Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Canon 1D C vs 5D Mark III Raw (and C300 / GH2 resolution comparison)

52 posts in this topic

Posted · Report post

5d3raw-vs-1dc

This test was prepared jointly in cooperation with Rudi at Slashcam - here's his take on it (in German / in English)

In the battle of the 1080p cameras, the game has changed. Here's how the 5D Mark III in raw recording mode compares to the best 1080p output from the Canon C300 and 1D C.

[url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10475/canon-1d-c-vs-5d-mark-iii-raw-and-c300-gh2-resolution-comparison]Read the full article here[/url]
saulmarti likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for doing these tests! Awesome to hear our mushy 5D3 image now has the ability to shoot a more detailed and vibrant image than with the stock compression. Even more awesome to know it compares closely with the Cinema line. 

 

Some of your shots from the 5D3 are still showing some of the fixed vertical patten noise. This is my biggest concern after shooting raw with my 5D3. Having to push the luminance sliders past 50 (up to 75 for some shots) is definitely making the image more muddy. Sharpening helps bring back some detail but it's a shame so much noise-removal is necessary to get a clean image with no vertical lines. Maybe this will be worked out eventually? You've mentioned you like to shoot a few notches under-exposed to retain better highlight detail but it seems more people are reccomending the opposite, over-exposing then bringing down the highlights, in order to help with the vertical pattern issue. I'll have to do some more comparisons to see if this verifies but it's typically the way I shoot photos with my 5D3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

very interesting article , to see the resolution charts comparing cameras

Im gonna stick with GH2 and then G6 when it comes out - maybe in a months time some of these ML issues will get resolved

 

there is an interesting article here on the MKii with RAW- he seems to have alot of moire have a look

http://crewofone.com/2013/canon-5d2-raw-vs-h264-in-real-world-production/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Looks amazing! It would be great to see a focused test on dynamic range between raw mark III and 1dc, just to see what the Canon log is really all about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Andrew,

 

I'm not sure I completely understand 1:1 crop.  Does that mean we only use the center of the censor?  What are the downsides?  Will this become a ML feature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Great news! I sometimes wish there was a team like ML for Nikon, because imagine getting the RAW DR/tonality/IQ of the D800 on video. Now THAT would be incredible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Of all the articles where you absolutely needed downloadable uncropped straight-from-camera files, this was the one.

 

We are given no even vague idea what those thumbnails were created from.

 

BTW the $5,500 C100 along with a $700 Ninja 2 uses the same sensor and a better codec than the C300.

Richard Collins likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Which hack was used for the Gh2?

thanks 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Hey Andrew,

You talked alot about up scaling the 5D footage. Do you believe we won't see a 2.5k raw output for the 5D MK III? You think we might of hit a bit of a ceiling on the 1080p raw?

I know the main restriction seems to be CF card speeds. Anyone tested prospec cards ? They are advertised as 1010x

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Good! Could you please attach other 1:1 resolution crops as you did 5D Mark III raw crop? How about GH2 settings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Of all the articles where you absolutely needed downloadable uncropped straight-from-camera files, this was the one.

 

We are given no even vague idea what those thumbnails were created from.

 

BTW the $5,500 C100 along with a $700 Ninja 2 uses the same sensor and a better codec than the C300.

 

Have to agree, this is what I shoot with and it's more than enough for me for most of my work! I am incredibly excited about this hack coming to the 7D though! I wouldn't be using raw for 90% of what I'm paid to shoot, but for music videos and personal projects, raw would be great.

 

If raw doesn't come to the 7D within the next few months, I'd be tempted to sell it for a GH2...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

On the 1DC vs MKIII shot out of the double doors with the car and house in the background, the 5D has a harshness to the edges, whereas the 1DC has all the detail but the edges are really smooth. Was sharpness added to the MKIII files at any point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for the test!

 

I spotted a typo

"You have to bear this in mind and how it effects your lenses"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Have to agree, this is what I shoot with and it's more than enough for me for most of my work! I am incredibly excited about this hack coming to the 7D though! I wouldn't be using raw for 90% of what I'm paid to shoot, but for music videos and personal projects, raw would be great.

 

If raw doesn't come to the 7D within the next few months, I'd be tempted to sell it for a GH2...

 

Again I can't imagine any appeal to having to work with a completely different mount and camera system. If you have two Canons already just stick with Canon. They are the leader for a good reason, and glass is a major Canon strength.

 

BTW, the internal ND's on the C100 just beat out Formatt and Schneider 4x5.65's in a shootout:

http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blog.php?id=6201317295579746489

 

Saves you even more dough (not to mention the also world-class built-in IR filter that also seals the sensor area from dust), and no flattening polarization effect or color bias from a Vari-ND.

 

Really given we have two excellent indie-affordable options in the C100/Ninja2 (best lowlight) and FS700/Speedbooster (overcrank) it's heroic but puzzling of you guys to stick with DSLRs. The RAW hack is definitely interesting to make use of the 5D3 as a super-B cam instead of just stills. But even so kitting it out is more expensive than the C100 option if you are only interested in motion, and not as great an image as charts reveal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

I got to disagree here, sorry. Particularly on the comparison of the 1DC to the MKIII. We have both and use them extensively.

 

The 5DMKIII's sensor was measured by DXOMark at 11.7 stops total. The 1DC gets around 12.5 in Canon Log at ISO400. It's not possible that the new 5DMKIII RAW has more dynamic range than the sensor is capable of seeing. I suggest you get a dynamic range chart before posting that sort of claim. :S

 

In reality, the difference in clarity is actually far greater than your crops show. As we punch in to 1.3x we are actually fighting a losing battle against the resolving ability of the glass. if anything, it should get relatively softer since the glass has been optimised to resolve detail at full frame. Apply sharpening to the LOG, as you have to, and those tests show how poor upressing is as a solution. 

 

Sorry guys, not a 1DC fan boy upset about 5DMKIII RAW nipping at the 1DC's heels - I love the fact we now have a viable B cam for the 1DC on 1080P deliveries, but i've seen both first hand and you just cannot compare the 4K to the 1080P - it's not a fair comparison.

The 5DMKIII RAW is great - but we're still rolling with the 1DC in Log simply for the ease of the post process in a high volume environment.

 

It's nice to want to believe that the 5DMKIII is almost a 4K beater. . .but it just aint the truth. . .yet! :) Still hoping the Magic Lantern guys bust it open even further and despite Canon's pithy threats, turn their attentions to the 1DC to see what they can do with some real horsepower. Fingers crossed.

ike007 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Interesting...the GH2 is very close to the 5D raw in these tests and it doesn't need all this post processing and storage power.  I understand the gravity of ML and their work, especially if you're an owner of a 5D or have a lot of Canon glass.  However, for us on the fence between GH3 and 5D3 what is the allure of Raw?  Considering it is so intensive of a workflow process it would only be used for special shots, and the majority of footage would be h.264, wouldn't the no brainer be to upgrade to a gh3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Interesting...the GH2 is very close to the 5D raw in these tests and it doesn't need all this post processing and storage power.  I understand the gravity of ML and their work, especially if you're an owner of a 5D or have a lot of Canon glass.  However, for us on the fence between GH3 and 5D3 what is the allure of Raw?  Considering it is so intensive of a workflow process it would only be used for special shots, and the majority of footage would be h.264, wouldn't the no brainer be to upgrade to a gh3?

 

Well, raw cameras like RED are used on daily shows as now the BMCC camera.RAW is intensive, yes. It's not for those who don't want to grade footage, but it goes beyond that. imagine having more, really more DR, using power masks and Keys to isolate or bring back blown highlights and really recorver the sunny sky... You can't do that properly even with a a C300 if not careful.

 

GH3 can't come close to a RAW camera...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Thanks for doing these tests! Awesome to hear our mushy 5D3 image now has the ability to shoot a more detailed and vibrant image than with the stock compression. Even more awesome to know it compares closely with the Cinema line. 

 

Some of your shots from the 5D3 are still showing some of the fixed vertical patten noise. This is my biggest concern after shooting raw with my 5D3. Having to push the luminance sliders past 50 (up to 75 for some shots) is definitely making the image more muddy. Sharpening helps bring back some detail but it's a shame so much noise-removal is necessary to get a clean image with no vertical lines. Maybe this will be worked out eventually? You've mentioned you like to shoot a few notches under-exposed to retain better highlight detail but it seems more people are reccomending the opposite, over-exposing then bringing down the highlights, in order to help with the vertical pattern issue. I'll have to do some more comparisons to see if this verifies but it's typically the way I shoot photos with my 5D3.

