Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by peederj

  1.   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.
  2. 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.
  3. The Blackmagic deadenders will hate this, but look at the false color artifacting on the pebbles in the path up the middle: http://nofilmschool.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/cinema5D_5D_Mark_iii_BMCC.jpg Those artifacts come out clearly on test chart shots, including the one Andrew posted here back at the beginning of the BMCC hysteria, taken by John Brawley comparing it to the C300. (And no, those artifacts are not CA from the lens in this case...CA has a radial distribution not present here.) Why aren't charts the very first thing shot on a new camera/codec combo? Who knows, but I'm sure lots of people will pound their chests and insist heroically that "movies aren't made of test charts, at least not the movies I want to see. :angry: " The next thing that should be shot is of course the inside of a lens cap, to see how fine and regular the noise floor is at various resolutions and gain levels. I do these things when evaluating my options...do the rest of you just trust random samples and poorly controlled A/B's posted to the Internet? Entertainment. :rolleyes: Anyway I don't see overheating the sensor as an issue, or overheating the processors...but it's possible overheating the CF card could happen with that intensity of writing. But of course you will be doing a lot of CF card swapping, RED-style, offloading throughout your shoots this way, so they will have a chance to sink off some of that heat. The batteries can also be swapped out as heatsinks, as you might need to with a flash. And turning off the live view LCD will keep the sensor cooler. Hopefully the final version of this allows everything else to work simultaneously...H.264 proxy with audio to the SD card, clean uncompressed HDMI out, live view on the LCD, and focus assist. In the meantime, I suggest viewing the alpha tests for positives and not negatives. We can review the BMCC negatively because that is no longer alpha code. Officially, anyway... :ph34r:
  4. @TC But of course Canon have the last laugh as they dominate in sales and rentals anyway. Like with the Ninja/Samurai, there are 3rd party workarounds easily available to cover most of Canon's weaknesses (e.g. Magic Lantern) just as there are for RED's accessory price gouging. What there is is a very intensely vocal anti-Canon brigade that tries to drown out all other voices on these blogs and forums. As I wrote, I do understand it, Canon is holding stuff back that they could have included at no additional cost. But their products sell and rent because they just work and are not a pain in the arse in practice. Canon also doesn't gouge on batteries and media and other obnoxious things that Sony, RED, etc. do gleefully. The total cost of ownership is not overpriced and the image is subjectively appealing to many regardless of specs.
  5. Also left off the list...low light capability, internal battery, articulated screen, etc... Spend a day with the C100 and you will see the whole thing was intended to be used with an external recorder (Atomos Ninja 2 works a charm). When youzeguys test the C100 out vs. the has-it-actually-shipped-yet BMCC, please for the love of gawd engage Cinema Lock (for Canon Log and its 12 stops of DR) and record direct to ProRes 422 HQ (220 Mbps) and compare that with the RAW or ProRes from the BMCC. And do not neglect to show how nice the footage remains all the way up at ISO 20,000. Dont think the Ninja should be necessary? The internal SDXC's are just safeties. It's the same situation with your BMCC and its battery...the internal is just a safety, and you need an external anyway. Having the Ninja as the external gives a second monitor with peaking etc. for e.g. the focus puller, and if the Ninja goes down your camera still works and can record onto the safeties. Credibility is valuable. I understand crowing about the BMCC and trying to pressure the Japanese companies. But Atomos, another Aussie company, unlocked the capability of the vastly more mature Japanese cameras of this generation for only $1000-$1500, a whole day's worth of batteries and media included. And that's something you know already and shouldn't insist on ignoring just because you want to give your article more zing. Thank you Andrew.
  6. We learned with the Scarlet vs. C300 price comparisons that the only thing worth comparing pricewise is [b]total cost of ownership[/b]. Sure the camera body may cost $15K but what good does that do you if you need another $20K of proprietary add ons to shoot at the quoted specs and media costs $40/minute at those specs. I'm sure when you have the proper info you will go over TCO for each attractive camera option in practice.
