ScreensPro

 

I am sorry if I sound rude but d you know what Dynamic range is. To show such a gloomy low contarst scene to show dynamic range is really arkward .

 

I could ask you the same question..... That bright cloud light (you can even see the sun trying to burn through) meant i had to shoot the scene very dark, or else all the top detail would be completely lost (you can see it starting to go, even after protecting the highlights).... and the forest floor was really not light at all, yet i managed to pull out plenty of detail....

 

The fact that you think that shot didn't require much DR is, partly,  a testament to the camera.

Loving the extended video... great colour and detail. Certainly up there with the BMCC and RED

 

Keep up the good work

I did a dynamic range test with the D800 and 5D III in raw (photo mode), by lifting the shadows from an underexposed image.

http://www.digifotopro.nl/content/canon-5d-mark-iii-vs-nikon-d800-dynamisch-bereik

 

The properly exposed shot only has a few stops of DR to deal with, so you are just testing the very extremes of what you can recover from each sensor at the non native ISO.

 

Like i've said before though.... anyone who has ever shot a still on a Canon know's the raw image is superb.... We are past the point of looking at numbers on a graph.

 

Every hurdle that gets knocked down, another is put straight up..... Do people really think that 12 stops is not enough? Do most people ever know when their scene has more than 12 stops?

 

If you can't get a good image from a Canon raw file, you have far more worries than 3 stops of extra DR.

This was on my 5DII.... if that isn't enough DR, i don't know what is. (That is very bright cloud on the way up a mountain, it would ruin the shadows in h264... The tree stumps would be almost black).

 

These guys have the DR down at 12.5 stops.

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-5d-mkiii/canon-5d-mkiiiA5.HTM

 

My eyes tell me this is about right.

 

DXOmark works solely on signal to noise ratio, iirc, which doesn't tell the full story.

 

Regardless,,, anyone who has ever used a Canon for still shots know that the DR is very good and all sorts of things can be boosted and pulled back, in post. Time to stop worrying about numbers and remember we have great, built in testing tools, OUR EYES!

People willing to buy/rent a 1-DC are unlikely to rely on a hacked camera though. Imagine a big money shot that has 1-DCs spread out to capture various angles..... They can't afford a dropped frame or some strange artifacting

 

I'd be interested to see a blown up comparision of a 4K 1-DC and the 5D-raw frame though..... 1-DC will shade the resolution, but maybe not by a huge amount.

I think the whole discovery is more likely a threat for the Canon EOS cinema line. Who the hell will need an overpriced 1DC after this? (Who needs an 1DC anyway..)

 

Their target market perhaps? 4K b/c camera on features

Without being too greedy.... has there been any further talk on variable framerates (both faster and slower)?

DSLRs pretty much have to rely on CF or SD tech, for size reasons. So they can only move as fast as the media tech companies can.

 

RED have been using very expensive, proprietry media for years and opted to move to SSD, as CF tech was just not enough. This simpy isn't possible in a 5DIII body.

The BMPC will be starting to tempt certain still shooters too.

 

Canon and Nikon will hit out when raw video is cheap enough and good enough for stills shooters to take frames.

 

RED was always a bit too expensive and large to tempt the Canon/Nikon market.... But the BMPC begins to encroach on dslr territory (price wise, at least). A lack of proper still photography tools on the BMPC should put most off.... but the lines are blurring.

Even though you take a drop in quality, converting straight to Cineform raw will be the best option for super low budget users. 1/5th the space for maybe a 5-10% quality drop.... Seems worth it, when the quality is so high to begin with and will edit much faster.

 

Of all the things people crave from various cameras.... I think raw will be one of the most useful.

Surely it makes it more relevant than ever to those that were saying how disgraceful Canon were for not working on their sensors for over a decade?

 

raw or not, surely those sensors are terrible, right? 10 years without improvement.... must be almost unusable.

and on the day that it looks like Canon's 5DIII might get raw video.... it leads me to the wonder if some indie film makers might always be left chasing numbers.

 

"I can't shoot my movie on the 5DIII raw because it only has 12 stops".

 

* That's not aimed at you, dahlfors.... Just a general thought.