You don't want to try to remove vertical banding with standard spatial NR! As you say that destroys all regular detail to only just remove some fixed pattern banding. You need to use special banding-tuned NR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Great news! I sometimes wish there was a team like ML for Nikon, because imagine getting the RAW DR/tonality/IQ of the D800 on video. Now THAT would be incredible.

Not possible for a number of reasons including that the Nikon LV feed is aliased and choppy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Interesting...the GH2 is very close to the 5D raw in these tests and it doesn't need all this post processing and storage power.  I understand the gravity of ML and their work, especially if you're an owner of a 5D or have a lot of Canon glass.  However, for us on the fence between GH3 and 5D3 what is the allure of Raw?  Considering it is so intensive of a workflow process it would only be used for special shots, and the majority of footage would be h.264, wouldn't the no brainer be to upgrade to a gh3?

GH2 doesn't have the DR or color of a hacked 5D3. It's more than just the resolution that gets improved with the 5D3 hack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

Again I can't imagine any appeal to having to work with a completely different mount and camera system. If you have two Canons already just stick with Canon. They are the leader for a good reason, and glass is a major Canon strength.

 

BTW, the internal ND's on the C100 just beat out Formatt and Schneider 4x5.65's in a shootout:

http://www.ryanewalters.com/Blog/blog.php?id=6201317295579746489

 

Saves you even more dough (not to mention the also world-class built-in IR filter that also seals the sensor area from dust), and no flattening polarization effect or color bias from a Vari-ND.

 

Really given we have two excellent indie-affordable options in the C100/Ninja2 (best lowlight) and FS700/Speedbooster (overcrank) it's heroic but puzzling of you guys to stick with DSLRs. The RAW hack is definitely interesting to make use of the 5D3 as a super-B cam instead of just stills. But even so kitting it out is more expensive than the C100 option if you are only interested in motion, and not as great an image as charts reveal.

What if you also do a lot of stills? Then you need the 5D3 anyway which makes the costs even far more extreme. 5D3 gets it all in a small package. Great for hiking out to film cool spots/nature. Don't need to always lug two systems, etc.

 

C100 still doesn't grade quite as well.

 

I mean each have their uses though of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

You don't want to try to remove vertical banding with standard spatial NR! As you say that destroys all regular detail to only just remove some fixed pattern banding. You need to use special banding-tuned NR.

 

Where would I find special banding-tuned NR?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

22e4cHf.jpg

 

This chart should help with knowing what ISO's to use to reduce the presence of the fixed vertical noise patterns. Looks like 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 are the cleanest. Curious to try shooting a daylight wide landscape with ISO 100 and 800 to compare the vertical patterns. Seems like once you get above 800 it's less apparent as all the noise kinda blends together. I was shooting at 160 for my first raw test video and I'm pretty sure that ISO made the vertical banding worse.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted · Report post

22e4cHf.jpg

 

This chart should help with knowing what ISO's to use to reduce the presence of the fixed vertical noise patterns. Looks like 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 are the cleanest. Curious to try shooting a daylight wide landscape with ISO 100 and 800 to compare the vertical patterns. Seems like once you get above 800 it's less apparent as all the noise kinda blends together. I was shooting at 160 for my first raw test video and I'm pretty sure that ISO made the vertical banding worse.  

 

Interesting results though I always want to know how they were made precisely. It's not at all clear to me that the noise floor is the source of the vertical lines problem on an even gray field. Though NR will likely clear that artifact away if the NR is trained to it.

 

One thing that does display, if accurate, is the standard ISO's 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600 and 3200 are the only ones you should be using on the 5D3 RAW. Above 3200 is just a digital push I understand and that looks like it there...it's like Digital Zoom, you would be better off doing it in post than burning it into the capture. The standard ISOs up to 3200 are gain applied to the sensor itself and so they do have benefit. In fact I understand there is quite a bit of read noise on the 5D3 that limits low-ISO DR more than it should and much more than the D800 does.

 

The one hassle would be not being able to see what you're shooting very well in Live View...it might be a nice feature request to ask for from ML if the camera can't do it already (brighten the Live View picture without raising the recorded ISO past 3200).

 

I'm glad we're getting more reproducible data to discuss, though the reproducibility part remains elusive. Keep it coming, and in exhaustive detail por favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites