Archived

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

SKIN - First short film to use 5D Mark III Magic Lantern raw, a guest post by Andrew Wonder

39 posts in this topic

Posted

[media]https://vimeo.com/69294861[/media]

Turning red blood green with raw on the 5D Mark III

Andrew Wonder (Undercity / blog) has just released a narrative short film shot in anamorphic (a modified Iscorama called the Wonderscope) on the 5D Mark III in raw. Here is a guest post from Andrew on the making of it and his take on the DSLR raw revolution.

[url=http://www.eoshd.com/content/10697/skin-first-short-film-to-use-5d-mark-iii-magic-lantern-raw-a-guest-post-by-andrew-wonder]Read the full article here[/url]
Ratguity and matt2491 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I like the idea for the short. It made me uncomfortable, but that's about all. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

Also, blacks crushed to hell, so not the best way to show off the raw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're mistaking raw for flatness and low contrast. Just because you have access to something doesn't mean to say you should turn it up to 11 and bring the shadows hurtling into the mids. In my opinion, most of the time blacks should be black not grey.

 

Check out Hunter Richards 'Alexa LUT'. It helps people avoid grading decisions like that.

Julian, JHines, ScreensPro and 1 other like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're mistaking raw for flatness and low contrast. Just because you have access to something doesn't mean to say you should turn it up to 11 and bring the shadows hurtling into the mids. In my opinion, most of the time blacks should be black not grey.

 

Check out Hunter Richards 'Alexa LUT'. It helps people avoid grading decisions like that.

 

I agree, Andrew, but to me there were still two problems with the image: the highlights (granted, it was more noticeable in the backlit shots, but felt far from what I've come to expect from RAW) and the noise (there were even harsh patterns like the one in the last shot; I thought the 5DMk III was better in that regard!),
Both of these issues made me think I could've easily achieve this without the need of RAW.
Of course you can neglect the improvement in detail and color, and the flexibility in post, but I didn't feel this short showcased any of RAW's advantages apart from that chroma keying thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I honestly don't see the problem, it is really aesthetically pleasing as a short. Good luck getting this image from H.264 especially with such a heavy grade on top! The detail really pops too. Remember how soft and mushy the H.264 is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

You're mistaking raw for flatness and low contrast. Just because you have access to something doesn't mean to say you should turn it up to 11 and bring the shadows hurtling into the mids. In my opinion, most of the time blacks should be black not grey.

 

Check out Hunter Richards 'Alexa LUT'. It helps people avoid grading decisions like that.

 

I agree that black should be black. But shots with virtually 0 shadow details looks really weird to me. But I agree that overall the image looks much better than what they would have got of the in camera codec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Not sure about zero shadow detail. Different displays have different black levels so what you're seeing is unlikely to be the same as what the creator sees. I think there should be stricter worldwide standards on display calibration and less ability for the user to change it around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

...but felt far from what I've come to expect from RAW...

 

Raw is not a look, it's just additional detail and information to help you achieve whichever look you're after.

It's the same as the "film look", what the hell is that? I've seen thousands of films shot on film, and they all look different, sometimes extremely different. It's the same with raw, it's just information for you to take and use as you see fit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Raw is not a look, it's just additional detail and information to help you achieve whichever look you're after.

It's the same as the "film look", what the hell is that? I've seen thousands of films shot on film, and they all look different, sometimes extremely different. It's the same with raw, it's just information for you to take and use as you see fit.

 

Agreed. Raw isn't a look. The biggest mistake people make with freedom is to abuse it by sliding the highlight recovery to maximum and lifting the blacks 3 stops.

 

If someone wants to crush the blacks, that's their choice and there are aesthetic reasons for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I liked it but isn't ~2:52 a little bit noisy for iso 5000? I'd think it was 12800.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

It's kind of like an Upstream Color sequel.

Zach likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Interested in the observation that there was more colour info than in the Epic. I'd like to hear more of an explanation. If it's the case then this interests me even more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Raw on a DSLR is great, but this video just goes to show why compressed video is fine as long as there is content worth watching. I found this badly shot, badly edited and without anything to say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Should have done it in choc brown

 

It could then have been picked up as a Cadbury Flake ad  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

interesting visuals and concept, though felt it would have been much better suited to a music video.
Zach likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I honestly don't see the problem, it is really aesthetically pleasing as a short. Good luck getting this image from H.264 especially with such a heavy grade on top! The detail really pops too. Remember how soft and mushy the H.264 is?

 

Raw is not a look, it's just additional detail and information to help you achieve whichever look you're after.

It's the same as the "film look", what the hell is that? I've seen thousands of films shot on film, and they all look different, sometimes extremely different. It's the same with raw, it's just information for you to take and use as you see fit.

Fair enough. I'm not putting down RAW, I love the possibilities, and of course I don't expect HDR paint-like images just because you can.
I simply expected more detail in the highlights on the skinned girl shots which are backlit but, on a second look, contrast was the way the filmmakers chose.
But NOISE was the big problem to me. There was a lot, it was distracting and very unpleasing when those strong patterns showed up. I don't think that was an aesthetic choice.

I've only once worked with the 5D MkIII on a full short film (albeit a very simple one) and was underwhelmed by its ISO performance, but I thought it was due to my not diving deeper into the settings (the owner didn't use it for video so it wasn't optimized for it). Now if this video is an example of what it can do at and under 5000ISO it's not very good (and I come from the GH2!). Perhaps it was higher?
Also, a little denoising wouldn't have hurt, don't you think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

I've only once worked with the 5D MkIII on a full short film (albeit a very simple one) and was underwhelmed by its ISO performance, but I thought it was due to my not diving deeper into the settings (the owner didn't use it for video so it wasn't optimized for it). Now if this video is an example of what it can do at and under 5000ISO it's not very good (and I come from the GH2!). Perhaps it was higher?
Also, a little denoising wouldn't have hurt, don't you think?

 

The 5D3 gives you one of the best low light performances out there. 5000 is crazy high, if you consider what was possible just a few years ago. He mentions denoising footage in the article, he also mentions adding grain back, maybe the grain doesn't work so well with noisy footage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Raw on a DSLR is great, but this video just goes to show why compressed video is fine as long as there is content worth watching. I found this badly shot, badly edited and without anything to say. 

 

Art doesn't necessarily need dialogue to "say" something. I think it's pretty abstract and one could take away many things from it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

old school raw was so sweet in the hands of a not so sweet man from
po
land



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1swzjZvAeiI
Francisco Ríos likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted

Very cool article. Great content. Thought the short was riddled with suspense which kept me watching. Only negative I saw was the really bad noise on the last shot and the out of focus shots every now and then using a DOF too thin on the Steadicam. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites