Jump to content

Canon C300 vs Blackmagic Cinema Camera - chart test


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

this looks like early Phase DMF backs, like the P20 or leica m8 to me....no AA filter will give you more detail, a much sharper image but sometimes all this come back in horrible (sometimes unfixable) moire in certain fabrics or tight structures....i have to say that it sometimes was a problem when shooting still catalog under studio flash lights.....i do not have a frame of it showing up outside, although i have seen samples online (think the screen of the window air conditioner in a window on a wide shot...zoomed in at 100%).....
i doubt anyone will ever see this anywhere with motion and like people have said here, it will only get better with better raw conversions and/or special removal tools.....
not a big deal at all....cannot be compared with the stuff you see with the 5dII (which ironically NEVER shows any trance of moire in stills because of it's strong AA filter....)
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

In real world situations.... I really don't think there is going to be any aliasing situations. I just downloaded Philip Blooms test video and it looks amazing... resolving the tiniest of details with

When it comes to OLPFs, less is moire.

From this chart: [url="https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B4KzkrvuLxMKNXBUemloakpWU28/edit?pli=1&docId=0B4KzkrvuLxMKS1VmTnlhRTRCWDg"]https://docs.google....S1VmTnlhRTRCWDg[/url]
extinction of detail and excessive moire appears at G, indicating [b]1600x900[/b] resolution when all the photosites are combined via de-Bayering (2.5k is for the raw Bayer photosites- not the actual resolution of output image). This matches expectation of what we would expect from a 2.5k sensor. The 3.8k sensor of the C300 provides full 1920x1080 (and beyond depending on where one draws the line at extinction of details), again as expected from the math (Nyquist sampling theory). See this chart: [url="http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_review_canon_c300_super35mm_lss_cine_camera/P3/"]http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/quick_review_canon_c300_super35mm_lss_cine_camera/P3/[/url]. It would be helpful to see an ISO 12233 chart to compare with other cameras (5D3, GH2, EX1, and others on the internet, e.g.: [url="https://vimeo.com/39536799"]https://vimeo.com/39536799[/url]) and/or a post-sharpened 5D3 shooting the Lemac chart.
Link to post
Share on other sites
In real world situations.... I really don't think there is going to be any aliasing situations. I just downloaded Philip Blooms test video and it looks amazing... resolving the tiniest of details with no aliasing on anything. Charts are stupid.

Anyways though, even if on a chart the C300 resolves a few more lines... which it really isn't showing when you look at it... why would people still chose a 5 year old 8-bit codec for 5x the price? It makes no sense. Supporting smaller companies (especially when they have the superior product) like BlackMagic is the best thing we can all do for everyone right now. I mean come on, this is their first camera... and it's giving us 2.5k RAW for $3000!!! Canon is re-hashing 5-year old technology, that sells for $2500, adding a few zeros, and has showed no signs of stopping... All of this canon fanboy-ism I've seen on other forums makes no sense at all. Most of them are just most likely looking for reasons to justify their $15,000 purchase... and discredit people from using cheaper more affordable tools.

People with no talent or creativity that still want to be in this industry either have to rely on "door holding" or "brush-holding". The later is basically gone away this year. This is why people are hating on the BMCC. Cheers!
Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for that report jcs. Saying the BMCC actually only resolves 900 lines when shot RAW makes the 5D3 at 780 lines look not so awfully soft given the much better low light and DOF. But the 5D3 doesn't have the DR, and just has 4:2:0.

Canon is using weak codecs, the C100 is especially imbalanced with a pro body and consumer codec. But they can leisurely upgrade the codecs across their line; it's much harder for an upstart like BMD to match Canon's terrific ergonomics, field service, whole ecosystem. I wonder how many lines the C100 will be able to do at 24mbps AVCHD...given it's 4:2:0 the color resolution will only be half as good as the C300.

