Raw video on the Canon 7D - Super 35mm raw for under $1000

[Bruno]

Using something like a Nexto hard drive makes it even easier as it has a CF/SD card slot built in and copies the cards without requiring a computer. There's even options to verify and format in the end, all with the click of a button. Been using one for close to 3 years now with no problems at all!

[Brian Williams]

If you had the choice between this setup, or the original BMCC, what would you go with, and why?

I realize that that's a somewhat stupid question, and that the answer is "whatever works better for you", but I'm being insanely indecisive these days, and want to hear what other people think of the choice.

[maxotics]

@Brian, when the BMCC came out I wanted one.  I shoot family and friends so no real way to justify $3k (at the time)and THEN need to buy lenses.  I had bought Andrew's guide to GH2 and tried that out the ideas on a GF3.  Enjoyed it, and now use that technology (hacked Panasonics) for some stuff.  Then I bought his 50D guide and I have to admit, so far, has been very painful.  But rewarding. And I'm getting there!  You'll see. :) I laugh about the people complaining about all the storage/time RAW takes.  When I was in my 20s and 30s one had to wait 3 days for their Super-8 to come back.  And 16mm?  $100+ a small reel (stock/dev) back then.  That RAW is possible at all, for under $1,000, is nothing short of miraculous (and I use that word sparingly). That you can pay $100 for a CF card that shoots the same amount of 16mm AND is re-usable!  Okay, enough of the old fart rant ;)

 

Seeing that you have a young kid in your photo and no Bentley in the background I say go with the 50D or 7D if you want 1080p, or go with any other ML Canon for 720p.  Here are my stupid reasons:

 

1. Millions of man-hours have gone into making those cameras the best digital still cameras you can buy.  If you're buying for video, you get that for FREE

2. The only difference I can tell, between BMCC, and Canon is that BMCC converts to ProRes in the camera and allows you to capture audio.  With the Canon, if you want ProRes, you have to convert first.  No big deal.

3. The Canon even has a plus in that you can get TIFFs and now you're open to every kind of photo processing software.  Lots more creativity!  

4. Audio.  If you have the time to shoot RAW you have the time to sync external audio.  

 

I bought a 50D with 28-135mm for $500 and a 16gb 1000x card for $65.  The video was good, but I wanted to get past moire issues, so bought a Sigma 10-20mm for $300.  In crop mode I believe that's around 50mm=100mm.  If you saw a 50D with 14mm on Craigslist BUY IT!  Anyway, maybe after I master that setup I'll plunk down the $2,000 + lenses for the BMCC (which I won't be able to use for portraits, etc.).  Every day that gets less likely as I perfect my processing scripts and workflow. 

 

Finally, I say continue being indecisive.  Or borrow a friend's Canon (everyone of my friends has them) and try a little RAW yourself. If you're not technically inclined, then you're going to have headaches with the BMCC too!   As you can see from EOSHD, the competition is heating up.  The sorriest people seem to be those who bought the BMCC at $3k+ :)

[lionel]

" :) I laugh about the people complaining about all the storage/time RAW takes.  When I was in my 20s and 30s one had to wait 3 -7 days for their Super-8 to come back.  And 16mm?  $100+ a small reel (stock/dev) back then.  

That RAW is possible at all, for under $1,000, is nothing short of miraculous (and I use that word sparingly).

That you can pay $100 for a CF card that shoots the same amount of 16mm AND is re-usable!    ;)

 

Seeing that you have a young kid in your photo and no Bentley in the background I say go with the 50D or 7D if you want 1080p, or go with any other ML Canon for 720p.  Here are my stupid reasons:"

 

 

"2. The only difference I can tell, between BMCC, and Canon is that BMCC converts to ProRes in the camera and allows you to capture audio.  With the Canon, if you want ProRes, you have to convert first.  No big deal.

3. The Canon even has a plus in that you can get TIFFs and now you're open to every kind of photo processing software.  Lots more creativity!  

4. Audio.  If you have the time to shoot RAW you have the time to sync external audio.  "

 

 

Absolutely agree and have experienced similar! One could say that was then and this is now but... Now you have a; similar to 16MM film- raw video output for under$1000.00 . :lol:

You know it's funny how we look at things, here is a picture (taken from the ML website) from Opening Day at the US OPEN yesterday.

And lo and behold is the Canon EOS 50D -all geared up, utilized to take some video from the sidelines.

