The REAL difference between normal DSLR video and 5D Mark III raw video

[gloopglop]

Are we getting there?

 

lol I'm following you at the rate of a snail, but yes, we're getting there~!

[alexcosy]

Ah yes indeed we are! Thanks a lot mate !
 

So if i follow you, in this perfect world with a perfect camera, with very very smart camera and a very good 8 bits codec, which makes the right choices everytime (i know... we said perfect, not realistic ;) 8 bits would actually be sufficient, if it were well used ?

[jgharding]

Full frame raw though, how amazing! The greatest bit of Magic Lantern yet eh?

 

It's basically like shooting VistaVision ;) also known as 8-perf film, running sideways through the gate, compared to Super-35's near APSC size.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgLqb6G1Ihw

 

I'm so excited to use it on a project, though at the moment I'm kinda stuck to H264 for most things due to speed and low requirements.

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

*post deleted*

[jgharding]

This article is making me consider getting a BMPCC.

 

The data/space issues I can live with, but I'm concerned it would mean upgrading my Mac too. I'm still using a 2008 MBP (2.6Ghz Core 2 Duo; 4GB RAM; GeForce 8600M GT 512MB) - it's fine for editing/grading H264 and ProRes in FCPX, but Resolve 9 says it's not really up to spec. This might not be the most appropriate place to ask this question, but can anyone offer advice or point me in the right direction? Is Resolve essential for the Pocket or would FCPX be adequate? I'm not wanting to produce high-end stuff - at the moment I just want to play around with raw. I assume that the fact I can convert H264 to ProRes and work with it without problems means the BMPCC ProRes files would be fine too?

 

Apologies if this is a little off topic ... 

 

That's a low spec these days by any measure. The trouble with mac is just that, you pay through the nose to upgrade. That's why I've been recommending learning Adobe to everyone, so they can be cross platform... being tied to a closed system equals high expense in the long run. Meanwhile on PC tower I've been swapping bits in the same machine for 4 years, and only now do a I need a new motherboard, all the other parts can stay. Just a thought!

[Guest c2dd7b52878779b55f43cc8c269267c1]

That's a low spec these days by any measure. The trouble with mac is just that, you pay through the nose to upgrade. That's why I've been recommending learning Adobe to everyone, so they can be cross platform... being tied to a closed system equals high expense in the long run. Meanwhile on PC tower I've been swapping bits in the same machine for 4 years, and only now do a I need a new motherboard, all the other parts can stay. Just a thought!

Thanks JG. 

I've never owned anything but a Mac - I'm literally lost on a PC. I can open IE and use Word, apart from that I'm about as useful as my gran! So though I like the idea of not being tied to Apple, the money I'd save would be negated somewhat by the time and frustration of learning my way around a PC. Plus the cost of FCPX vs Premiere balances it out a little. And of course I've been brainwashed by Apple ...

[QuickHitRecord]

I have been shooting raw with the 5D that we have at work and I love the results. I'd like to have the same package at home but if I price out everything that I need to get up and running (CF cards, batteries), I'm looking at around $4,000. That's more than I can spend right now.

 

I'm hoping that ML can work out some of the bugs with the EOS-M. 720P raw would be a nice platform for anamorphic work, and it's a $275 camera body that takes cheaper SDXC cards and could be moire-free at a 3x crop.

[maxotics]

I have been shooting raw with the 5D that we have at work and I love the results. I'd like to have the same package at home but if I price out everything that I need to get up and running (CF cards, batteries), I'm looking at around $4,000. That's more than I can spend right now.

 

I'm hoping that ML can work out some of the bugs with the EOS-M. 720P raw would be a nice platform for anamorphic work, and it's a $275 camera body that takes cheaper SDXC cards and could be moire-free at a 3x crop.

 

Hi QuickHitRecord, I made good progress on my effort to create a single EOS-M to ProRes (equiv) workflow last night.  I'm able to read RAW frames into a format I can fix the focus pixel issue in.  This should also work with the 650d and 700d t4i/t5i RAW output.

[nathanleebush]

Thanks for the (as always) excellent post! How did you apply the noise reduction for the high ISO shot?

[pizmon]

Andrew I like your site and resources you provide, however this statement is misleading. 

 

"If you’re not shooting with the best possible image quality you’re letting your content down."

 

A camera is a tool and it should work with a story  and often time the imperfection in resolution, lens distortion, grain/noise, faulty color add to the story with its greedy aesthetics . 

 

There is many great examples when low-end cameras provided great results, look at some Dogme 95 films like The Celebration or Danny Boyle films...

