Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

EOSHD grades the Blackmagic camera raw CinemaDNG files

Recommended Posts

people misused term sharpness...
it is something u can add in color correction or done in camera (bad thing) ...
real term is resolution ....
good cameras have high res not sharpness...
if canon did proper down-sampling or binning , 5D3 resolution would kick ass , but they didn't ...
its just sub 600 lines ....
[url="http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III----alles-.html"]http://www.slashcam....----alles-.html[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
Andrew- I'm focused on a single factor: resolution (also relates to aliasing performance). Not discussing cost (pointed out earlier) or color depth. Per the math and in theory, the 3.8K C300 has enough samples to provide full 1920 resolution (960 lines) without aliasing. For the 2.5K BMC to outperform the C300 would mean something is broken in the C300 implementation (from examples I have seen, the C300 appears to provide more resolution than the BMC). Post-sharpened, the 5D3 is decent, and the BMC may very well provide more resolution. However, the current images posted are noisy; hard to determine actual resolution from close crops of faces. Wide shots with lots of detail are more challenging test cases.

My opinion doesn't matter nor does your opinion matter: everyone perceives things differently. Math, logic, and the Scientific Method were created as a means to allow people to reach agreement, to discover new things, etc. From Zen philosophy we can throw out math and logic, however agreement becomes difficult unless all parties are already on the same wavelength.

Test charts provide a means for which we can reach consensus, especially when we can compare charts from multiple cameras side-by-side. While we may disagree on maximum resolution as it approaches extinction of details, we can reach agreement on relative performance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='nigelbb' timestamp='1345715976' post='16276']
In the blog entry Andrew in fact wrote "Resolution is superb. Best I have ever seen for the price. Better than the C300 and better than the GH2." I seriously doubt that BMCC has better resolution than the C300.
[/quote]
Oh... Sorry. Missed that. ;-)

At any rate, I still hold that it's Detail or sharpness or whatever. Maybe I've got it all wrong but resolution in my head is a concrete term that refers to the number of pixels in a given image.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Resolution was one thing I would say good about the C300. Beating everything else at its price point.

I'd say the resolution of the C300 and BMC is about the same and that is just a guess on footage I've seen before. Mind you that could be down to sharpening in camera on the C300.

As far as the two cameras go the BMC trashes the C300 apart from the sensor size and onboard tools. If I was going to shoot a film and someone offered me a BMC or a C300 to shoot it I would choose the BMC. What would you do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The C300 is the obvious answer. Works perfect out of the box, a proven winner, and fantastic tech support. Filmmaker Ron Howard's brand new racing car film is shot on the C300, and about (at least) 25 other Hollywood movies released in early 2013 are ALL shot on the C300. The proof is in the pudding, as they say. If the C300 is good enough for Hollywood and mainstream filmmakers, then it's good enough for anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The C300 is good.

But it just doesn't excite me.

We're looking beyond an industry tool with the Blackmagic and DSLRs. It is changing filmmakers, especially aspiring ones and newcomers. The C300 is just a good 1080p cam.

Anyway, why pay $15,000 for an 8bit MPEG camera when you can now get this kind of 12bit raw for $3000?

If image quality is a priority (under ISO 1600) I'd go for the Blackmagic based on the footage I have witnesses from both that and the C300. The BMD is more filmic.

It's raw. End of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
With grain this fine at 2.5k raw, running Neat Video if you want a smoother look is no problem. Detail will be intact unlike at high ISOs on a DSLR.

The C300 also has nice fine grain but 50Mbit 8bit has its limits versus mighty 12bit raw with 13 stops of DR.

C300 has archival advantages and is good for people doing commercial jobs in a tight time frame though, with a lot of Canon glass. Archiving 5 years worth of raw footage if you shoot a job a week is going to be costly in storage and physical space to store the drives on shelves.

HurtinMinorKey did you watch the footage on a 2.5K display? Makes a huge difference over 1080p.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the important thing is to ask is what will the footage be used for If you are making a film then the BMC is the camera I would choose. Its basically what we all thought the scarlet could have been except cheaper. The new clips prove by a mile the BMC is better than anything out there under £20,000 for film makers.

