Been excitedly following all the news of the new Magic Lantern hack and watching videos. I really like what I'm seeing, however most of my attention at first went to all the mark III footage. Now I've discovered some mark II videos and it seems that the image characteristics of those two cameras are very different when shooting RAW video. Mark II now seems more filmic to my eye whereas mark III seems to be better in the technical specs and having much less aliasing problems. This is a new mark II video that brought me to this conclusion: https://vimeo.com/66667784
though i´m a 5d mark3 owner, i absolutely agree with you. for the most paid things the 5d mark raw is not a solution. even if the hack gets stable. the data rates alone make it impossible to use for documentary shooting for example. i´m really happy that this hack exists and i can play around with it but let´s see if it becomes a good way to work. i doubt it.
i also think you all should not blame canon so much. it´s a normal strategy for companies to offer different product for different prices and costumers. for example i know somebody how works for bmw in the development. the 316, the 318 and the 320i have the same engine, they just crippled the lower end engines and sell them cheaper. it´s more efficient to produce a higher number of engines and make them less strong for lower end cars, the to produce 3 different engines. all bmw would be much more expensive if they would produce 3 different engines. even if canon would would use the same sensor in the 600d and the mk3, i would still buy the mark3, because i want a magnesium body and not a plastic camera.
for example the canon ef 50mm 1,4 and the ef 50mm 1,2 are both very good lenses. but the 50mm 1,2 has a much better build quality and a bit better image and it costs 5 times the price. but if you work every day with this lens and earn money with it, then you maybe wanna buy it. i don´t start thinking is this really 5 times better then the 50 1,4? or is canon a greedy bitch because of this? i just think about if the things, this pro lens offers, is worth the more money for me personally. it´s easy like that.
i mean who would think the 5d mark raw is the right tool for one when he works every day with it? and i don´t mean making test shots and playing around. this is important to do and i´m really thankful that it´s been done, but if i can get a nearly the same image quality then the mark raw with a proress codec, and a good handling of the camera and the post workflow. this doesn´t sound too bad for me.
it´s really funny that everybody buys canon and complains about them at the same time... lol
1. Convert to DNG with raw2dng
2. Open all DNGs with Photoshop CS6, this opens up ACR
3. Press Select All and Synchronize (upper left on screen)
4. Grade, do noise reduction, etc.
5. Press Save All and save to JPG at 100% (grading is done, so 8-bit is OK).
6. In Premiere CS6, import first JPG, then press checkbox for Image Squence.
7. Modify clip- Interpret Footage as 23.976.
This is pretty fast once you do it a few times (much faster than an AE workflow), and plays back in real-time in Premiere. To get a 10-bit 422 workflow, Cinema 5D recommended saving first to 16-bit TIF, then converting to ProRes (Mac. On PC can do DNxHD, etc.).
A 4GB RAW file produces around 270MB in 100% quality JPGs (47 seconds).
stargazer got a reaction from Ratguity in 5d mark II RAW vs 5d mark III RAW?
stargazer reacted to benjolino in Magic Lantern 5D Mark III raw video and camera reliability