. 

I am shooting the 1DC for what, 2months now? I have shot the 5D III RAW for a similar period and i can definitely say the 5d pure image is the one I would choose to shoot with a narrative feature film for prijection, while I LOVE the 1DC image for everything else, yes it can nail narrative, but the 5d FF RAW image is just one step ahead of the 1.3x APSH 4k 8bit image, it's exactly, exactly the same difference you see when shooting photographs in RAW VS JPEG on a canon DSLR (The 5d shoots the same image 14bit raw format and the 1dc shoots the same 8bit jpeg format). While i think JPEG can look BEAUTIFUL , RAW is simply a higher league of film quality. 

All the camera manufacturing companies and all the consumer audience are chasing one mesely element of image quality and abandoning the many other ones that actually make a bigger impact on quality. Image quality is proven by the 5D III RAW to be WAY more than just HD+ PIXELS! It's lack of digital compression that destroys fine colour gradients (bit depth), high dynamic range that lets us see MORE OF the imsge being projected, the smooth roll off to highlights and shadows, the noise amount AND noise structure and fine size and randomness vs Fixed pattern digital noise, it's bit rate and how it destroys the moving element edges msking blocks around their edges hoping viewers don't see , it's the lack of chroma subsampling that cuts colour information in half and in quarter giving stair stepping pixels on each colour subject in the image again hoping the viewer won't notice, it's the sensor size and depth of field amount, it's thr lebs rendition of detail and background/foreground, the lens bokeh look, flare look, colour temperature, distortion, fringing, 

and we leave ALL OF THIS and just improve on one element? Higher resolution? What genius came up with that decision? ENOUGH. 2K is enough (see alexa and c300 and  5d raw resolution at large size screens and determine by yourself)) 4K is DEFINITELY more than enough. STOP right there at 4k. Now improve upon the long list of image quality elements you've been ignoring for years!

Dear Ebrahim:
                                Some time ago I read an interview with the famous DP Vittorio Storaro, where he said it was more important to have greater color depth, which have higher resolution. What you raise, points in that direction. Thanks for taking the time to do such a detailed comment.

[Andrew Reid]

You're certainly right about the 5D2/3 raw, it's a thing of beauty, some of the best 1080p you can get.

If you want even more dynamic range take the OLPF / AA filter out of the 5D3.

Should give you an extra stop in the shadows and the colour balance shift is actually quite pleasing, but would be easy to correct from the raw files.

I'm thinking of getting a 5D3 again, in a way I do miss that image. I have the 5D2 and it's very good but the 5D3 seems to be where the current ML development effort is centred.

[kidzrevil]

How do you guys transcode and edit your 5d raw files ?

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

9 hours ago, Oliver Daniel said:

Oh bloody hell. 

Now you've got me interested in ML 5D mk II. I've never used it for raw video. Kind of like the idea of using an "old dinosaur", adds to it in some emotional way. 

The manufacturers have skipped making 1080p near perfect in favour of brittle, highly compressed 4K images. What we are getting is insanely high resolution images with poor compression artefacts - when what we need is lovely 1080p with thick, chunky images.

Ive got other raw cameras on my radar, and maybe this 5D II for fun! 

 

The 5D MKII is lower than full 1920x1080p so needs upscaling a bit. It also has horrendous moire and aliasing due to the nature of the sensor downsampling method (line-skipping), therefore needs a quite not-so-cheap Anti aliasing filter to be placed inside the lens mount (making the camera only usable in liveview as the mirror cannot come down with the filter installed, thus you have to remove-reinsert the filter if you use it for stills, and it's an amazing FF stills camera that you'll want to use it I promise. It also has no slowmotion raw capability or 2K + resolutions. 

It IS very pretty and very close image wise to the 5D IIi RAW, but if you want to have more than an experimental camera and have a production ready FF raw camera, I advice very much stretching for a used 5D MKIII. 

The image has no aliasing or moire straight off the box, has at least 2 stops lowlight advantage, is sharper (Card can write the full 1920x1080 raw continuous plus the downsampling of the sensor is pixel binning rather than the line-skipping on the 5DII, this makes the MKIII overally a clearer modern-standard 1080p (C100/300 standard). The Feature and overall Magiclantern development is more stable and is performed by the top ML mods, plus there seems to be other great featurea coming in the future. 

 

I wouldn't worry about a 5D IV at all becauae we all know it's not going to shoot 14bit Raw 444 internally and will be a different kind of camera (8bit UHD most likely) without all the usability features ML provides. 

 

As I said earlier it will take canon a few generations to catch up to the 5DIII feature set and 14bit 444 raw image quality aside from reaolution. 

[squig]

4 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

I'm thinking of getting a 5D3 again, in a way I do miss that image. I have the 5D2 and it's very good but the 5D3 seems to be where the current ML development effort is centred.

a1ex is working on Magic Lantern for the 7D MK2. The 7D MK2 raw image looks slightly softer than the 5DMK3, but it might be a tad better in low light. I can't find any rolling shutter measurements for the 7D MK2 but I think it might have a faster readout than the 5D MK3. The 7D MK2 also has 1080p 60p and is of course cheaper than the 5D MK3. It could be a pretty awesome S35 package.

As for the 5D MK4: fanboy fodder. H.264 is so 2009.

[squig]

5 hours ago, kidzrevil said:

How do you guys transcode and edit your 5d raw files ?

You can either edit the MLV files directly in Resolve or Premiere using MLVFS http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13152.0, or transcode to DNG in MLP http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=13512.0, or transcode to ProRes in MLP or AE, and cut in your preferred NLE.

 

[ricardo_sousa11]

18 hours ago, BrorSvensson said:

there's a couple here in sweden selling for 600$, its pretty easy to get one for that price

Really ? where can I find ? Is there a specific ebay ?