If I wanted to make something for the web or testing or for fun or to record family events or weddings or hope to get on TV even for hidef then I wouldn't pick the BMC. The BMC is a specialist tool aimed at indie film makers looking (Hoping) for a cinema release and a film look in extreme grading and it will entail some post work that will mean a lot of effort. Really many would be more than happy with a canon mark 3 especially if it had a video camera form factor. I could use a GH2 and get the results I want for most things and I think it would be hard for many to care if the film was shot on a C300 or GH2. Personally with Andrews hack which I have now tested I am more than satisfied for anything less than a film quality wise. As for form factor and decent tools I just wish sony could make a camera like the pmw200 with a large sensor but then that would be an F3 nearly.

The manufacturers have made cameras like the C300 and F3 to expensive and now BMC are cashing in on that. I do feel sorry for those that bought into these cameras but they are still nice tools just not as good as a much cheaper BMC for film making And if dof control is important maybe for some they do still hold the high ground.

You should choose your tools for your needs.Right now for film makers the BMC is the camera of choice!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345756989' post='16330']
HurtinMinorKey did you watch the footage on a 2.5K display? Makes a huge difference over 1080p.
[/quote]

no, but I watched it 1 for 1 on 1080, and was still impressed. I need to see some more, but I'm slowly becoming a believer in this.

Also, the c300 is one thing, but anyone who thinks the 5D3 can come anywhere close to this is nuts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree the 5D3 (and 1D X for that matter) are nowhere near AND they cost more.

It has been such a relief to be liberated from Canon's let downs by other companies which have chosen to keep a good thing going, unlike the ones who started it all with the 5D Mark II under $3000.

- 5D3 is 720p at best. It is nowhere near a 1080p camera let alone 2.5k
- The codec has tons of mosquito noise in the lows and mids
- The 8 bit codec has banding and stepped gradation
- The fall off from highlights is sudden and not smooth
- In the shadows, when you boost the black levels they fall apart
- The image is noisy even at base ISO because of the poor compression engine
- The sensor still skips too much data
- Colour sampling is only 4-2-0
- The mirror gets in the way of my lenses - can't use anamorphic OCT 19 on it
- If you get your exposure or picture profile wrong at time of shooting you can't fix it later
- The noise grain is blotchy
- At high ISOs there's even less detail even with high ISO noise reduction on minimal

Great stills camera though.

I honestly feel the Canon DSLR era is now official at an end.

Unless they can find a way to jump start it quick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the BMCC is going to force Canon and other companies to play ball. Generally huge companies are conservative, they wait to see where the market goes then they enter. The small companies usually take the risk. Blackmagic, Kinefinity, etc. is going to launch the second revolution and I'm sure the big companies are going to follow eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You can guarantee that when Blackmagic discover that pot of gold, Canon will jump in and attempt to copy them and grab a share of the market.

Where innovation leads the way, a corporate giant follows.

You are damned right they have a risk aversion. They probably even have an entire risk assessment department!

I have been telling Canon via this blog for 2 years that they are not making the best of the golden opportunity they landed as backwards in with the 5D Mark II. If they think hiving it off to Cinema EOS is making the most of the opportunity, they are wrong. A mass market price point makes waves. They will have to take a hit eventually, either in their margins or market share.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I went to the Expendables 2 the other day. The BMC footage reminds me of a filmic quality when "graded" accordingly (for example something like the Expendables 2). People are saying it looks like dslr footagein appearance. In fairness, yea, alot of footage has that appearance due to the color grading (crushing blacks too much, pushing the certain color(s) to hard, etc. (I'm guily of this many times over too). The BM is an amazing camera thus far! Canon better take note. If they'd open up the 5D2/3 with a better codec, or detail from the H264 and give 422, then things get interesting in this price range. Ya never know. But then again...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andrew,

I believe the 1 DC will change your mind about Canon DLSrs.