I've owned, rented and shot on all sorts of cameras, Nikon D3, Red One, Film etc etc

 

Note that i said i've never wished i'd had more, on the Canons..... not that you cannot tell the difference between 12 stops and 15 stops. 12 stops is enough for 99.5% of shots.

 

 

I'd rather have the Canon colour and skin tones than extra DR that only shows in the harshest of conditions

I've been following this with interest, and it just keeps getting better and better. I've never used an ML hack before, but these guys will be getting a hefty donation from me and my brother, when we get this working on his 5DIII.

 

Good work on the article, Andrew. Keep up the good work.

It's just paper stats though, to me.

 

I've never taken a still shot on my 5DII and thought, "i wish that had more DR". Even shooting in the harshest conditions. If that drop in DR results in Canon's colour and skin tones.... Then i'm fine with it.

 

DXOmark is a good resource.... But it can't pinpoint intangible qualities like colour, highlight roll off etc

Truly a remarkable feat.

Wow, hoping this proves stable.... even at 12 seconds, this is a very useful feature.

 

ML, top guys!

Imagine how killer the 1D C could have been if it wasn't just a 1D X with 4K enabled. If the had redesigned it, the profit margin would not have been as large, but they wouldn't then give us the terrible prospect of such a beautiful image trapped in a camera ill suited to deliver it.

 

Like i said before though, would you prefer a company who made a 4K DSLR, but overpriced (Canon) or not have a 4K DSLR at all (Nikon).

 

I can understand the frustration with Canon.... I just don't get why Nikon don't get any of the same frustration. Or why Canon don't get a bit of kudos for at least trying something new.

I've got no problem talking about Canon's short coming, just don't hide a dislike for them behind some post about sensors. The sensors are top quality and everyone knows it.

As for not sharpening in post... as I have said many times before.... Not everyone who uses and makes money from video works in tv/film production

I make 99% of my money from footage displayed on computer screens or mobile devices.... Sharpening in post works a treat.

The 5DIII is a pretty big leap in quality over the 5DII. No moire, aliasing... better codec, way better low light. Sharpens up nicely. I'd still say it is the best vDSLR out there.

 

The D800 seems more inline with Canon's earlier attempts.... Sure, it has a bit more resolution, but the rest is a bit of a mess.

 

It seems resolution rules supreme though, for most.

Also we know Nikon doesn't have their own Cinema line to protect. You can't really expect Canon to launch a dslr that will beat the C100/C300 in image quality any more, or come up with something ground breaking like raw video on a dslr. Nikon doesn't have that problem.

 

Exactly my point.

 

They have nothing to protect, yet still do nothing innovative. Yet they seem to be the 2nd coming here, compared to evil Canon... Who actually launch products that are great for film makers. Would you prefer an overpriced option or no option at all?

 

Your other point doesn't hold true. Canon made a 4K DSLR that shot a "better" picture than the C300, for less (if resolution is your thing).... The 7D had better video options than the 5DII.... The 550D has the same quality as the 7D....

but they cripple the sensor by using h264 codec so what you end up with is soft and blocky unlike the GH2 that is sharp and detailed

 

5DMK11 full frame sensor next to hacked GH2 looks soft

 

again, that has zero to do with this article. The article was taking a shot at Canon for not improving sensor tech for a decade.

 

Would you prefer a raw feed off a 5DIII or a GH3?

 

It's a no brainer, Canon's sensors are amazing.... Why do you think everyone was so giddy about the potential ML hack?

Again, that has nothing to do with the sensor. Canon sensors are stunning, regardless of what little advances they may have made, on paper, in the past decade (the point of this article).... Surely everyone with eyes can see that?

It's an interesting point actually.... Why do Nikon get away with sitting on their thumbs, by the folk on this forum?

 

Nikon have nothing to protect, yet still offer almost zero innovation, yet Canon are the great evil? At least Canon are taking risks, making products that film makers can use... they might be out of your budget, for now, but that will change....

 

What can you look at in the Nikon range and think "i'd like that, but damn, it's overpriced, i'll have to wait a year or two for that tech".

 

At least i can see that Canon are bringing things like 4K raw into their line up. Overpriced or not.