Jump to content

Canon C300 vs Blackmagic Cinema Camera - chart test


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

  • 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.

If you want to do a resolution test you need to frame the chart the same size in both cameras. All you've managed to do here is demonstrate the issue with smaller physically sized sensors and wide angle lenses.

Your graphic of sensor size comparison is wrong because it is based on an area and not pixel count, and it implies the sensor of the BMD is larger which it is definitely not.

More to the point here would be a usability comparison because straight out of the box the BMD camera is close to un-useable in the field, too many design flaws to mention here. If you buy the BMD camera because it's only US$3,000 you're in for a huge shock when after you've pimped it up to make it useable you'll then have to deal with the extra cost of RAW in post production.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Steadiphil' timestamp='1347271712' post='17690']
out of the box the BMD camera is close to un-useable in the field, too many design flaws to mention here.
[/quote]

that is surely an overstatement unless you are talking about a shoot (a big studio production say) where they would normally use a 35mm or a digital equivalent like Alexa etc.
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='jcs' timestamp='1346972892' post='17475']
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.
[/quote]

If you're running Magic Lantern you could take a Silent Pic in movie mode without recording and again whilst recording. On a T2i/550D I get sharp uncompressed 4:2:2 raw YCC at a resolution of 1056x704 when not recording.

Whilst recording I get a silent pic approx 1700x900 4:2:2 (not got one in front of me for exact resolution) but it's a soft as s--t compared to the 1056x704. Clear to see what appears to be an uprez of the 1056x704 4:2:2.

Then when I compare the MOV recorded vs the 1056x704 4:2:2 uncompressed YCC raw vs the 1700 YCC raw it's clear to see the MOV is a lot softer than the 1056x704.

No doubt there are differences between how the T2i, 5D Mk II, 5D Mk III do this so it'd be interesting to see a comparison from a 5D Mk II or III

The ML devs consider the raw uncompressed YCC the feed into the h264 encoder.
Link to post
Share on other sites
@yellow- if the ML devs could report the resolution output before any up-rez to 1080p, that would be insightful when comparing to a chart.

Also helpful would be a physics & optics explanation why a large sensor looks better vs. a smaller sensor. Exactly what is going on with the captured pixels, etc. People who don't know anything cameras respond very positively to large sensor images.

In order to be 'filmic' and image must not have any aliasing- that's a key give away for a digital image. Phil Bloom's test shoot looks nice, but some shots have aliasing. The ideal camera has no aliasing. If that comes at a cost of perceived resolution- that is better IMO. In the video game and graphics card industry, we went to great lengths to produce anti-aliased images. Indeed as still images, the anti-aliased images look softer. However, in motion the anti-aliased images look much, much better. [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_anti-aliasing[/url]
Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='tobyloc' timestamp='1346924405' post='17436']
Actually no, sorry, you've misread. Andrew says "raw image" not "sensor size", he's quite clear about that, the image you get from BMC is larger than what you get from C300. My 5D has a much bigger sensor than the C300, that doesn't mean it resolves more detail in it's 1080P file, in fact it resolves much less as it resizes (badly) in camera to 1080.

I believe you're wrong here too, I believe the whole test chart has been shot so the BMC will be using a wider lens in the test shot because of it's smaller sensor. The reason it looks bigger to you is because the image is bigger, in that example it has not been scaled down to be the same size as the C300 image, they are both being viewed at 100% and it's not the whole image, just a crop at 100%. To be more clear, I suspect you think the same lens has been put on both cameras so the BMC camera is effectively zoomed in more, I don't think this is the case, the BMC has a wider lens on so they have the same field of view, but as we're comparing a 2.5k image at 100% to a 1080p image at 100% the 2.5k image will look more zoomed in as it's larger. if the images were uncropped you'd be able to see all of the test chart in both shots.

Hope that helps.
[/quote]

Shot with the SAME lens, just repositioned the camera so it filled the same frame.

jb
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
Thanks for the link Cameraboy. A professional look at the BMC that gives the camera a fair and proper review.

It's what some already know and was getting tired of telling the brainwashed why the rest are toys. Why this is a baby Alexa and why the BMC is just not in the same league as the DSLR's or the rest up to an Alexa. Why it is better than a C300 an F3 of course the rest have their place with compressed codecs where quality isn't a priority.

BMC - The new camera king.
Link to post
Share on other sites
The more I see these comparison videos the more convinced I become that the BMCC is the one for me. I think I've realized that I really don't care as much about detail and moire as I do about Latitude. To my eyes, it's the main thing that separates film from video. I'm not saying that detail doesn't matter or that the C300 is crap or anything like that. With those chart comparisons it's easy to see the strengths of the C300 compared to the BMCC. It's just that for me, the BMCC is what I'd rather be shooting on. And yes, when all is considered the BMCC is actually going to cost you more then $3,000 to start shooting. External battery, a few large SSDs and follow focus rig could add about $1500 to $2000 to the price of entry. But that's still way less then C300 or even a C100. For low budget indy filmmaker, I still believe this is the right camera for me. Until then, I'm happily shooting away with my GH1. My dream is to be able to shoot a shot (lit only by the sun) of someone looking looking out a window in the daytime and actually be able to see what they are looking at. ;-)
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...