Damphousse

Wrong I'm afraid. 5D Mark III, D5200, D5300 are moire / aliasing free in all real world situations, unless you're talking about charts and then every camera has it even the Epic.

 

It's easy to avoid. GH2 does it for very little money on a sensor only slightly smaller than Canon APS-C (1.86x crop vs 1.6x crop).

 

A pixel mix on the sensor is all that's needed.

The 5D Mark III is over $2,500.  I said people aren't doing it in APS-C or larger in sub $2,500 cameras.  I am not familiar with the two Nikon models you mentioned.  I had looked at the D800 which is over $2,500 and it has moiré/aliasing.

As far as the GH2 and it's ilk they are not APS-C.  If you look at the majority of cameras you see a pattern.  Smaller sensor size even with large megapixel has more moiré/aliasing-controlled examples in the $1,000 or less neighborhood.  I was just commenting that there might be a very good engineering/economics reason for that.

 

Meanwhile Mr. Petty can sit on his high horse and complain about these money-grubbing big boys that scoffed him and his ideas. But at the end of the day, he still needs to employ HIS tiny workforce of 350 people, by choosing at least SOME products that can make money... such as his excellent high-volume, low-margin post-production equipment that put BlackMagic on the map.

 

Exactly.

Anyone that has 350 mouths to feed has an agenda.  Which is fine.  Just don't accuse everyone else of being bad because they have an agenda as well.

Black Magic likes to make unfinished, unpolished, very delayed beta devices.  If Canon and Nikon don't want to be in that business that is their choice.  I don't see why both markets can't coexist.

And anyway if you produced a BMPCC to Canon's specification it would not cost under $1,000.  You could probably double that or more.  Canon has the EF and EF-S line of lenses.  It's not in their business model to put out removable lens cameras with sensors that are more cropped than APS-C.  And producing an APS-C sensor that does what the BMPCC does seems like it would be an expensive affair.  And keep in mind Canon doesn't put out any cameras with a native 800 ISO that you have to control with ND filters.  It's just so different from any of their existing product lines I don't see why they would introduce the confusion.

Let us not forget this video. 

>

He was banned by Andrew for no reason other than Andrew himself fell for it. It was a good Pepsi challenge for us all and illuminated some good points. There was a nice discussion going but the guy was banned and his thread deleted.

Let's be honest about a couple things here.  No one is doing moire/aliasing free video on APS-C or larger sensor for less than $2,500.  There must be some engineering/economics reason for that.

Also the autofocus on the 70D is nothing short of revolutionary.  I suffer with the autofocus in the Canon t3i and it is a total joke.  The BMPCC is even worse... didn't think that was possible.

I don't understand why moire/aliasing hasn't been addressed.  And I definitely don't like the mushy results of the Canon codec but that autofocus is amazing.

Still not going to buy it.

 

The 14-140mm lens (28-280mm FF equivalent) is a not constant F/2.8 aperture (in fact far from it at F/3.5-F/5.6) nor is it a power zoom. Maybe the new version is par focal but the old one wasn't.

I was going to ignore that but since you brought it up...  Ever since smaller sensor cameras started coming out (micro 4/3) people have been glossing over lens quality and cost.  People say oh look at micro 4/3 mirroless cameras they make so much sense because you remove the stupid mirror and shrink the body.  Well people think smaller is cheaper.  It's not.  The problem with micro 4/3s is to get even a moderate wide angle say 24mm FF you have to design an extra wide lens.  It might be cheaper than an extra wide lens on a FF but that ignores the fact you wouldn't even need an extra wide lens on a full frame to begin with.

All the reviews of micro 4/3s lenses I've seen rate them pretty poorly.  If I wanted to get the equivalent of my Canon L glass or my EF-S 17-55mm 2.8 IS I would need to get Panasonic 12-35mm/F2.8.  A nifty fifty for $100?  Forget about it.

The Sony RX10 with an eqivalent 24-200mm 2.8 is crazy.  I suspect that one of the reasons things weren't perfect in other areas is the considerable cost that probably went into the lens alone.  This entire camera is less than $200 more than the Panasonic 12-35mm 2.8 lens which covers a fraction of the focal lenght.  To be honest with you I would have been satisfied with a 24-150mm or even less zoom range on the Sony RX10 if it meant more money was put into processing and a better codec.

One problem with that video is a lot of the shots are pretty static.  Andrew mentioned things really fell apart with a lot of motion.  I am glad the guy who did the video used a tripod and other stabilizers unlike a lot of the other clowns Sony got the camera to early, but I still want to see more stress testing of what Andrew spoke about.

My faith in the camera's handling of moire and aliasing was restored a lot though after watching that video.  It is clearly better than all the low end Canons.

Oh, well.  I was so ready to sell one of my Canon lenses and get this camera.  Looks like the t3i and Tragic Lantern are going to be in my bag for awhile.  Man, so close but yet so far.  Very dissappointing.  It was too good to be true.

Hi. No, it's not too late.  Though I lent my 50D to someone who is teaching a friend how to use it and maybe that friend will buy it.  I have a Toshiba 1000x 16GB CF card.  My biggest problem with the 50D is not getting a proper frame size showing on the LV during crop-mode recording.  Do you have a trick for that?  I probably shouldn't sell it because it will be even more useful as the high-speed CF cards get cheaper.  

No man sorry.  I never got that deep into the 50D.  I use it mostly in crop mode for tripod mounted stuff.  So I turn on the ML grayscale and line everything up and then turn of global draw.  Then I hit record.  But I don't move the camera during recording.  I use it in a very narrow fashion.  If it was like recording on a T3i I would do more dynamic stuff.  I just hate having to do a bunch of processing on a file only to discover I made a mistake while recording.  I know... pretty lame.

Get a i7 3770k or 4770k with a GTX 560 or better and you will get much better perf. with neatvideo, I know how painfull it is, from 20 hours render on a wedding from a q6600 I went to 8-9 hours now, doing it overnight.

Well you are obviously doing this for money.  I am a hobbyist.  A new computer isn't in the cards for me at the moment.  I realize that I am hamstrung a lot by my pc hardware.  I have an i7 920.  Funny thing is when I bought it I thought it would be my last computer for like a decade!

I have a question about neat video.  Do you go through the little green selector box for every scene or is there a way you can calibarte it and then just apply that calibartion to a bunch of clips with a range of ISOs?  I do the full calibration thing for every clip that needs it.

Exactly, did you see the difference in DR and how much impact it has on the image ? it is huge, add noise reduction in post and you question why 5d 3 is so praised.

One thing you can't do, moire and aliasing, that is a problem you can't fix in post so I guess that can be a deal breaker.

If you follow my posts (no reason you should) you will know my biggest complaints are moire/aliasing (canon rebel line) and post processing (bmpcc proress).  I actually don't mind the T3i when using a 50mm 1.4 for low light shallow depth of field work.  Yes the codec could be sharper but once the moire/aliasing is eliminated you can get good results straight out of the camera.

I don't have a powerful computer so any post processing is going to irritate me.  I shoot a lot of clips with various settings and constatnly having to go into Neat Video would drive me up the wall.  I use it but is slows the whole process down.  I have so many unprocessed clips littering my harddrive.

That's why DXomark rates 5d3 and canons so low in low light scores, first thinking is they are mad, but they aren't because they try to bypass any image processing the camera has when testing sensor, take raw image files and put them trough topaz noise reduction or whatever you use and you get about the same results but with higher MP count on Nikon or sony in this case, result, canon sucks, same for video, take that A7R or d800 footage and reduce noise in post and you get the same results of canon but with better DR and lower need it ISO.

You should check out Dave Dugdal at learningdslrvideo.com.  His reviews of such things are pretty down to earth for hobbyists like myself.  I'm not getting paid for this and I don't want to have to do a bunch of stuff in post.

Just did some quick calcs on the ProRes that came out of the BMPCC and it's around 22 MB/S.  

 

When I shoot 1280x720 on the EOS-M, using 14bit RAW, it's around 36 MB/S.

 

On the 50D, 1080p is around 80 MB/S.  (Can't shoot continuous 1080p on the 50D.  I can around 72 MB/s; others say they have been able to do it with 32GB cards).  Of course, there is no compression, not even the crudest sort, on ML RAW.  

 

You still have to go out of your way to buy an SD or CF card that records over 40MB/S.  So even if Canon released a camera today they'd get tons of supports calls, my guess.  I'm not excusing their wimpiness.  Just saying there's a lot to what Damphousse is saying  ;)

I don't know if it is too late but if you are using a Komputerbay card you should swap it out.  I think the Komputer Bay 64 GB card is the sweet spot.  Mine defintely hits 80 MB/S.  Of course I need to turn global draw off and use small hacks.  I also format and the card needs to warm up.

The 50D proves my point... and kind of undermines it.  Finessing raw out of it can be an issue for longer clips.  It's not the type of thing you can set up on a tripod and hit record and assume you can glance down 5 minutes later and it is still succesfully recording.  I use it for short clips no longer than 30 seconds.  But then you think Canon created this raw shooting beast half a decade ago!  Where is Moore's law?

I think one of the issues is the rise of the SD card.  I was shooting video with my t3i and a middle aged tourist started asking me about it.  During the conversation he mentioned he had an older camera without video function and it used old tech compact flash cards.  I had to explain to him compact flash cards on average had faster throughput than the newer SD cards.  I don't know if I convinced him.  But I think a lot of consumers would be befuddled by relatively expensive CF cards reappearing in their cameras.

Does the active stabilization on the RX10 reduce resolution?

From the article...

With active image stabilisation turned on you get a bit of a crop. With it set only to optical image stabilisation without the added electronic crop for extra stability, there’s no crop. It’s great to have two stabilisation options in the camera. With active stabilisation enabled it is approaching Olympus 5 axis IBIS for effectiveness.

 

MJPEG (ProRes, DNxHD) 10-bit 422 is plenty, along with a decent quality in-camera de-Bayer. If using a C100-C500 sensor- then no de-Bayer needed. Cards are plenty fast...

How many MB/S is Prores 4:2:2 10-bit?

I can only go by what I've seen in the past 30 years.

If you have been watching this space for 30 years then you know Canon, Nikon, Panasonic, Sony etc would never risk the value of their brand on something like the BMPCC.  Canon was the first to market with a real consumer DSLR.  And they brought it in under $1,000 with lens.  It was a complete polished kit with working auto focus and the photography world went crazy.  That was a decade ago.  They are not going to put out a fiddley beta camera that ships in spirts even a year after it was announced for $1,000 with no lens.  They would get massacred in the press and have irreprable damage done to their brand.

There are certain things you simply don't see.  One of them is a no moire/aliasing APS-C or larger sensor with 4:2:2 10 bit or raw in a sub $4,000 camera that is polished and worthy of the name Canon, Nikon, etc.  Nobody makes anything like that.  What BlackMagic has done is nice but it is not something any major consumer electronics player can do with it's brand name.  Ask anyone in marketing and they will tell you no way.  Sales are down across Canon's stills camera business but I don't think they will make up for those missed sales by damaging their brand to put out a $1,000 camera for the raw/prores market.

The video of the executive from the Cinema division at Canon made a good point about throughput.  When the throughput is available I am sure you will see more of the major players jump into that market.  But right now with SD cards and CF I think we will continue to be limited in what we get.  Even BlackMagic went with SSD in it's higher end cameras.

Unfortunately, no matter how much extra quality they can squeeze out their cameras, it will be the marketing people overriding this guy to make the final call...

True but no one at any company is producing APS-C sensors with no moire/aliasing and outputing raw or 10 bit 4:2:2 to SD or CF without hacks for less than $4000.  Black Magic Production does it for super 35mm but it uses SSDs.  And that is the throughput thing the guy from Canon referenced.  I'm sure canon will try and protect its professional Cinema cameras but someone without anything to lose would have done it by now if it was that easy.

I buy quality lenses and cheap Rebel bodies.  So I can sell my rebel easily and probably only take a $50 hit from the purchase price and get something else if someone comes up with something better comes along.

i use to be technology this and that buy shit thinking i need it like i need air but year down the road what did i shoot? did i get creative with all that gear BIG FAT NO

I hope you appreciate the irony of this statement and your earlier reference to 28 Days.  The DV camera used to shoot that movie was the latest technology at the time.  The movie would have looked better if he shot a lot of it on ancient low tech film.  You just contradicted yourself.

What I'd hopefully like to avoid in this thread is the blindingly obvious statements about talent mattering more than specs (even though they are BOTH important). There's no need to state the obvious over and over again like some are doing. It comes across as patronising and nobody gains anything from it in terms of new knowledge or inspiration.

Like I said we see this ALL the time in the photo world.  Frankly there are a lot more legitimate discussions going on in the video world because video is not as mature as photo.  There are a lot more tradeoffs with video cameras and it truly does set up a scenario where different cameras are right for diffrent people.

I am not very good at grading so although the best footage out of the bmpcc smokes anything I've seen out of my T3i for me as a hobbyist I just feel I will be more productive with the T3i.  If someone had the know how and skill and was going to do a project for me I would definitely pick the guy with the bmpcc.  But for me personally I just don't think I can handle that rig adequately to justifiy the investment.  In fact I am eyeing the Sony RX10 just because I have to accept unless I am willing to improve my grading skills a more consumer camera is better for me.  But I'm never going to say the Sony RX10 has better image quality than the bmpcc.  Nor am I going to say image quality is irrelevant.  It's all a balance.

remember that blockbuster film 28 day by some director named  Danny Boyle ;)  shoot on xl1s first generation miniDV instead of 35mm film and the film was dam good just shows you technology hacks and 4ks is nice but the art of story telling and cinematography is better

The question is would the movie look better or worse if shot on an Arri Alexa.  All kinds of movies are blockbusters.  That doesn't mean every blockbuster has the best acting, soundtrack, lighting, script, videography, colorist, etc.

Life is all about probability.  I'm sure you could take a Panasonic G3 and make a blockbuster movie with it but It's probably more likely to happen with an Arri Alexa.  I think it's time to stop hunting for the exceptions and concentrate more on the rule.

Very interesting video.

They started thinking about the Cinema line of cameras even prior to getting feedback from the 5D MK II (3:40).  So they didn't look at twitter, forums, blogs, customer feedback, etc.  They saw the 5D MK II prior to launch and said we have to make the C300.  That's pretty innovative. Strangely though they say the Cinema lenses were being designed not for the Cinema cameras but for hte 5D MK II(5:30).  So they were being designed prior to the Cinema line of cameras.  He says EF mount guys started working on those because of "requests."  I wonder who made the requests if the 5D MK II hadn't launched yet?  Anyone else find the chronology puzzling?

It's also interesting that they had 150 people working on the Cinema line of cameras.  That's a pretty large crew and it shows.  Those cameras are tight.  I guess that's what it takes to avoid the beta issues of Black Magic cameras.  It also means you can't pull something like that off casually.  The guy speaking is from the video division.  They didn't build this line of cameras using just stills people.

The lack of raw in cheaper cameras made sense... and it didn't.  At first it just sounded like BS but when the reviewer asked about throughput the guy latched onto that and seemed to indicate that as faster compact media became avaliable you would be more likely to see raw in lower end cameras.

In a way it is in line with other things he said.  When asked why the new autofocus firmware was made available for the C100 and not the c300 he said the C100 had less features so it was easy to add the dual AF on, because the processor had less stuff to do at baseline.  So if they are making these types of horse power decisions in the Cinema line imagine the horse power decisions being made in the Rebel line.

Let's be honest with ourselves gentlemen when you want to do a scientific experiment you hold all the variables constant except the one you want to study.  If you want to study which camera is better you get one good creative team and you give them a series of cameras to create their vision.  You don't pick one idiot and give them a camera and then find a genius and give them a different camera.  This is basic experiment design that I learned in high school at the ripe old age of 15.

I'm on a budget and I have several Canon lenses so I shoot a Canon t3i.  If I was given a Canon EOS C300 of course my movies are going to look better.  They will still look like crap compared to someone who actually knows what they are doing but they will look better than what I can produce with a Canon t3i.  We know this.  No need to get cute.

Yet shot it in crap-o-vision with a 60D. It doesn't make any sense.

 

 

That's the bottom line.  Trust me we have been waging this same war in the photo world for years.  There is always some clown who will blurt out I use an iphone.  There is no way I am going to pay thousands of dollars on airplane tickets, room and board, charter boat trips and then whip out an iphone and take a snap.  I'll take my DSLR, some L glass, and my medium format camera with Velvia 50 and TMAX 100.  Once you've spent the time and money why screw around?

I shoot a 600D but that is because of economics.  If it is all you have go for it.  But if you can afford to use something that doesn't output overcompress video you would be insane not to.

Lol.  That has nothing to do with this thread.

One thing the video does state though that reiterates my own statments is you can get pretty good results straight from the 5d MK III h.264 without any grading.  Grading every clip is a pain in the rear.  The results are nice but after a trip sometimes I just want to slap together a home movie and be done with it.

In case you live at 12 Under Rock Drive, the H.265 standard is the biggest codec of the decade.

I guess I've been living under a rock because I've never heard of this codec.  I looked it up and Wikipedia says the first iteration of the codec was finalized and published earlier this year.  I wouldn't count on seeing it in consumer cameras for quite some time.

 

Finally, I don't trust ML, sorry.  I'm going to keep working with it, but as Bioshop said, shooting ProRes out of the box will get me to the fun part again, shooting, editing and posting!

I shoot RAW on a 50D from time to time but it is taxing.  ProRes seems more practical.  Only problem is grading... you have to be good at it.  I can get usuable stuff out of a Canon just by picking a particular picture style and adjusting it a bit in camera.

Interesting.  I'll trust you on that.  The problem for me using the whole sensor is the moire/aliasing and false color artifacts screw up the picture so much whatever noise nuances are allegedly present in 3x mode are irrelevant.  I use full APS-C  frame for the f/1.4 shots with shallow depth of field but for the f/8 stuff you will get moire/aliasing/false color/etc depending on the subject matter.  3x mode removes a lof of that and if you give the scene enough light you can clean up what's left with Neat Video.