  7. I admire your screenwriting skills greatly germy! Though as someone who owns and uses a real U87, i can tell you that after a couple days you aren't thinking "that's a U87." You are thinking about whether it gives the vo talent a cold or a kazoo voice or it's perfect. And if you are worth hiring you are simultaneously considering the bigger picture of what this means to the delivered narrative, and adjusting accordingly. And after doing vo with a U87 you aren't likely to waste much time with the GH3's of microphones. Let the local car dealerships cope with that sound.
  8. Everything I dislike about the GH2 remains on display. Those people look so green it's as if they are half-lizard. The color science is more like color fraud. Sorry if I have insulted your baby. But look at the lovely use of color in Reverie in comparison...sure we see the macroblocking and aliasing today, but at least the thing doesn't make me wretch. Bruce Logan's color work in the Zacuto shootout 3rd episode was stellar. This is the camera, not those professionals.
  9. This is all neurotic navel gazing. I have no interest in how you did it. Everyone will do it in their own way. Some complications are superfluous, some are of the absolute essence. I can't decide that for you. I can only decide if I like what you did.
  10. Thanks for that report jcs. Saying the BMCC actually only resolves 900 lines when shot RAW makes the 5D3 at 780 lines look not so awfully soft given the much better low light and DOF. But the 5D3 doesn't have the DR, and just has 4:2:0. Canon is using weak codecs, the C100 is especially imbalanced with a pro body and consumer codec. But they can leisurely upgrade the codecs across their line; it's much harder for an upstart like BMD to match Canon's terrific ergonomics, field service, whole ecosystem. I wonder how many lines the C100 will be able to do at 24mbps AVCHD...given it's 4:2:0 the color resolution will only be half as good as the C300. Philip Bloom calling the BMCC, "well, maybe a fetus Alexa" was fun.
  11. BMCC suffers a black (or false color) eye here, but iiuc, these are RAW captures for the BMCC and MXF for the C300. False color is an artifact of debayering and you can get better algorithms to suppress it. E.g. Sony is especially good at suppressing false color in its cameras. So I'm not sure this result is the final word in this matter. The debayering on the BMCC Philip Bloom just reported needs to be updated to correct a magenta shift in the highlights (which results from the fact luma is measured in the twice-as-numerous green pixels and they are adding them rather than averaging them, resulting in their clipping and causing a minus green color shift). The RAW conversion both in-camera (for ProRes etc.) and in post can be improved to suppress false color, correct green clipping, etc. But I applaud BMD for allowing the real state of their camera to be visible prior to delivery.
  12. Can you get an Atomos Samurai and record the ProRes externally while you record RAW internally on the BMCC? If you can, then you have both with no transcode time, and an external monitor for the focus puller or director.
  13. [quote name='Philip Lipetz' timestamp='1346260138' post='16851'] canon support are the ones saying 4:2:0 output [/quote] The Canon website says 4:2:2. [url="http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100#Specifications"]http://www.usa.canon...#Specifications[/url] Sebastian also says 4:2:2. http://***URL not allowed***/news/?p=12761 "Canon Support" is not a company, its a single employee of a company, and while there was an employee who wrote the website (and may have inadvertently copy-and-pasted the wrong info) one presumes that info was reviewed and vetted prior to being made public. Also, this camera won't appear till the end of the year, and why would the support staff need the details until then? Of course you might be right but I really see this camera as DOA if it doesn't have 4:2:2 output. A Ninja 2 would serve as a fine second monitor for the focus puller or scopes etc. and why not record onto it too if you get better quality. This whole camera and its price are overkill for 4:2:0 24mbit video, just like the side handle I see recording internally as a convenience thing for run-and-gun ENG style. I wonder if Canon are holding back finalizing the price and specs until they see how we react. I can tell them, if there's no 4:2:2 output, this camera should be priced around $3,000. Pro body forced to record consumer format. Ergo semi-pro price.
  14. Canon claims the C100's color space is 4:2:2. http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/professional/products/professional_cameras/cinema_eos_cameras/eos_c100#Specifications
  • Create New...