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?

Hi Kedbear, 

Proper Post Production - denoising, color correcting, color grading, texturing, etc., along with sound, editing, effects, etc. 

Canon log can be tricky.  The 1DC needs light.   Do not under expose.   I'll post some footage when I have time.  

 

Shane has some good stuff:  http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/01/camera-tests-outside-the-studio/

 

http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2013/10/menus-for-cinematic-capture-on-the-canon-1dc/

 

Cheers.

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

Odie,  

 

The 1DC is actually quite an amazing camera.  I've been experimenting since I first bought it.   It is a tool and part of the equation for a production.  The 1DC has its strengths and it has its weaknesses.  By experimenting, I am able to go around a corner faster but I still do slide off the road - if that makes sense.   When I think I have mastered something, I mess up.  Messing up is part of learning, at least that is what I keep telling myself.  

 

 I use Canon Log  - amazing at times and it can suck the big one at times depending upon the situation(if I light incorrectly).  Lighting properly is important.  Muddy waters if lighting is too weak.   The latitude, imo, is around 13 stops with Leica lenses ( I like the Leica).  Depending upon the lighting,  green fringing can show in the shadows especially in blonde hair (purple at times too).  Again, it depends upon the lighting.  One has to be careful.  

 

Under a lot of light  (the camera likes to be a light pig),  1DC likes the light - it is amazing.    With proper post production, it is difficult to tell the difference between actual film and the 1DC footage - again, proper post production.   Also, the footage needs to be shot correctly too.  

I've been experimenting with lighting - from Costco led bulbs, Home Depot bulbs, Chinese led lights, grow lights,  and so on.   My wife thinks I'm a little nuts, but hey, she married me.  With the 1DC, cranking the iso up to around 1600 is okay( in Canon Log - outside of Canon Log you can crank it up more).  At first, I was scared to crank the iso as I'd think I'd lose dynamic range and get lots of noise.  It's all good.  You still may need to denoise depending upon the situation.  

 

The 8 bit can be a pain due to banding issues at time.  So being aware is important.     Handheld is a no, no - unless you have rock steady hands.  Using a steady cam of some sort or a tripod plays it safe.    

 

File sizes are huge too.  

 

Overall, I like it.  Cheers.

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

Isn't ProRes 4444 overkill for this type of source? In my tests I found ProRes HQ to be virtually identical to the source.

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

It isn't because of disagreement with the prevalent thoughts at all. It is to prevent ascendancy into un-constructive information infesting my site, personal attacks and people just hanging around looking for arguments.

 

Some people are contrary for the sake of it, and it's very annoying.

 

Some of the best and most constructive ideas comes from differing viewpoints from my own and I have no intention in censoring them.

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. 

The problem with sponsored sites/forums is that they eventually start censoring free speech and criticism under the slogan "Let's all be professional, folks" as if being nice is more important than being right. I love EOSHD forum because it has the most free environment for discussion. 

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! 

If you ever shot some Fuji Velvia 50 and such that was pretty contrasty and wildly saturated.

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?

No, it doesn't. 

 

If you were to remain with a fully photochemical process you would have to choose to shoot for a low-contrast effect or deliberately print it seeking a low-contrast effect.  This is why "one light" prints using standard printer lights almost universally contain more contrast than the final, timed print of a film will.

 

Raw digital cameras and digital acquisition of film elements requires a viewing LUT and this has introduced repeated instances of seeing a misleading representation of the image acquired.  Worse than this is this low-contrast, bad LUT version becoming accepted as "that's just how it is" or creating a perception that "that's just how that camera shoots" (see: repeated references on camera forums to a supposed Alexa "look" that's utter hogwash) and so that version carries forward to the final version (see: first ever F35 film, Superman Returns...ugh).

 

Film is low-contrast straight off a datacine, viewed naively without a proper LUT.

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?

You understand these two things don't go very well together, right? :) Why don't you just do it yourself???

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

Here, I'll fix that for you:

 

Can someone with a MKIII hack try shooting something in soft natural light that any compressed DSLR can also faithfully capture and post it up?

 

"filmic low saturation"?  What an odd phrase.

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.

This is one of the best videos I've seen so far from the hack, but it's on the 5D2. Very filmic (which i havent seen from the 5D3).

 

vimeo.com/groups/raw/videos/66667784

 

Still seeing weird judder in all the hack shots where there is lots of movement.

 

LOL, advantage 5D Deuce.

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.

I've just now finally had the time to take a look at Bloom's post.

 

What is the problem? He is clearly impressed and supportive of what ML are doing and says the resolution and DR are greatly improved. His discussion about the reasons that raw can be a hindrance are balanced and legitimate. He also goes on to gripe about the filesize and workflow of the 1-DC, not exactly in fitting with the idea of him being some kind of Canon spokesperson.

