kedbear

The C100, whilst practical and easy to use, does look very videoy, image quality wise i'm not a fan at all, same goes for the C300 though that does look a bit better (though LOG and cinema glass can look decent but that's way out your range). The FS100 is cumbersome, poor in low light compared to the MKIII and again not that nice looking. The 5DMKIII i find is a nicer image in all but sharpness (though i don't like overly sharp images anyway). If you are happy with the MKII workflow and practicality for weddings, i'd definitely go MKIII since it slips into the kit you already have. You also get to use it with RAW for shorts, music videos etc and that really is fantastic image quality for the price. The GH4 is a viable option but can you be bothered with the lenses hassle?

Thanks for the reply. If Canon LOG just needs light, why not always give it a bit extra and not use any of the regular picture profiles? In other words, when does LOG not work so well? Is it just when you need to go over 1600? I've seen Shane's stuff, just very interested to see other work. Please do post, interested because you seem to have an appreciation for the filmic look and experience of comparing the 1DC with film. Thanks

Very interested to hear more. Firstly, what do you mean by 'Proper Post Production'. Secondly, where have you found that Canon Log does not work so well? Finally, do you have any 1DC footafge you could show, very interested to see it. I shot a short on the 1DC a several months back when it had just come out but approached it like i would a MKIII. I shot everything Log. I think it went ok but i would definitely like to have given it more light, i tended towards underexposure. I have been very impressed with the camera though, it really does have a lovely smooth image in LOG mode. Have you by any chance compared it to MKIII RAW for a cinematic image? I did actually shoot both the 1DC and MKIII RAW for a project but it was all landscapes and we ended up going nearly all RAW due to the grading range it gave us, so i don't really have much to compare to in regards to 1DC vs MKIII RAW. thanks

444 is overkill if just being used as a proxy before the online, but not overkill if any type of grading will be done to the 444, in that case it's better than hq.

Hi,   Is it possible for AE CS6 to work with 5DIII Cinema DNG files natively with it's own plugins, not ACR? So if i use ACR just to set my sharpening and colour profile, do i still have the full range of the RAW to use with After Effects plugins?   Why if i use a curves plugin within AE and blow out the highlights can i not bring the highlights back with a second curves plugin below the first?   Thanks very much for any help.

I have a project coming up and was thinking of shooting RAW on the MKIII. I wonder if some people could feedback with their experience as to which version (date) of the ML RAW has proved to be the most stable? I will be working with the Komputerbay 64GB. Previously i shot a project with i think a version from July and have not used or updated RAW since then.   thanks

I think you might believe some people are contrary for the sake of it, but there have been people who have continually disagreed with you with valid and logical reasons and they have been banned. That is a fact. You might view them as being contrary for the sake of it, but then you would if you wanted to justify your actions/decision to ban them no?   Anyway, lately this seems to have become a more open place to different opinion so there is definitely progression, however i think the continuing war with Philip Bloom, Zacuto or whoever the new representation of this conspiracy theory is etc is absolutely useless and continually brings this site down. If you have a positive outcome/change to report regarding this crusade please do bring it out into the open because i've yet to see it.   There is by far more weight placed on specs here than there is on the artform of Cinematography / Lighting. We've got MKIII RAW now, but show me one piece of work by any of the DSLR frontmen or board users that looks as good as the episode of House shot on the MKII! And lets not say 'yeah but they have massive budgets', there's simple lighting in there with basic tools that looks fantastic, which anyone else could do, and yet people will constantly slate the MKII as not being good enough for pro work. I don't get it.   What is the Indie Film-mnaking scene and why is there this entitlement from people that they somehow own/represent it in it's true form? The indie film-making scene are the people actually making films, rather than pointing out who is wrong or right, they are people creating art and what a far better choice that is for use of this short time on earth. 

This isn't true. This forum has banned and censored people as well, because of disagreement with the prevalent thoughts / beliefs here.   It's playground antics by two opposing sides who are predominantly gear fanatics rather than film-makers. At least that's what i see. I do like this forum though and there are plenty of good posts amongst the silly ego driven fights. This is a tech forum, not a forum about filmmaking, tech people fight over stats and numbers. How many fights here have been about quality of work? It's all about who's shooting what, which camera is better yada yada, which camera company is screwing over who and so on, and some of that is productive sometimes, but 'unbiased', no way! 

I was referencing 35mm motion picture film, not stills film. Specifically the kodak stocks such as the 18/19.

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?

  Film with a purely photochemical process after a one-light has less saturation and contrast than a lot of the RAW videos posted. From the last project i did that's what my eye tells me. Film is not super contrasty and saturated, i don't know why you're arguing that it is? The neg is not designed to create high contrast/saturation, that doesn't make sense. The Neg gives you a nice range of contrast to retain as much info as possible within the boundaries of what film can achieve.    Ok the MKII video posted is less saturated than film processed photochemically, but it's waaayy less saturated and contrasty than some of the videos being posted, and far more in the direction of what film looks like.   I don't understand what you mean by this digital LUT problem. You shoot on your camera with LUT applied to the viewing monitor, then in post you apply the LUT, and there you go it's the same as when you shot it. If you mean people are trying to grade footage to look like the LOG profile of an Alexa before grade/LUT applied, yes that's weird.   Anyway, rather than arguing about it, i guess i should just buy a fast CF card and test it for myself huh?

haha. Yeah i just don't have a fast card and tbh was going to wait for Magic Lantern to be more stable before jumping in.