Philip Bloom calling the BMCC, "well, maybe a fetus Alexa" was fun.
Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to be clear when we discuss lines of resolution- typically that's TV Lines, or horizontal line pairs. 780 lines is less than I and Jason Greene measured. From our ISO 12233 tests I think it's fair to say extinction occurs around 850 lines (horizontal pairs), for 1700x956 resolution. The BMCC might do better in the ISO 12333 chart and the post-sharpened 5D3 might do worse in the Lemac chart. The only way to know is to test the cameras with the respective charts to allow a direct comparison.

If someone mentioned 780 as vertical pixel resolution for the 5D3, where is the chart to support this? If it is really horizontal line pairs, that would be 1560x878 pixels- very close to 1600x900.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Are charts really necessary? If you watch some BMCC footage... then 5D3... and think that they are even remotely in the same ball park... you probably shouldn't be shooting/grading anything. There is no "detail" on a camera like the 5D3... just compression blocks. It drives me insane, like there is plastic over the lens or something. Even on close-ups, the hair/skin/clothes/whatever... all have the SAME texture to them. It completely destroys the texture and feel of anything you're shooting. Not even in the same league...
Link to post
Share on other sites
5D3 skin, hair, clothing detail: [url="https://vimeo.com/39445020"]https://vimeo.com/39445020[/url]

If you download the uploaded MP4, you'll see detail in the skin- pores, scars, wrinkles, stubble, single strands of hair is visible on head, detail in the sweater fabric, etc. Note also low noise in the video. Keep in mind this was recompressed for Vimeo upload, and thus detail was lost.

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/comments/uploads/inline/16978/50495331a4318_Ellyn5D3LowLight.jpg[/img]
Here's a still frame from 5D3 video shot handheld in low light (don't recall ISO, perhaps 5000+; see her pupils), F4 on the 24-105L (not the sharpest lens and not critically focused). The 5D3 did indeed reduce detail in this condition (part of internal NR), however simple noise grain was added in post to bring back texture (runs in real-time in PPro CS6). Not super sharp, but a pleasing, usable shot in low light.

The images posted so far for the BMCC have a lot of fine noise- that's not real detail or resolution. Thus, charts help us understand actual detail and resolution capabilities of camera hardware.

[EDIT]This forum won't show the full resolution image: full res image: [url="http:///www.brightland.com/t/Ellyn5D3LowLight.jpg"]http:///www.brightla...5D3LowLight.jpg[/url][/EDIT].

[EDIT2]Just watched Bloom's "Dungeness" demo (downloaded MP4 from Vimeo). It is indeed sharper than anything I can do with the 5D3 currently. The images look nice, and remind me of my Panasonic TM700 in bright light (also higher resolution than the 5D3). Thus, to my eye many shots have a video look, perhaps fixable with grading[/EDIT2].
Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll never understand people's obsession with soft, low resolving images, and equating that to the "film look".

I love the sharp, fine detail rendered on the Dungeness demo. I brought the GH2 for it's resolution, which I feel is the minimum that I'd be happy with. The vast majority of Blu Rays that I watch resolve that level or higher. They might not have the harsh, over sharpened edges, but the detail is there. That Blackmagic camera has that look to me, minus the GH2 artificial sharpening, and I really like it.

Frankly, I have no idea where people are concluding that hollywood film look = 5D level soft. To each their own, I suppose.
Link to post
Share on other sites
from new BM press release for IBC 2012


[b]Blackmagic Cinema Camera MFT[/b]

Since the Blackmagic Cinema Camera was announced we have been overwhelmed by the fantastic response. We have also been extremely happy with the response to the first shipments and have already seen some wonderful work done on them.

We started shipping a few weeks ago, however the Cinema Camera is a highly advanced piece of equipment and it uses a large amount of high quality precision parts to build it. Some components are coming into our factory slower than we expected and this has caused the manufacturing of the cameras to slow.

We expect to have this sorted out over the next few weeks and then can speed up and get more cameras delivered. In the mean time, our engineering has not been slowed down at all and we are continuing to develop the next software update with new features for release very soon.