 

I wonder how many people here actually read the article... Or just the headline? (A huge problem in all internet forums and debates).

 

Here is an extract.... Are these the words of someone who has dismissed the hack and is, in any way, unsupportive of their efforts?

 

"Now with the additional excitement of the new Magic Lantern hack which has quite incredibly brought raw video to the 5DmkIII, the raw clamour has reached unparalleled heights. Although this hack is still in a very early stage, it will undoubtedly reach a more stable level pretty soon, and everyone will be desperate to shoot everything in raw on the MKIII. Why? Because it’s raw…you know? It’s better. Yep. It is. A hell of a lot better. Not just that, but the image itself is better than the MkIII is able to give us normally. There is more detail, and with raw much more dynamic range of course. There are are a number of big caveats though which I will get to…but the achievement of these people is incredible and should be applauded hugely."

The problem is it's personal.

kedbear - thanks. I don't have access to the ML forums over here (currently in Afghanistan) so operating out of ignorance. I like this concept. It would just better for me, once I get home that is, to record RAW/CDNG directly onto an Atomos. Know what I mean?

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

I didn't say I don't respect him.  But, he is a salesman - plain and simple.

 

Honestly, it's a touch disrespectful that you would assume I was being disrespectful.  

 

My hypothesis - Vincent Laforet and Philip Bloom are salesmen.  Prove me wrong?

 

This is Vincent Laforet's IMDB page.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm3667064/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

 

&

 

This is Philip Bloom's imdb page

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2423275/?ref_=fn_al_nm_1

 

As I said, I genuinely like Philip Bloom as a personality.  

 

But (mostly) everything they're listed as doing coincides with the release of a new camera or gadget.

 

They aren't filmmakers, they're bloggers and salesman.

 

Stanley Kubrick would have jumped all over a full-frame RAW digital camera that could shoot 12,800 ISO with his 0.96 lens for $3k.

 

These guys are here, as pawns, for a BOOMING industry of camera technology.  *my opinion.  (and again, Philip is cool)

 

A hacked camera that is 1 year old (especially one that they both took a blogger's dump on) isn't profiting them in any way.

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!

Sorry but respect is earned. If Vincent hasn't earned it with that particular forum member, he's entitled to have an opinion that is disrespectful.

 

Logical no?

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 come from the North of England where the whole ethos is to be self depreciating. I grew up from a working class background. I couldn't give a shit about egos. Trust me this is not about ego. It is about what is right for the DSLR community and what is good advice and what is useful to Magic Lantern and that they should deserve better from someone like Bloom.

 

Hyperbole? C100 is not raw or full frame or $3k. It's a whole different ballgame creatively. I've shot with the C100, the image is mush compared to raw on the 5D Mark III. You are looking at compressed 5D footage in the DVX comparison. You try grading a DNG from the 5D Mark III and a AVCHD frame from the C100 and see what happens.

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?

Vincent isn't a filmmaker anymore... He is a salesman. Philip Bloom is too.

This hack keeps this camera viable until people actually NEED 4k in the home.... Which is at least 5-15 years away.

With every new camera, there is a new gadget... Something for Vincent and Philip to 'review' and endorse so you will buy it.

Are they paid for it, no (maybe)... But they certainly profit from it - not just but clicks on ads on their sites... but as long
As they can stay relevant they can keep working.

I like them, and honestly think Philip is pretty cool... But I wouldn't take their opinions about a camera hack and the future
of anything as fact. They are salesmen for a booming industry!

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?

Love the idea here. Just waiting for it to hit that last step: recording raw/dng to an Atomos.

I'll stick with ProRes422 til that happens.

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.

I'm noticing a deafening silence from the DSLR gang of LaForet, Chung and Hurlbut. These guys gained their prominence from the 5D, but now seem to be trying to distance themselves from it because they now have corporate sponsors with various accessory manufacturers ( Movi / Kessler / Teradek / Tilta ) and promoting a free 5D3 RAW hack is too cheap for them since they're in the "big leagues" now.

 

Case in point, - I just noticed that Dan Chung quitely changed the domain of his blog from www.dslrnewsshooter.com to just www.newsshooter.com

 

Want 5D RAW coverage from these boys? Better get your sponsorshop agreement in order. :D

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.

Better to stick to reporting about the great work ML are doing.

 

You are doing them a disservice by making this issue about you and the other bloggers.... Who cares if they have a different opinion than you or even what motivates them.

 

You are doing good work reporting and testing the ever changing ML advances. That's all we need.

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?