 

[PANDETTA]

Can we play the ML raw videos back real time 24fps in camera yet?

[Brellivids]

According to the DXOmark.com .. the 100mm f2.8 L macro has much more Chromatic Aberration than the non L version. 

 

100mm 2.8 L 

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF100mm-f-2.8L-Macro-IS-USM/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

 

100mm 2.8 non L

http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Lenses/Camera-Lens-Database/Canon/EF100mm-f-2.8-USM-Macro/(camera)/795/(cameraname)/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III

 

The holy grail of image quality for me is the lack of chromatic aberration, low distortion and beatifull bokeh. 

from that perpective the 60mm Coastal Optics macro is very much a dream lens. If only it was available for Canon fullframe. Aparently it has no chromatic aberration at all.

 

http://diglloyd.com/articles/CoastalOptics60f4/

[maxotics]

Can we play the ML raw videos back real time 24fps in camera yet?

 

In general, the liveview/display on my 50D, at any rate, is jumpy and flickers between different sizes, and between color and B&W.  I once got it to play a video back, but can't remember how I did it.  I gave up on it because the quality doesn't really tell you what you got anyway.  I look at the 50D like an old-fashioned 16mm camera.  I have to wait to develop when I get home.  That said, running a RAW file through the cineform converter is very fast.  So if you have a laptop with you it wouldn't take long for you to get that daily.

 

@lionel, thanks for that photo!  Cool.  

[lionel]

Andrew's EOSHD 50D Raw Shooter's Guide and his subsequent posts; have been pretty helpful to me.
Not just for the 50D or the 7D but in helping me to understand the tool(s) that we have here and the potential use and actual practical uses for a relatively small entry fee (the cost of the camera & CF cards).
@Maxotics you see the potential in it and so does the guy that brought the 50D to the US Open.

[PANDETTA]

In general, the liveview/display on my 50D, at any rate, is jumpy and flickers between different sizes, and between color and B&W.  I once got it to play a video back, but can't remember how I did it.  I gave up on it because the quality doesn't really tell you what you got anyway.  I look at the 50D like an old-fashioned 16mm camera.  I have to wait to develop when I get home.  That said, running a RAW file through the cineform converter is very fast.  So if you have a laptop with you it wouldn't take long for you to get that daily.

 

@lionel, thanks for that photo!  Cool.  

thanks! I was discussing whether we should go with BMCC or canon DSLR raw with my director buddy the other day and we both agreed canon raw seems like a better choice because of the cost.(film school students...) But no playback really is a bummer. I also concern about the actual shooting as well since everybody just show how to install, post production and end result videos on youtube. I don't know will there anything that can hinders me during the recording.

[maxotics]

@Pandetta.  My feeling is for film-school canon RAW is the way to go because it forces you to understand and work with the technology.  You can't just turn it on (as much as I'd like that myself).  Also, besides cost, most kids will have Canon camera, so can use what you teach.  That said, most kids just want to press a button.  Can't blame them.  Finally, most kids probably prefer the sweet and salty (saturated and sharp) look of H.265 more than the bland, high dynamic range (BMCC or Canon RAW), so you may want to punt and go the camcorder route ;)  In any case, I'd try get RAW working on a Canon DSLR, see how you like it.

[Julian]

That said, most kids just want to press a button.  Can't blame them.  Finally, most kids probably prefer the sweet and salty (saturated and sharp) look of H.265 more than the bland, high dynamic range (BMCC or Canon RAW), so you may want to punt and go the camcorder route ;)

 

Really? I think it's the kids who are hacking their camera's and shooting raw with the camera they already have...

[PANDETTA]

Really? I think it's the kids who are hacking their camera's and shooting raw with the camera they already have...

Ha! I think that is why he said most of them and if every kids know how to hack a camera.....oh man

[maxotics]

So yesterday I take my daughter and her friend shopping.  They're juniors as MassArt.  The friend saved money to buy a T31.  I had with me a hacked 50D, shooting RAW video.  You'd think they'd be into it.  They just rolled their eyes.  Anyway, she's saying she needs a PC for animation.  I say I have at extra one.  "You can save money." ... She says "That's what my Dad would say"  She starts going on about needing a powerful computer for this and that and I try to tell her, for tethered stills capture from an EOS camera you don't need a powerful computer.  Long story short, most kids in school, like everywhere in life, aren't interested in all the technical stuff.  The kids hacking their cameras are usually, God Bless Them, drop-outs :)  I'm sure I'm at least getting laughs from Pandetta!