Can i put in a request for someone to try to get something looking like this on the MKIII? So something with soft natural light and low saturation, with realistic skin tones.   vimeo.com/groups/raw/videos/66667784   The above video was shot on the MKII btw.   Thanks

    Thanks for the fix? Seems you do not understand what i am suggesting so perhaps ask rather than being sarcastic?   When you shoot film it has a far lower saturation and less contrast/more tonal range than the way most people are grading these RAW files. For example Andrew's original grade of his Anamorphic footage was like reversal film stock in it's look, but with a v videoey edge in comparison to standard film. If you look at the MKII video posted, it is shot in a soft natural light, with a low contrast/saturation grade, which is part of what is making it filmic looking, because it more closely resembles the actual look of film stock in it's contrast and saturation, hence the phrase 'filmic low saturation', in comparison to most RAW videos being posted.   So, i want to see a MKIII video shot in similar conditions and processed the same. What's strange about that? Yes any compressed DSLR can shoot low saturation and contrast, but that's going to be a limited dynamic and tonal range low saturation and contrast due to the H.264 compression. I want to see how the same look is in RAW, not H/264 which i've seen plenty of times already.

  I agree, that is by far and away the best footage i've seen from all RAW videos. Most people seem to grade the MKIII footage into a horribly over saturated and sharpened image. The anamorphic footage Andrew posted really was not nice looking at all and very videoey, along with nearly all other videos so far. Would really like to see if the MKIII can do something like this MKII video, i'm hoping it's just the grading since i own the MKIII! Best thing i've seen from the MKIII footage is that artisan one of the man working with wood, which was all natural light, as is the MKII one you posted! Can someone with a MKIII hack try shooting something in soft natural light with a filmic low saturation grade and post it up? V interested to see.

  The problem is it's personal.

Absolutely, if the HDMI port could be cracked it would be amazing.

IMDB doesn't define whether you're a working professional or not. I've been working 6+ years and my imdb was slim until recently. I'm sure you're aware that a music video, commercial or corporate job does not go onto IMDB. Just check out Claudio Miranda's imdb before he shot Benjamin Button for example. Film looks nicer than 5DMKIII RAW, i'm sure Kubrick would have stuck with film given the choice of the two!

No, people should be treated with a basic level of respect when you don't actually know what you're talking about, which is the case when accusing Vincent Laforet of just being a salesman. He's given enough to be given a basic level of respect i believe. Anyway, i'm not going to argue anymore, lets do some positive and informative posts instead?

I don't agree that you are objective, because you're too personally involved with Philip bloom. I do personally see ego coming thorugh in your posts and opinions when it comes to other higher end film-makers, for example Shane Hurlbut. You're very good at supporting the low budget indie market, i'm unsure why you don't stick to that rather than comparing yourself to others and criticising them. Something i'm unclear about, and i ask this with respect... Are you a film-making professional? Do you earn your living through DoP'ing / camera operating?

Eugh. What a disrespectful comment. Honestly... take a look at yourself first. What do you actually know about how much Mr Laforet works in the industry and what he's shooting?

I think it was mentioned on the ML forum that getting the RAW out of the HDMI is a problem due to dodgy colour and other settings applied by Canon for which the math remains a mystery to the ML team. We'll see though.

No. There's no 'deafening silence' unless that's what you wanted to see, which i expect is the case. Philip bloom talked about RAW in his latest blog post in a pretty level headed manner tbh, which included excitement, appreciation for it's image quality, and the potential downsides. Shane Hurlbut is testing it as we speak, and attested to the fact via twitter. And sure, Hurlbut 'gained his prominence from the 5D', and now he's in the 'big leagues'. His prominence and big league status of course had nothing to do with the award winning, big budget Hollywood films he's been shooting for years? Here's a guy who's been giving back to the community of low budget filmmakers for a long time now via his blog but at the drop of a hat you'll accuse him of conspiracy based on no factual evidence. What is wrong with you? Honestly this is simply ridiculous and flat out disrespectful.

Couldn't agree more. Using this situation to, frankly, bitch is just not useful. It's just another big ego from the other side of the coin. This blog is great for dedicated testing and giving to the DSLR/low budget indie community, why smear it with this behaviour? Why make personal attacks? Honestly i don't think you'll look back on it and be proud of it, whereas you can be very proud of all the effort you've put into informing the indie community.   I remember a post a while back where Andrew turned his nose up at Shane Hurlbut's decision to use the C500 when he thought it shoud be the F55 etc for his new film, and suggested it was due to being sponsored by Canon. I mean that is an ego i'm sorry. Specs aren't everything. What if Mr Hurlbut chose the C500 because he and the director liked the IMAGE better for the particular look they were going for, and what if it was better in low light than other cameras? Turns out Mr Hurlbut did in fact test a wide variety of cameras including the F55 and F65 and had perfectly valid non conspiratorial reasons for not using them.   I mean come on, why act this way? Lets all be honest here. Andrew you're dedicated to the low budget indie market, and right now it's a great place to be with the ML hack. Why not stick with that?