Jump to content

Close
Photo

Low light test of 5D Mark III raw vs H.264

* * * * * 2 votes

  • Please log in to reply

#1
Andrew Reid

Posted 15 May 2013 - 02:35 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,216 posts
http://vimeo.com/66206596

The 5D Mark III is already a very capable low light camera. In its factory guise whilst not quite as clean as the Canon C300 or Sony FS100, it is the best DSLR for low light shooting (though the Nikon D5200 puts up a good fight).

But that was before the latest developments with ML Raw.

Has low light improved even further?

Read the full article here
  • matt2491, Julian and tomekk like this

#2
Paul Ning

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:10 AM

Paul Ning

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 16 posts
I am new to video and would like to ask some questions over AVCHD and H.264
 
I have an impression that AVCHD is a "compressed TIF file similar to the still image while H.264 is just a non-compressed JPG. Is AVCHD good enough as a compromise comparing with RAW footage? Which means in quality and the tolerance of post processing, the order should be RAW > AVCHD > H.264. Am I right in this point of view?
 
It makes me curious about the footage of RAW comparing with Sony which can apply Cine Style for FS series while Canon provides Canon Log Gamma. I am looking forward that there will be a comparison in the near future.  :)


#3
Andrew Reid

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:20 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,216 posts

I am not sure where you got that impression from, but it is broken get a refund :)

 

The way to think of it is:

 

Raw is top of the pyramid.

 

From that there are ways to compress and mangle the image and none of them are as good quality as raw.

 

JPEG and TIFF have nothing to do with AVCHD or H.264.

 

In the post world, TIFF is for sequences of very high quality stills.

 

AVCHD is a consumer video format with H.264 inside, at 24Mbit for 1080/24p.

 

Cine Style, log, etc. is just a way to get a bit more dynamic range out of a crappy compressed image, with raw you don't need log, it is N/A and if you just want a flat low contrast look then you apply it to the raw image in post.



#4
Robert Benson

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:26 AM

Robert Benson

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

I'm sorry.  I didn't see it anywhere but maybe I missed it.  Are the shots with the lantern, lit by only the candle or is there another light source in the room at all?



#5
Andrew Reid

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:28 AM

Andrew Reid

    Andrew Reid - British Filmmaker - Editor EOSHD

  • Administrators
  • 4,216 posts

I'm sorry.  I didn't see it anywhere but maybe I missed it.  Are the shots with the lantern, lit by only the candle or is there another light source in the room at all?

 

One more dim light source for fill lighting around 2m away from the candle.



#6
Jeff Orig

Posted 15 May 2013 - 03:39 AM

Jeff Orig

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 5 posts

Can you add one more benefit to your list at the bottom?

-Many of us, if not most, of us already own the 5D Mark iii and the entire system surrounding it (lenses, rigs, etc.)

 

A big thank you to the Magic Lantern team. 



#7
Trevor Horigan

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:22 AM

Trevor Horigan

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

Do you think RAW recording will ever be possible with the 60D?



#8
matt2491

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:41 AM

matt2491

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 86 posts

What's up with the magenta tint to all this RAW footage? The H264 versions seems to filter it out?



#9
peederj

Posted 15 May 2013 - 04:47 AM

peederj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

Andrew, simple yet incredibly relevant point:

 

What picture style and associated settings are you using for the H.264 footage?

 

Because Cinestyle is a FREE download. And friends don't let friends shoot 5D3 internal with anything worse when DR matters. No "ProLost flat" or "FLAAAAAAAT" or any nonsense. If DR matters, then you use a high DR picture style and then grade in post with a LUT.

 

That looks like Neutral or Faithful with reduced contrast and saturation. Why are you crowing about the dynamic range difference, when you chose to burn it out with those settings?

 

Also, why aren't you using the pull-down ISO's (2500, 5000, 10,000) as we've all learned to by studying the 5D3 noise floor?

 

Show us that it beats the best we can do otherwise, fair and square, and that will be plenty sensational enough.



