Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

5D Mark III or Blackmagic Cinema Camera?

Recommended Posts

slashcam.de is obscure site ....
hahahaha ok ...
they are one of best site for camera tests and measurements ....
and their results are always spot on..
http://www.slashcam.de/artikel/Test/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III----Aus-dem-Messlabor---Das-wahre-Leben.html#Aus_d
resolution mesurment

gh2

almoust 800 vs less than 600 ...
and c300

goes beyond nyquist limit
provideocoalition says 1200 (of course beyond 1000 lot of aliasing )
but many people spend their time on sites who tell them what they like to hear ...

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

That's just completely stupid thinking EOSHD is propagating here. The D800 gives you excellent and filmic images. If you can't shoot with it, the BMC will not help you.



My issue wan't that I can't shoot well, it was that the BMC will allow you to correct your image IF you stuff up. I'm not a flawless cinematographer (maybe you are, I'd love to see some work), so that 'safety net' is great.
Have you tried to change the white balance in Prores? It looks fake, but in RAW it looks fine. And before you propose that stuffing up the white balance makes you less of a cinematographer, what about when you shoot underwater and then rise up above the surface, where it's a different colour temperature? Shane Hurlbut discussed this issue on his website. RAW would be able to fix that problem.

Also, I wasn't discrediting the D800 - it produces great images. I was however, commenting on the price. The D800 + Ninja 2 = $4000. Whereas the BMC is $3000. I felt 'silly' for paying $4000 for a camera which I've only been using for video, when I could pay $1000 less for a camera with more features, and as Andrew argues, a more professional camera too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the BMC is a 5D mark III with 2,3x tele convertor stuck on it. Hurrey for wildlife filming!
And to get the same FOV you just have to walk 2,3x the distance to the subject backwards. And at that distance you need to bring a very fast lens to get shallow DOF. Or you are just back to the good old small chip videocameras with everything sharp. Oh and bring 2,3x longer audiocables or bring a stronger directional mic. I hope this all fits an indoor shoot. But hey you get precious RAW back.

Edit
Oops, thanks camerboy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but hey its 2.3 fov... :lol:
anybody who says that 15.8 mm is a small sensor probably never shoot anything more than flowers in backyard with DSLR...
or post birthday party on vimeo so we can enjoy all that missed focus ....
any experienced cinematographer dont need to see image from BMC to know how much DOF he can have from that sensor size (and u can have it more than u can handle it)...
this debate is nothing more than video guys vs gearheads... but my biggest problem with BMC is mount ...
if u make sensor close to 4/3 size put 43 mount ....i know they go for canon dslr users but that was mistake (ignoring gh2 , fs100 etc)...it was wrong marketing move especially now because we can see that many canon fanboys get offended by BMC ...

PS: http://dankanesbmcc.blogspot.com/
look like as shallow DOF...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right so you have a C300.


I can't own every camera out there and like most of us have to make informed decisions. I followed the Canon C300 very closely on it's launch and really liked the short films made to sell it. The resolution colour and low light were all great. We were all expecting it to be reasonably priced and in the end it was sold as a professional camera unaffordable for the indie film makers who had built it up. The camera uses a 4K engine and states this is what gives it it's magic for amazing results with an emphasis on skin tones and low light.



However the camera is 4.2.2 with an 8 bit workflow and if you believe the hype about the 4k engine magic then it should perform better than an alexa which only uses 2k. The camera gave the best picture at the time as there was nothing much for it to compete against.



The camera is a lovely machine in use and gives a great picture. However since then the BMC has come along and trounced its specs to the level of an Alexa. The BMC opens up what the C300 has been deliberatly crippled with.



Anyone who understands cameras will realise why the BMC specs mean a better picture. Thats not to say you couldn't make a feature with the C300 and beautiful pictures but in the right hands the BMC is a much better tool.


As it happens I do own a C300. It's not so expensive for what it is & a lot cheaper than a 2/3" Panasonic P2 broadcast camera. It's complete & self-contained ready to go out of the box (just add lens, battery, microphone & CF cards) to deliver HD footage ready for broadcast. Don't be misled by the hoo-hah regarding RAW. The Alexa shoots RAW but most people evidently shoot ProRes with it.

I am sure that the BMC will be a lovely little camera & very suitable for time-rich but cash-poor filmmakers who have been making do with DSLRs but the C300 is in a different league with regard to ergonomics, ease of use & the ability to quickly deliver the finished product. I had a BMC on order but cancelled & got my deposit returned. I was caught up in the hoop-lah along with everybody else when it was announced but in the cold light of day I have come to realise that practical difficulties of using a BMC (both shooting & in post) outweighed the advantages. We shoot events & a C300 backed up with 5D3s is a better fit for what we do. If I wasn't earning money from video work but just filming stuff for my own amusement then a C300 would be seen an outrageous extravagance (although still less than the price of a nice car) whereas a BMC at about 1/5 the price could be justified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


this debate is nothing more than video guys vs gearheads... but my biggest problem with BMC is mount ...


if u make sensor close to 4/3 size put 43 mount ....i know they go for canon dslr users but that was mistake (ignoring gh2 , fs100 etc)...it was wrong marketing move especially now because we can see that many canon fanboys get offended by BMC ...



The mount is a problem, but on the bright side, if a S35 version comes along a couple of years down the track as so many are predicting (and BMD seem to be hinting) you can shrug it off and embrace the possibilities brought about through owning a secondary RAW body that renders your lenses differently. Your lens investment is protected in a way it wouldn't be if you bought big into fast wides for M43.
Obviously this doesn't apply if you've already committed to the 4/3 system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites






Yep For your uses that's how I would see it.

I'm not in the same situation as you. I would never have used DSLR's for film making although I have recently made a music vid for a friend with a hacked GH2.

Previous to this I directed two crewed short films and DP'd one. The first on Super 16mm and the second with an EX1 Letus adapter and 10 bit out to prores recorder 220mb

Black Magic has given us a pro tool that beats all the above. I'm used to putting in the extra work for high quality and the BMC gives me an opportunity now to make a feature film with even less stress and work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just been playing with the DNG stills on John Brawleys site.

Had one overexposed picture you would never be able to use come right back to life. This truly is a dream camera!

Thanks again BMC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still no sample footage from anyone who has received their BMC... Strange that no one can put out anything besides a few frames of RAW files.




As I said before these are demo units, I am not sure what the stipulation is about putting footage out or full reviews from the pre-prod models. Also, a bit more patience would help. Philip Bloom isn't even home yet. Seb's shoot looks nice, just be patient and let them do it justice. A new camera always takes longer to get to grips with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites






Your reasons are entirely valid.

My aim is not to shove a project out of the door with maximum efficiency and I am very lucky to have time on my side, without clients demanding to gimp at the footage or set unrealistic deadlines. I'm self funded and an artist, so the Blackmagic is perfect for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

slashcam.de is obscure site ....




For non-German speaking folks it is inaccessible.

5D3 footage scaled down from 1080p to 720p loses detail and resolution: 600 lines pairs is not an accurate measure of usable horizontal resolution (that appears to be your take on their graph). Let's compare ISO 12233 charts and make our own decisions.

The 5D3 is indeed a bit soft before sharpening in post (with in-camera sharpening turned off): resolution should be measured after post sharpening to counteract the strong AA filter (as Jason did here): https://vimeo.com/39517721. Earlier I had performed a chart test along with a scaled down still: Jason has a printer which allows for a proper test: our results matched pretty well.

When doing a comparative test of video vs. a still (for DSLRs), one can get a good idea how well the camera is performing with their own equipment (and not blindly trusting what is said on the internet). A full size ISO 12233 chart can be used with any camera- anyone can test with their own gear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can sharpen 600 lines to look like 890, but I have never known for a chart test to include post work before. You shouldn't muddy the water (no pun intended!) with a sharpening filter in post. A resolution line count doesn't tell you how clean that detail is, or if it is jagged and haloed. It would be interesting to see the affect on a line count that various levels of sharpening in Premiere has - by seeing before and after tests on all cameras not just the 5D3. I.e. which cameras stand to gain most from a bit of work in post. Certainly the 5D3 does more so than say a T2i.

Maybe you can do that, I for one would be interesting in publishing the results.

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i qoute Shane Hurlbut :"canon 5d2 beats KODAK stock"
people can believe whatever they want ...
but that's not important ...
what is important that i just played whit some BMC DNG files and looks like we are back in celluloid time ...
exposure looks identical to film (overexpose for fat "negative to get rich colors and best resolution or underexpose for grainy moody look)...
than use whatever curve u want ... it's a breath of fresh air after all that backed in camera stuf ...BMC would really helps as to put our
skills to another level ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have nothing against Shane. Nice guy. Not sure if he really thinks the 5D2 beats film, not seen the context. He is a Canon Explorer of Light, and as I said before (controversially) I prefer not to see DPs involve themselves so closely with manufacturers if they are reviewing and blogging. Manufacturer links are incredibly important, and there's no way in hell any reviewer will speak as negatively as I do about poor products if they were trying to maintain a cordial atmosphere with a sponsor. This is why Shane's blog is so positive, and occasionally I can have a huge rant. I am free to do that, to him, it wouldn't be considered professional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course you can sharpen 600 lines to [i]look[/i] like 890, but I have never known for a chart test to include post work before. You shouldn't muddy the water (no pun intended!) with a sharpening filter in post. A resolution line count doesn't tell you how clean that detail is, or if it is jagged and haloed. It would be interesting to see the affect on a line count that various levels of sharpening in Premiere has - by seeing before and after tests on all cameras not just the 5D3. I.e. which cameras stand to gain most from a bit of work in post. Certainly the 5D3 does more so than say a T2i.



Maybe you can do that, I for one would be interesting in publishing the results.



Cheers




If we apply a Gaussian blur to an image, it looks soft (as with a strong AA filter). If we apply a sharpen filter (convolution, increases micro contrast using local derivatives (changes in intensity)), we can get something close to the original detail back. It won't create new detail, but it will show existing detail more clearly. Thus, we're not increasing resolution from ~600 to ~890- only enhancing information that is already there.

Jason already did something similar with the 5D3, T3i, and EX1: https://vimeo.com/39536799

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...