[b]We have also been working on a Passive Micro Four Thirds model of the camera. People have been asking for this as there are a lot of nice high end manually operated MFT lenses on the market, and the MFT mount can also be easily adapted to PL and other lens mounts using third party adapters.[/b]

[b]The new Blackmagic Cinema Camera MFT is expected to ship in December, and will be the same price as the original model. It’s identical in features as they are both the same camera, just with different lens mounts. The price will also be the same at $2,995. We will be working with our dealers to help people change their orders if they want.[/b]

[url="http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/"]http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/blackmagiccinemacamera/[/url]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='cameraboy' timestamp='1347002913' post='17496']
@jcs
sorry man ...
but that image is way oversharpned ...
u can get away with that when u shoot vistas but for faces not...
and u can get 1000 lines from 5d3 if u put camera close enough ....
testing resolution is precise process ...
and all professional tests show no more than 600lines ...
[/quote]

What artifacts do you think you see from sharpening? The noise was added in post- perhaps you don't like the noise? (can be changed to suit taste). In any case, it is a very low light shot- not sure if it's possible with a camera providing 1600 ISO. Did you look at the video (no noise added, has reasonably fine detail)?

A close up won't capture increased resolution (not possible to get 1000 TV lines by zooming/moving closer. If done with a chart, the result would be wrong (must align to markers)).

The German site you referenced for resolution showed a contrast graph but no chart, likely with no post sharpening (which the 5D3 needs in order to show actual detail: many cameras can't be sharpened that much in post). They didn't post a resolution chart. Do you have links to professional chart shots for the 5D3?
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='dbp' timestamp='1346988904' post='17492']
I'll never understand people's obsession with soft, low resolving images, and equating that to the "film look".
[/quote]

Me neither. Please, jcs, go to Apple's trailer website and download a film-acquired movie in full 1080p. Very, very, detailed.

I've shot extensively on the 5DII and have used/worked with 5DIII footage and I can tell you, it just doesn't compare. It should be really, really, easy for anyone to see the insane resolution jump from 5D footage to a full-1080p film scan. It's incredible... and the BMCC hangs up there with it...
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='bwhitz' timestamp='1347078409' post='17578']
Me neither. Please, jcs, go to Apple's trailer website and download a film-acquired movie in full 1080p. Very, very, detailed.[/quote]

I just saw the Expendables 2 on the big screen. Quality was absolutely horrendous. Huge amounts of post cropping that completely annihilated detail from certain closeups. It was worse than any 5d mark III image ever. And it was shot on 35mm. I could not believe what I was seeing. Did anyone in the audience care? Has anyone said about this in reviews? Nope. Only on dvxuser there are people complaining like I complained. A film shot on 5d mark III (or even the last generation) would've looked better.

Come to think of it, I've never really seen anything quite sharp on the big screen when I was a projectionist. Closest thing was probably Episode III projected anamorphically though that had blurring on the edges due to the anamorphic projection. 35mm film has never been sharp. You could project GH2 material and have it look "sharper" than 99% of the film copies we got.

A lot of this is even hyperbole. Consider how Andrew got excited about the "OLPF removal" that did jack. A colleague of mine actually once thought that the 7d material I was editing was shot with the RED as it played on the projector. It just happened to be a good looking shot. I let him hear about that one for a long time. We usually just play different clients material and try to guess the camera. That's always fun.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators
Haven't seen the Expendables 2 and not much interest in seeing it, but I have heard this a lot. Was the reduction in quality on purpose for a rough & ready feel? If so then it isn't wrong. There's no such thing as wrong and right when it comes to art. Although calling the Expendables 2 that is stretching it a bit.
Link to post
Share on other sites
I saw the Expendables 2 a few weeks ago. I went to the AVX theater ([b]bigger screen[/b], and even more leg room). There was a fair bit of noise in the night scenes. Overall, it had the "older gritty look" and I'm not referring to Stallone, Chuck, Arnold, or the other seniors. The image seemed reminiscent of the 80's action movie genre. In the previews, the new James Bond movie trailer played. It looked very clean image wise (shot on an Alexa) as opposed to the Expendables image. Perhaps they were going for that certain look. The movie, The Grey, shot on the Arriflex 235 had alot of noise too. I'm preferring the cleaner look now. My 2 cents.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...