#10
jarviklas

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:14 AM

jarviklas

    Newbie

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts

The article says that 5d mark III can make 60 fps raw, is that for sure already? In the tests it says 24fps continous?

If it's 720p raw as it says it's still very nice. And what about 5d mark II? Will it be possible to boost fps up to 60 fps even though the native camera can't do that?



#11
benjolino

Posted 15 May 2013 - 05:17 AM

benjolino

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts
does anybody know if it´s possible to build a connector from cf card slot to sata. i think about running a cable out of the cf slot from the mk3 to a ssd drive. then we could use ssd´s direct with the 5d which would be awesome. there are adaptors from cf card to data but i could not find the other way around.
maybe the powering of the ssd would be a problem. could also be that the power from the cf slot is enough. the power of an usb is enough...
 


#12
blackrat

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:05 AM

blackrat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

Andrew, simple yet incredibly relevant point:

 

What picture style and associated settings are you using for the H.264 footage?

 

Because Cinestyle is a FREE download. And friends don't let friends shoot 5D3 internal with anything worse when DR matters. No "ProLost flat" or "FLAAAAAAAT" or any nonsense. If DR matters, then you use a high DR picture style and then grade in post with a LUT.

 

That looks like Neutral or Faithful with reduced contrast and saturation. Why are you crowing about the dynamic range difference, when you chose to burn it out with those settings?

 

Also, why aren't you using the pull-down ISO's (2500, 5000, 10,000) as we've all learned to by studying the 5D3 noise floor?

 

Show us that it beats the best we can do otherwise, fair and square, and that will be plenty sensational enough.

1. There is no such thing as pull down ISOs once you are that high. Above ISO3200 everything is simply 1/3 more and more and more digitally pushed.

 

2. Cinestyle can be dicey to work with, that flat and 8 bits doesn't always grade so easily. Some of the others have even a touch more DR but keep some better pop in the mids.

 

3. The RAW gives truly amazing rich colors and all the advanced tools of Adobe ACR processing with ACR pseudo-HDR sliders, raw pre-sharpening, advanced NR, etc.

 

4. Maybe this is not quite scientifically carried out, but believe me Cinestyle doesn't process the way these RAWs do and you get somewhat less DR and a lot less beautiful tonality (and of course the detail is simply much less).



#13
blackrat

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:06 AM

blackrat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

What's up with the magenta tint to all this RAW footage? The H264 versions seems to filter it out?

A sensor issue. The image processing engine filters it out and counter acts it normally.



#14
benjolino

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:49 AM

benjolino

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

here i found an adaptor extension for cf slot. if i could connect this to a cf--->sata adaptor, i could use ssd drives with my 5d mark3. that would be great!!!##

 

http://www.esskabel....tender-0430ffc/



#15
peederj

Posted 15 May 2013 - 06:51 AM

peederj

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 215 posts

1. There is no such thing as pull down ISOs once you are that high. Above ISO3200 everything is simply 1/3 more and more and more digitally pushed.

 

2. Cinestyle can be dicey to work with, that flat and 8 bits doesn't always grade so easily. Some of the others have even a touch more DR but keep some better pop in the mids.

 

3. The RAW gives truly amazing rich colors and all the advanced tools of Adobe ACR processing with ACR pseudo-HDR sliders, raw pre-sharpening, advanced NR, etc.

 

4. Maybe this is not quite scientifically carried out, but believe me Cinestyle doesn't process the way these RAWs do and you get somewhat less DR and a lot less beautiful tonality (and of course the detail is simply much less).

 

I have no problem working with Cinestyle on the 5D3, and with just a touch of green/magenta correction I can get it lined up fairly well with Canon Log (Cinelock) C100/Ninja 2 footage. ISO 10000 on the internal codec is significantly cleaner than 12800 in the same way 2500 and 5000 are...it may be in-camera NR that you can't turn off, or some other mechanism, but the pattern is consistent and I shoot that way accordingly. The 5D3 clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 does not display the pull-down ISO pattern as strongly so you might be right in that case.