I know people have seemed underwhelmed about the short film Canon released on the 1DC when they saw it on Vimeo. However, I viewed Shane Hurlbut's 'The Ticket' in Los Angeles, (with Shane in attendance) in a real movie theatre, on a 65 foot giant screen, and it was simply amazing. (not the short movie itself - LOL), but the quality was absolutely brilliant.

I saw Laforet's short film shot on the C300 on the big screen here in LA as well, and while it held up nicely on the 65 footer, the 1 DC from Hurlbut blew it out the water. Not even close.The Internet does not do this cam justice at all.

And just to throw this out there, I also was at the screening of actor/director Ed Burns (Saving Private Ryan) new feature film "Newlyweds" (he screened it in theatres before it went to VOD, and again on the 65 foot big screen, and although it wasn't nearly as sharp, the packed house of over 400 people loved the film. And this was shot on the 5D2!! - not the 5D3. Not one person complained about the image. They just dug the movie. So yes, you can purchase a Canon DSLR and put it on the Big Screen and make some serious cash if you have a cool movie.

Shane Hurlbut said that in 2013 he is already going to DP 3 feature films for theatrical distribution that is going to be shot on the 1 DC only! I still say if you do not like the price point, just rent it. Andrew, I don't know if your future goal is to DP movies, or you want to shoot docs, or you're just doing all this for fun...but if your getting into cinematography for feature films, the new Canon will do you (your vision) justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You sound positive about the 4K EOS.

The problem is I don't [i]need[/i] to spend the $15,000 it may cost and I don't [i]want[/i] to spend it.

Since it isn't $3000, the 4K EOS isn't really a Canon DSLR but a commercial industry tool made for Hollywood. I care about price, I really do. Not just because I am a tight arse but for the accessibility and change it brings to the art of cinematography and I will continue to champion that cause, and live by what I write.

For paid jobs - all that is moot of course. Who cares about the cultural stuff and accessibility when you just want to deliver for a client? However $15,000 for a camera with no 25p, articulated screen or peaking is a lot of dosh. For that much money it needs to be practical, available, cost effective and a good image. So far the 4K EOS ticks only one of those boxes and that box has some disclaimer about being MJPEG and 8bit!

Then there is a further question - do I even need 4K yet?

Right now 4K is for the future. If I was gunning for an immediately cinema release on the big screen, and I'd spent $250,000 on my content it would be silly not to get the best camera I could afford. So the 4K EOS might well be that camera in its finished state. I certainly wasn't blown away by the prototype's image last time I looked though.

As you said - even the 5D2 is good enough for a theatre screening. DSLRs looks good in an actual cinema. Surprisingly a 65 foot screen is far less demanding on the viewer and per pixel perfection than a sharp monitor on your desk, eyeballed up close, peeping at each individual pixel. Projection is softer. You cannot see a visible pixel pitch. The viewer doesn't notice the flaws in a theatre screening as much.

But if you showed them two images side by side, raw 12bit and 2.5K vs the 5D2 would be a no contest in the cinema. The raw image would look even better and by a considerable margin.

Besides, a cinema screening is not my immediate aim in 2012. My immediate aim is your 2.5K display right, or your laptop screen, or your television. Many of us have a far better chance of becoming better known via putting our work online. My audience at the moment simply don't have the displays to view my work in 4K. If the audience can't see it, what is the point?

I'm still not convinced the 4K EOS will have much going for it at $15,000 relative to the competition when it eventually comes out. Everything else about it apart from 4K resolution (and it doesn't come close to real 4K resolution from what I've seen) is sub-par compared to the best of the competition.

Sony have full frame camcorders on the way. They have the A99 as well. Under $3000. Blackmagic have this cinema camera you may have heard of. And I don't yet need 4K, and it is probably rather soft 4K which is probably more like 2.5K in reality so not exactly a USP.

My $15,000 is safe for the time being, the lower priced options are just TOO DAMNED GOOD!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for sharing.

The RAW and resolution are nice. I think it will be a great niche camera to start.

I loved the look of the later image (Shot 3), where she is in the "window/porch" toward dusk with the dress. That grades well too.

The interior images and the sparkler images are somewhat ugly. That worries me a bit. Sensor video look? Lighting? I will have to reserve judgement on that until I see more.

I have to say that I really do not like the grain of these images. It looks very digital and is quite distracting to me.


I don't know why so many seem so confused about sharpening and Canon files. I have owned just about every digital Canon since the D30 (not 30D.) Each camera has it's own, unique AA filter, and it's own requirements for sharpening to REVERSE the effects of the filter. Canon has always used a strong filter.

This is the same thing that Nikon did in camera in the D800E. They left in the first AA filter, then immediately put in a "cross" AA filter to counteract it's effect. That is what you are doing in post. It is the first of 3 stages of sharpening ( 1: post capture; 2: creative - portrait, landscape; and 3: output - screen, broadcast, web, printer)

I automatically apply USM (300, .9, 0) in Premiere Pro on an Adjustment Layer to counteract the AA filter. I have been doing a variation of this since 2004 with the 1DsII 16 MP sensor. Canon recommended (300, .3, 0) starting with that sensor.

I think we are in the realm of "all around cameras" and "niche cameras" here. The BMC looks like it will be great for certain tasks and certain looks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1345762961' post='16345']
You are damned right they have a risk aversion. They probably even have an entire risk assessment department!
[/quote]

I think this is a product of the economics of a large corporation.

I helped start a subsidiary for a Fortune 5 company in 1995 that we grew to 600 employees and a multi-billion dollar business. Then Corporate changed directions and shut that company down (repurposed the employees.)

We VP's would have loved to buy the company and run it, we could have make a few million per year. But we would have been competing directly with the parent company, and they were looking for profit in the realm of $1 billion to $2 billion from each unit. They could care less if we were able to bring in $5 million or $10 million. It was totally irrelevant to them.

It is the same thing here. Canon is looking for category leading products, in every market worldwide. They aren't going to devote scarce internal resources to a product that might sell 10,000 copies, when they have 3 others in the pipeline that will each deliver 150,000 to 2 million. It's a fact of life in a large company.

I see so much emotion involved in this all over the web, every time a new camera comes out. It gets a bit tedious. A little morte professional and business analysis would be useful - there are reasons for thethings that happen, and Canon is still by far the largest camera company in the woprld. Us? Well ... by comparison ... not so much. ;>)

I posted elsewhere, I had a Kodak 14n full frame 14 MP on pre-order at 3 places in 2002/2003 when it was first announced. It looked great on paper! Unfortunately, it had some issues when it first came out that limited it's use to 25 ISO, shots with no aliasing, moire, etc. They continued to tweak it over teh next 2 years, and some folks were able to make great images with that camera.

Canon announced the 16 MP 1DsII about 6 months after the Kodak started to ship, released it 2 months after that. The 1DsII was a truly great all around camera. Perhaps still the best that I have ever used in some ways (out of 35+ cameras I have owned - Mamiya 7II, 645, 4x5, etc.)

We will ghet trickle down of 12 bit, 4:4:2 and 4:4:4, RAW, Canon Log, uncompressed HDMI out from the 1DC, C300, C500 as the hardware becomes less expensive. There are also a lot of things that are firmware based. Hopefully either Canon or ML will deliver some of those this year yet.

I actually am **hoping** that Canon has not yet released their "video centric" camera for this cycle. The 5D3 is obviosly a very core "photo centric" product. The T4i is an entry level product with some of the features that we will see on the next video DSLR.

I hope that the rumoured "entry level" full frame camera that is expected this fall is more focused on video. Unfortunately, ther D800 may force Canon to release their high MP camera this fall, and defer on a video DSLR to winter or spring. Too many launches already in the wings. We will see ...

Of course, we also have their camcorder division.

Cheers! No offense meant, just my 2 cents.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...