Camera advice. Best image, ignore rest. $3000

[hyalinejim]

Not sure if there are any concise and up to date videos @fuzzynormal, as things tend to be a bit fluid in the Magic Lantern world. But this is a quick and easy workflow, once you get it set up:

1. Virtually mount MLV files with MLVFS  (this is just takes a few minutes)

2. Import resulting CDNGs directly into Resolve for immediate editing - OR transcode to Log 444 masters and edit elsewhere. Resolve transcodes very quickly.

I'm finishing up a 17 minute short doc from 6 hours of footage using a similar method to this, except I use After Effects to transcode. This is the slow method that you might have used before. The debayering in Adobe Camera RAW through After Effects is slightly better than Resolve. My doc is destined for festivals so I want to squeeze every last drop of goodness out of the files that I could. But if I'm doing a corporate job with a fast turnaround I'll let Resolve do the transcoding. The quality loss is minimal - Camera Raw just has slightly different colours, better noise handling, better highlight reconstruction and lens corrections. You'd want to be looking fairly hard to spot the difference.

Hey, if you want to mess around with an MLV to test it out and don't have a ML camera to hand, here's a file that's just a few seconds long:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9cgtnim7zwfmj71/5d3%20ML%20samples.zip?dl=0

[fuzzynormal]

8 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

1. Virtually mount MLV files with MLVFS  (this is just takes a few minutes)

2. Import resulting CDNGs directly into Resolve for immediate editing - OR transcode to Log 444 masters and edit elsewhere. Resolve transcodes very quickly.

Thanks.  I'll continue to dabble with my 5D with option 1, but, as I understand it, anytime there's a transcode going on as mentioned with option 2, you've pretty much baked in your image by doing the encoding, so you wouldn't be able to pull effectively in the grade, which is the whole idea with RAW files; lots of post control.  Shooting RAW for a direct transcode kind of defeats that purpose, wouldn't it?

Which is something the OP should keep in mind.  What workflow would they be aiming for with the $3K camera?  Maybe the OP wouldn't mind dealing with RAW.

[hyalinejim]

Also bear in mind that in option 2 above I mentioned editing the CDNGs directly in Resolve - no transcoding is required here. You could also edit them directly in Premiere but its debayering is shit.

Regarding the robustness of log masters, simply transcode to a high quality 444 codec and you're in business in terms of being able to push the grade later. You can even pull white balance wildly on it without degrading the image, if you should ever need to. This is why Andy600 made Cinelog C - it's the next best thing to the RAW files themselves.

Cinelog C master:

LUT applied:

 

LUT + Cool WB

 

LUT + Warm WB

 

Curves to show retention of highlight detail (here you would get better results directly from the DNG, but who is going this far in a grade?):

 

Curves to show retention of shadow detail:

 

Cinelog extracts as much info as possible from the DNG and packs it in a 13.5 stop container with a Cineon curve and Alexa Wide Gamut primaries. Or you can debayer into BMDFilm or Alexa colorspaces and gamma in Resolve if you wish. It's all starting to sound a bit complicated now! My point is that there are many workflows and options with pros and cons in the Magic Lantern world. But once you settle on one that works, you don't need to think twice about it.

[Dan Wake]

if you want raw don't get 5d. is very hard.

imho get blackmagic ursa mini 4.6k

 

trust me you cant use 5dmiii raw for pay works. the risk of problems is too hight. then is only 1080p.  if you shoot crop for 2k you have slow fps liveview: almost useless. trust me do not get 5d raw if you need to work with it.

 

[mercer]

How is the FS5 with Raw upgrade? Hell, how is 10 bit 1080p internal with sLog3?

[dbp]

3 hours ago, fuzzynormal said:

I'd love a URL link to a video outlining useful workflows so I could get a better handle on it.  Maybe the path I'm on is the wrong one. 

Also, perhaps it's because I'm shooting docs, that dissuades my embrace of the RAW workflow.  When the shooting ratios of the footage to final cut are so high, the process of manually "touching" every single clip to get them into the project is just too impractical.

Based on how I've been understanding it, the "quick" RAW workflow doesn't deliver a big advantage IQ wise, and the "slow and simple" / "laborious" option are out for reasons stated.

But, please, if anyone has an example of a RAW solution that would jibe with doc shooting, my goodness, I'd love to see a video.  Thanks! 

Can't speak on 5D raw, but honestly, the only thing holding back blackmagic pocket raw from being viable is hard drive space. RAW compatible memory cards have really fallen. Couple of 256gig cards would get you almost 80 minutes each. The footage runs really smoothly in resolve. I often shoot corporate videos, and I load the clips in resolve first. Whip through them with a basic grade, export them out and use them in premiere. They cut like butter in both instances, and I have a pretty old computer at this point. If you wanted to do extensive grading, it'd take more time... but for your standard real world looking color correction, it's super quick. You get a ton of lattitude, quality is excellent and workflow is barely impacted at all. 

Hard drives would absolutely add up with a ton of footage but that's gonna happen with any decent codec in 4K as well. Price you pay for quality, really. 

[Geoff CB]

37 minutes ago, mercer said:

How is the FS5 with Raw upgrade? Hell, how is 10 bit 1080p internal with sLog3?

Supposedly it is excellent. But at that price point your getting into URSA 4.6k territory. If you can afford it, that camera is incredible (though storage media/viewfinder can kill the "affordability")

[hyalinejim]

2 hours ago, Dan Wake said:

trust me you cant use 5dmiii raw for pay works.

 

Many people can, and do. Myself included.

[mercer]

31 minutes ago, Geoff CB said:

Supposedly it is excellent. But at that price point your getting into URSA 4.6k territory. If you can afford it, that camera is incredible (though storage media/viewfinder can kill the "affordability")

Yeah, way out of my price range, but maybe in a couple years it can meet me halfway. 

[fuzzynormal]

2 hours ago, dbp said:

for your standard real world looking color correction, it's super quick. You get a ton of lattitude, quality is excellent and workflow is barely impacted at all.

Thank you for the advice.  I'll continue to play with RAW and see if I can get to a place that I'm comfortable with.  The 444 examples give me hope.  Potentially:  Shoot RAW, transcode to 444, create proxies in Premiere from that, edit, grade, export.

2 hours ago, dbp said:

I load the clips in resolve first. Whip through them with a basic grade, export them out and use them in premiere.

I suppose that's the extra step that bugs me.  I want to grade completely after the cut, not at all before.

Anyway, I've hijacked the thread, so I'll bow out...

[dbp]

1 minute ago, fuzzynormal said:

Thank you for the advice.  I'll continue to play with RAW and see if I can get to a place that I'm comfortable with.

I suppose that's the extra step that bugs me.  I want to grade completely after the cut, not at all before.

Anyway, I've hijacked the thread, so I'll bow out...

It is annoying. I dearly wish either premiere would be able to handle cinemaDNG properly, OR have Resolve become a suitable editor. Honestly, I'd rather the 2nd option, as resolve's color grading is excellent. I've thought about experimenting with Resolve as a main editor, but haven't pulled the trigger.

The workflow is *almost* there, but not quite. So yeah, it's a bit annoying for sure. 

[hyalinejim]

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, 444 Log masters is the answer.

[webrunner5]

I guess this thread proves that there is not a lot of options in the 3k price range new or used, for any fast turn arounds, Client on lot, looking at footage, trying to make a living doing it! Whew.

I have never owned a 5d mkIII, but from what I have seen it is too Frankenstienish for me to bet the farm, BMPCC, love them, making a living with one wow. Sony F3, Canon C100, maybe add a little bit money for the mkII version, BMCC hmm in the running, dark horse here, the BM 4k Mini Ursa. Why not. 2995 bucks new. I think I would consider it and a C100 mkII. Sony F3 getting long in the tooth. Same with Canon first edition C100. BM stuff Raw is still unbeatable if you know what you are doing shooting it, editing it for what little it cost.

I see very little love for a GH4, Sony A7s, A7rII on this thread, and I agree. Just not a system to rely on to make a buck day in day out. They are all too damn videoish for my liking. Too much work to make it happen. Form factor sucks also. YMMV. But would be hard not to have a Sony A7s in the bag if you had lots of cash when things got Yikes lack of light wise.

[tupp]

10 minutes ago, hyalinejim said:

At the risk of flogging a dead horse, 444 Log masters is the answer.

Agreed.  Raw is great to have, but I've never really needed anything more than 10-bit, 4:4:4, flat and at a nice resolution.   A lot of the time, even that is overkill.

[webrunner5]

14 minutes ago, tupp said:

Agreed.  Raw is great to have, but I've never really needed anything more than 10-bit, 4:4:4, flat and at a nice resolution.   A lot of the time, even that is overkill.

For day to day work flow you are completely right. Raw is kind of big boy stuff. But if you have the time well it is beautiful. Closest mere mortals are going to get to shooting Film in this day and age, that's for sure.

[dbp]

4 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

For day to day work flow you are completely right. Raw is kind of big boy stuff. But if you have the time well it is beautiful.

Yep, tends to be big boy stuff, and I understand it.

Funny though, the paradox is that it's *very* valuable for quick and dirty, low budget stuff, and events. The very places it's used the least is when it can help the most. A lot of times, lighting is minimal, set up time is minimal, they don't want to mess around staging stuff and repeating stuff, so you end up getting what you can get quickly and on the fly. It's very freeing to not have to worry about getting an accurate white balance while shooting. So many times I wish I could go RAW at weddings, but the storage would be horrendous. Crappy mixed lighting conditions,  quickly moving between indoors and outdoors, harsh exteriors during mid day. All sorts of things where Raw and lattitude is invaluable. 

I love only having to worry about composition, focus, lighting ratios (if controlled) and getting a fat negative. The rest is all done in post. 

[webrunner5]

4 minutes ago, dbp said:

Yep, tends to be big boy stuff, and I understand it.