 

The A/B we are all waiting for is the absolute *best* you can do "officially" vs. the best you can do with the ML hack. I will test that once all the bugs are shaken out of the hack and we know what works best. The best I can get out of a 5D3 at this time officially is clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 using ProRes 422 HQ on the Ninja, Cinestyle with default settings on the 5D3, and then applying NR (I use Neat Video) and a LUT (I use Pomfort) in post. I don't see banding after grading the Cinestyle in typical use. Even so, that image is blown away by the C100 in Cinelock to the Ninja 2 in every capacity (other than full-frame DoF and angle of view of course).

 

I have no delusions that the C100/Ninja 2 will be displaced by the 5D3 RAW output in absolute IQ. That sensor and system is just purpose-built and far superior for filmmaking. I think a lot of people overestimate the value of RAW, perhaps egged on by Jannard. For stills of course I only shoot RAW but that's because the only other choice (JPEG) sucks and RAW stills aren't onerous. Direct-to-ProRes HQ with a log gamma is an absolutely credible option and anyone skillful enough to get decent exposures from pre-Log DSLRs will have no trouble at all with that codec. The hassle with RAW is so intense in comparison to just capturing hours of ProRes on an SSD and loading it directly into your NLE ready to cut that it better completely blow it away even if the best possible settings and workflow is used with the compression.

 

The main losses for the HDMI 8 bit 422 are going to be chroma detail (422 and 444 are VERY similar to the eye, even for keying work..it's the 420 used in the internal codecs that truly sucks) and maybe a touch of DR. 8 bits with the Cinestyle gamma is not far from representing with high fidelity the full DR of that sensor on most ISOs in practice...see DxoMark's reports on all the read noise of the 5D3 sensor in stills mode. The main hit resolutionwise is going to be done at the downsampler in-camera taking the 22MP to 2MP. If you use a crop 1:1 pixel mode, you will get a ton of sensor noise and probably some aliasing/stair-stepping the OLPF doesn't fully blur out. We aren't recording 24 RAW 22MP stills in a second on this camera...there is damage done in both pathways.

 

What I would like as a working professional for whom any gains from RAW are likely overkill for a 5D3, is a nice internal codec from ML. If MJPEG is the best they can do, OK, make it a good one with 422 and an easy workflow in post. If that, plus the CF cards needed, is overall cheaper and better in practice than getting a second Ninja 2 I'm happy. Will be more compact to just use the Zacuto loupe and hopefully not require too much card swapping while shooting.



#16
benjolino

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:28 AM

benjolino

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

I have no problem working with Cinestyle on the 5D3, and with just a touch of green/magenta correction I can get it lined up fairly well with Canon Log (Cinelock) C100/Ninja 2 footage. ISO 10000 on the internal codec is significantly cleaner than 12800 in the same way 2500 and 5000 are...it may be in-camera NR that you can't turn off, or some other mechanism, but the pattern is consistent and I shoot that way accordingly. The 5D3 clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 does not display the pull-down ISO pattern as strongly so you might be right in that case.

 

The A/B we are all waiting for is the absolute *best* you can do "officially" vs. the best you can do with the ML hack. I will test that once all the bugs are shaken out of the hack and we know what works best. The best I can get out of a 5D3 at this time officially is clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 using ProRes 422 HQ on the Ninja, Cinestyle with default settings on the 5D3, and then applying NR (I use Neat Video) and a LUT (I use Pomfort) in post. I don't see banding after grading the Cinestyle in typical use. Even so, that image is blown away by the C100 in Cinelock to the Ninja 2 in every capacity (other than full-frame DoF and angle of view of course).