 

Camera will not make your film, actors, set design/location and lighting does, sometime low res camera is more appropriate to hide low budget set design/make up and other imperfections..... You need to leave a some space for viewer imagination !

 

If your statement is correct, forget shooting and use computer animation which  bypasses all the imperfections of the image capture. (Actually this is already happening in the big budget productions)

 

 

[gloopglop]

here we go again

[Andrew Reid]

 

A camera is a tool and it should work with a story  and often time the imperfection in resolution, lens distortion, grain/noise, faulty color add to the story with its greedy aesthetics.

 

Of course there's an argument to be had for matching the medium to the content, and against something which looks too sterile and clinically perfect.

 

Imperfections can be beautiful but they have to be the right sort.

 

All this digital puke isn't the right kind of imperfection. Well in very rare circumstances it does have a use.... 28 Days Later was shot on DV and the graininess, hard clipping, etc. added to the mood. However, going back and watching that film again I am shocked at how anaesthetically pleasing it is, despite being incredibly well directed and DP'ed. Also, if that look is a creative choice then you can take an Alexa and do that to the image in post. Why purposefully hobble yourself?

 

Digital puke is not the kind of 'roughing up' of an image that a low contrast hazy Russian lens is... It is a step in the other direction, towards something which looks less aesthetic and less organic.

[Germy1979]

Just sayin..  I'm all for different tools, looks, etc.  If you start with a raw image, you can make it look like you set it on fire if that's your aesthetic.  Andrew's talking about having an image that gives you the most freedom.  Because It's a lot harder to polish a turd if you change your mind later on.   

[gloopglop]

Imperfections can be beautiful but they have to be the right sort.

 

All this digital puke isn't the right kind of imperfection. Well in very rare circumstances it does have a use.... 28 Days Later was shot on DV and the graininess, hard clipping, etc. added to the mood. However, going back and watching that film again I am shocked at how anaesthetically pleasing it is, despite being incredibly well directed and DP'ed

 

a great contrast to the walking dead which in my view is a production pretty well served by that 16mm film grain

 

sure beats that digital puke huh

[maxotics]

28 Days Later was shot on DV and the graininess, hard clipping, etc. added to the mood. However, going back and watching that film again I am shocked at how anaesthetically pleasing it is, despite being incredibly well directed and DP'ed.

 

The main reason they used DV cameras was they had only a few minutes to shoot once closing down the streets.  The cameras were cheap, so they could put them in many places.  Doubt they would have been able to afford 10 Alexa's every day :)

 

What new people to this discussion should know is that when someone says "RAW can deliver X quality I couldn't get before" someone will say, "Nonsense, I can get that same quality with my hacked GH2".  It's tantamount to calling Andrew a liar.  So I understand why he hits them back with "puke" and "trash".  It doesn't matter that he covers all cameras and has NEVER said the opposite, that RAW shooting is as easy a G H 3 :)

[haarec]

Great comparison. It's a pain that we are actually trapped in a 8 bit situation.

[pizmon]

"Also, if that look is a creative choice then you can take an Alexa and do that to the image in post. Why purposefully hobble yourself?" 

 

If you develop film/photograph in a darkroom you probably know what I am about to add.  There is a process of discovery and I strongly believe that someone will revisit the look from 28 days after and use possibly alexa and than add look in post. But perhaps he/she will look for Canon XL1 and see how he/she can get unique imagery from faulty camera.  Once lens flare was argued to destroy your image..,

 

 If you want ultimate image quality than 3D animation is probably the answer, look at Life of Pi, Great Gatsby or upcoming computer games....... 

 

All that said  I really appreciate you effort articles and great work! 

[nilssanders]

wow, very nice comparison! That opens my eyes.

 

But how does it look like if you couldn't afford a Mark III? Is a 650D/60D/7D or maybe a Mark II with ML also so much better than, for example, a Nikon D5200/D5300?

[Franka Mech T. Lieu]

Made you wonder , right ... Any form of decent ( still ) digital camera had option for RAW, recognizing that the RAW simply will always outdo ( and likely outlive ) the JPEG. It does not take a rocket scientist ( or rather Video scientist ) to figure if any of these hybrid camera are serious about Video, then they should give us RAW build in also ( OK so it might require an external recorder )  ... ah ....

 

To be fair, after testing out the Canon C series and even the 1DC I am left with an impression that Canon is not really knowing what they are putting themselves into.

 

For the price the 5D-III is looking even more enticing 

[markm]

Andrew. Have you got some 5D3 raw DNG files we could test? Preferably some mid shots close ups of people exteriors and interiors. Dont worry if you don't. :)