Funny though, the paradox is that it's *very* valuable for quick and dirty, low budget stuff, and events. The very places it's used the least is when it can help the most. A lot of times, lighting is minimal, set up time is minimal, they don't want to mess around staging stuff and repeating stuff, so you end up getting what you can get quickly and on the fly. It's very freeing to not have to worry about getting an accurate white balance while shooting. So many times I wish I could go RAW at weddings, but the storage would be horrendous. Crappy mixed lighting conditions,  quickly moving between indoors and outdoors, harsh exteriors during mid day. All sorts of things where Raw and lattitude is invaluable. 

I love only having to worry about composition, focus, lighting ratios (if controlled) and getting a fat negative. The rest is all done in post. 

Wow very good points. It does cure a lot of mistakes if you have the storage space and the Computer HP! I shot Weddings with a Hassy years ago. Stressful stuff, I don't care if you did hundreds of them, and I did. Not counting hardly ever a weekend off.

[HockeyFan12]

23 hours ago, sam said:

that you credit the F35 as 5 percent better is interesting....But....the F35'smotion cadence and noise pattern, no jello(sorry Bill), user selectable gamma from linear to cineon based or create your own, up to 12 bit 444 uncompressed files, customization of the F35's image in almost any conceivable way including gamut all pre 14bit ad converter, easy control through a web browser, muliple simultaneous use monitor, viewfinder, and test outputs, cooke and arri lens communication,  storage of endless camera setup files including Nd filter corrections at the press of a button,  is closer to 95 percent better than the other cams. Maybe if you compare video files on youtube, the f35 is only 5 percent better. Watch a bluray  or 4k hdr disc on a 65"+ 10bit 4k oled or better of "Real Steel" or "Once upon a time in anatolia" or "Tron legacy"   back to back with current mainstream Alexa, F65 or Red films.  These F35 is easily on par.  Id love to see something from the cams you mention that compare?   

I hope it's clear that despite using a concrete number, I mean this as a pretty arbitrary statement.

I actually recently wrote a post on reduser strongly defending the F35 and if you've got one I am envious, it's a great camera and I don't mean to attack it. It's the benchmark so far as I'm concerned for "adequate 35mm film replacement" and there are areas where it's still ahead (motion cadence, for one). But there's a lot out there at much lower prices that can compete pretty well with it, hence its precipitous drop in price on the used market. That said, it beats anything on this list for sure for a beautiful organic image and quite good specs too–but by less than I think most people realize. 

[Davey]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

Wow very good points. It does cure a lot of mistakes if you have the storage space and the Computer HP! I shot Weddings with a Hassy years ago. Stressful stuff, I don't care if you did hundreds of them, and I did. Not counting hardly ever a weekend off.

I envied the photographers at my last wedding the other week. Dirty big pro looking Nikons - covering 24-200 at f2.8 between them and shooting RAW with only one lens change each to contend with the entire day. Not a care in the world about exposure and WB (within reason).

And then there was me with four lenses, a7s, a7sii, dying batteries, changing WB and exposure between the main hall, outside, the glass reception area, back into the main hall, outside again, do please remember to change WB by 2000k when setting up on the tripods at the last moment and don't blow the dress out.

First time I shot RAW photos was an absolute revelation and I lost my respect for the generic wedding photographer charging £800 for what he does. ALL you have to think about (outside extreme conditions) is the art of composition - you either have that or you don't - and then clack, clack, clack away with your massive flash ruining all my slow motion footage with your white bars across my screen.

I might keep videography as a hobby and switch to photography when it comes to weddings.

Or save up and film weddings in RAW video...

 

[dbp]

40 minutes ago, Davey said:

I envied the photographers at my last wedding the other week. Dirty big pro looking Nikons - covering 24-200 at f2.8 between them and shooting RAW with only one lens change each to contend with the entire day. Not a care in the world about exposure and WB (within reason).

And then there was me with four lenses, a7s, a7sii, dying batteries, changing WB and exposure between the main hall, outside, the glass reception area, back into the main hall, outside again, do please remember to change WB by 2000k when setting up on the tripods at the last moment and don't blow the dress out.

First time I shot RAW photos was an absolute revelation and I lost my respect for the generic wedding photographer charging £800 for what he does. ALL you have to think about (outside extreme conditions) is the art of composition - you either have that or you don't - and then clack, clack, clack away with your massive flash ruining all my slow motion footage with your white bars across my screen.

I might keep videography as a hobby and switch to photography when it comes to weddings.

Or save up and film weddings in RAW video...

 

Yep, same. I work with a lot of the same photographers. They'll complain about lighting issues and it's like... what are you even talking about? Not to mention having the opportunity to use flash. I can't run a bunch of continuous lighting in a room without pissing everyone off. It's just an entirely different ballgame to get a good looking product.

And I have actually considered it with Raw. Get a couple of 256gb cards. It'd be a monsterous storage hit at first. But you could scan through and quickly get the good clips to 95% balanced, export to dnxhd HQ, or even SQ and delete the raw. Footage would look much better and would probably give you a leg up, since even the high end wedding videos tend to have pretty crappy looking color throughout lots of it. No fault of the shooters, just the nature of the gig with crappy codecs.