 

I have no delusions that the C100/Ninja 2 will be displaced by the 5D3 RAW output in absolute IQ. That sensor and system is just purpose-built and far superior for filmmaking. I think a lot of people overestimate the value of RAW, perhaps egged on by Jannard. For stills of course I only shoot RAW but that's because the only other choice (JPEG) sucks and RAW stills aren't onerous. Direct-to-ProRes HQ with a log gamma is an absolutely credible option and anyone skillful enough to get decent exposures from pre-Log DSLRs will have no trouble at all with that codec. The hassle with RAW is so intense in comparison to just capturing hours of ProRes on an SSD and loading it directly into your NLE ready to cut that it better completely blow it away even if the best possible settings and workflow is used with the compression.

 

The main losses for the HDMI 8 bit 422 are going to be chroma detail (422 and 444 are VERY similar to the eye, even for keying work..it's the 420 used in the internal codecs that truly sucks) and maybe a touch of DR. 8 bits with the Cinestyle gamma is not far from representing with high fidelity the full DR of that sensor on most ISOs in practice...see DxoMark's reports on all the read noise of the 5D3 sensor in stills mode. The main hit resolutionwise is going to be done at the downsampler in-camera taking the 22MP to 2MP. If you use a crop 1:1 pixel mode, you will get a ton of sensor noise and probably some aliasing/stair-stepping the OLPF doesn't fully blur out. We aren't recording 24 RAW 22MP stills in a second on this camera...there is damage done in both pathways.

 

What I would like as a working professional for whom any gains from RAW are likely overkill for a 5D3, is a nice internal codec from ML. If MJPEG is the best they can do, OK, make it a good one with 422 and an easy workflow in post. If that, plus the CF cards needed, is overall cheaper and better in practice than getting a second Ninja 2 I'm happy. Will be more compact to just use the Zacuto loupe and hopefully not require too much card swapping while shooting.

i really don´t know what you are talking about. ML is able to record RAW to CF cards. they are not able to process something else to the card. i would also like to see a mk3 doing really good 422 proress on a cf, for better workflow. and i would also like the sun to shine the whole year, but this will not happen. what has happened is that ML IS ABLE TO RECORD RAW WITH THE 5D MK3



#17
hmcindie

Posted 15 May 2013 - 07:29 AM

hmcindie

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 389 posts

I have no problem working with Cinestyle on the 5D3

 

 

Well I have. These are my problems:

 

Cinestyle raises the blacks from 0 to 16. This is to match Cineon film scanners. It decreases dynamic range, mostly from the midtones as the highlights and shadows are compressed. Good highlight rolloff is gone. Cinestyle clips them ugly. You have to create them back with a gamma curve. It increases the noise in the blacks and when you pull those blacks down in post, the noise is there. And it doesn't really help in grading at all plus way more difficult to assess exposure. If you want milky blacks, just raise them afterwards.

 

For example the Flaat10p profile is lots better and also Prolost Neutral.

 

You personally don't see banding but that's because you use Neatvideo and it creates very good 16-bit files out of 8-bits. Neatvideo actually fills in the gaps. It's actually quite remarkable how much banding it can take away. But it will do that to any profile, not just cinestyle.

 

Those intermediate ISOs are cleaner in h.264 mode because they are digitally pulled down. This pull down only decreases DR in RAW files but because h.264 loses so many stops anyway, it doesn't really matter there. So basically, when shooting stills, try to go with the original ISOs and when doing h.264, drop down once to get the shadow noise gone and more for the highlights.



#18
blackrat

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:00 AM

blackrat

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 56 posts

I have no problem working with Cinestyle on the 5D3, and with just a touch of green/magenta correction I can get it lined up fairly well with Canon Log (Cinelock) C100/Ninja 2 footage. ISO 10000 on the internal codec is significantly cleaner than 12800 in the same way 2500 and 5000 are...it may be in-camera NR that you can't turn off, or some other mechanism, but the pattern is consistent and I shoot that way accordingly. The 5D3 clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 does not display the pull-down ISO pattern as strongly so you might be right in that case.

 

The A/B we are all waiting for is the absolute *best* you can do "officially" vs. the best you can do with the ML hack. I will test that once all the bugs are shaken out of the hack and we know what works best. The best I can get out of a 5D3 at this time officially is clean HDMI out to the Ninja 2 using ProRes 422 HQ on the Ninja, Cinestyle with default settings on the 5D3, and then applying NR (I use Neat Video) and a LUT (I use Pomfort) in post. I don't see banding after grading the Cinestyle in typical use. Even so, that image is blown away by the C100 in Cinelock to the Ninja 2 in every capacity (other than full-frame DoF and angle of view of course).

 

I have no delusions that the C100/Ninja 2 will be displaced by the 5D3 RAW output in absolute IQ. That sensor and system is just purpose-built and far superior for filmmaking. I think a lot of people overestimate the value of RAW, perhaps egged on by Jannard. For stills of course I only shoot RAW but that's because the only other choice (JPEG) sucks and RAW stills aren't onerous. Direct-to-ProRes HQ with a log gamma is an absolutely credible option and anyone skillful enough to get decent exposures from pre-Log DSLRs will have no trouble at all with that codec. The hassle with RAW is so intense in comparison to just capturing hours of ProRes on an SSD and loading it directly into your NLE ready to cut that it better completely blow it away even if the best possible settings and workflow is used with the compression.

 

The main losses for the HDMI 8 bit 422 are going to be chroma detail (422 and 444 are VERY similar to the eye, even for keying work..it's the 420 used in the internal codecs that truly sucks) and maybe a touch of DR. 8 bits with the Cinestyle gamma is not far from representing with high fidelity the full DR of that sensor on most ISOs in practice...see DxoMark's reports on all the read noise of the 5D3 sensor in stills mode. The main hit resolutionwise is going to be done at the downsampler in-camera taking the 22MP to 2MP. If you use a crop 1:1 pixel mode, you will get a ton of sensor noise and probably some aliasing/stair-stepping the OLPF doesn't fully blur out. We aren't recording 24 RAW 22MP stills in a second on this camera...there is damage done in both pathways.

 

What I would like as a working professional for whom any gains from RAW are likely overkill for a 5D3, is a nice internal codec from ML. If MJPEG is the best they can do, OK, make it a good one with 422 and an easy workflow in post. If that, plus the CF cards needed, is overall cheaper and better in practice than getting a second Ninja 2 I'm happy. Will be more compact to just use the Zacuto loupe and hopefully not require too much card swapping while shooting.

All I can say is try the hack and you will see. It's a night and day difference for dynamic range, detail, color tonality, ease of color and tone processing (just think how power ACR is for stills and imagine using those sliders and all that power for video correction; just think that you can adjust WB in post without losing anything). At times it is almost laughably better.

 

The workflow is a tedious slow mess to get stuff converted true and it burns up CPU cycles like mad (although color correction and processing the steps where you do stuff are actually much easier and quicker thanks to the power of ACR) and yeah less than a minute and it cuts off at the 4GB limit. But man the quality!

 

I'm telling you if you think internal vs Ninja 2 is much of a difference then this ML RAW will blow your mind. The difference is like 1000x, literally, more noticeable.



#19
mtheory

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:40 AM

mtheory

    Advanced Member

  • Moderators
  • 293 posts

We're not even through the middle of 2013 and the camera scene has been turned upside down twice already this year.

2013 - the year of RAW wars!


  • Julian likes this

#20
Pascal Garnier

Posted 15 May 2013 - 08:43 AM

Pascal Garnier

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 115 posts

co-sign with peederj.

 

first of all, I have no doubt that RAW is always going to look better than any other format, but the stills from H264 footage posted here look awful and are not an honest comparison.

 

one rule of thumb for shooting with DSLR's (and digital in general) is to expose for the highlights. 
all highlights are severly blown out in these stills, so this makes no sense at all.

 

furthermore, if you're going to compare a very flat still (which RAW is), you should compare with a flat video still. 

using a flat picture style such as Visioncolor, flaat, Cinestyle or even neutral with contrast and sharpness turned down.

 

even stills from a T2i which were exposed for the highlights and shot with a flat picture style will look better than what we got here.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users