 

So you'll have to excuse me Julian, I'm a beaten down Dad and it infects my posts and rationality ;)  

[PANDETTA]

Some people always only see the surface of the thing. I have a fellow student who just bought a BMCC 2.5k. I'm sure he has been reading how amazing RAW and 2.5K is. However, I don't think he has considered the amount of accessories he needs to operate the camera comfortably, I would say. External batteries, SSD drives, SDI monitor, camera rig,etc. And we haven't covered the post production yet. We all know the ungraded BMCC raw footage is dull and flat. You need to grade the picture to maximize the image quality. The work behind it is just.... On the other hand though, I've tried the ML raw on my 60D in 720p. I found the footages are quite nice and even better then 1080p in H.264. The color is natural and vibrant compared to H.264. I don't feel like I have to do extensive color correction and grading to make it look good. I also noticed the noise of the RAW is much more pleasing and very film grain like while the H.264 is just blocky purple digital sickness.... I always wet myself when I see some lovely film grain....and with anamorphic, it is just pure porn...

[Sean Cunningham]

What?

 

None of those accessories are any more necessary for the BMCC than an EOS shooting raw.  Functionally they're almost identical.  Post production is essentially the same.  

 

They both require grading.  Starting from a baseline provided by your software's raw-reader is not indicative of your EOS footage needing less or different grading.  The dng reader is applying a lut that you can then tweak but let's be real clear here, all raw, if viewed without a lut, looks pretty much the same.  You are either looking through a lut or you're looking at a terrible image (assuming you don't have a high dynamic range monitor that costs as much as a German sports sedan).

 

Anyone wanting an equivalent style of setup with a base correction and exposure that they can just tweak or leave as-is can simply tech-pass their raw BMCC with something like Film Convert.  Or they can apply one of several film luts that have been made available for free out there.

 

Don't confuse the efforts of software coders to create a novice-friendly, fool-proof work flow for EOS users with a competing workflow that makes the exact opposite assumption about its users.

[/p/]

Since RAW is.. RAW, can you shoot with a BMCC + 5D3/7D etc and get very similar results when grading? Or do they grade differently?

[mtheory]

Since RAW is.. RAW, can you shoot with a BMCC + 5D3/7D etc and get very similar results when grading? Or do they grade differently?

 

BMCC, 5D3 and 7D all have different crop factors, so while your images could be matched by color in post, they would most probably look quite different optically. 

[Sean Cunningham]

Folks have already been intercutting compressed DSLR footage with film and non-compressed digital for years so two raw cameras will, with care, be easier to intercut between.  

 

The crop factor issue can be made practically invisible with lens choice and exposure (ie. Nokton/Noktor lens + heavy ND).   Crop factor has "tells" the same as anamorphic has "tells".  Most people only look for the most easily recognizable effects with both types of photography and in both cases it's academic to fool these people.

 

Were someone shooting Terence Malick style, wide angle, deep focus, the difference between a scene shot on a 5DIII and a BMCC becomes one of relative focal length and given that focal length is variable anyway in any film the issue of shooting 135-size or Super-16 size is not a big deal.  A more relevant issue will be sticking to exposures that don't emphasize the 5D's lack of reach into highlights and the BMCC's lack of reach into shadows.  

 

Still, these issues aren't actually relevant beyond pixel fuckers in places like this.  It's a non-issue for audiences who already aren't aware of such subtleties.  Otherwise they might be wondering why Sony 4K projectors make footage shot on their highend cameras look like video.

[PANDETTA]

https://vimeo.com/73952768

1728x724

still looks soft... WHY!!!?

[Andrew Reid]

Since RAW is.. RAW, can you shoot with a BMCC + 5D3/7D etc and get very similar results when grading? Or do they grade differently?

 

They grade differently.

 

That is to say - The raw image data responds differently to controls in Resolve or ACR, etc.

 

You have to match by eye and it is time consuming, for each shot. No ACES compatibility for Canon yet.

 

You have to be very careful to match them. I wouldn't be tempted to mix raw cameras on a shoot really, it's a pain.

 

With a compressed codec the cameras are all pretty much matched to Rec.709 and off you go.