Jump to content
wolf33d

5DIV full spec and full image leak

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, squig said:

There's no transcoding required with the MLVFS app.

The 5D Mk3 raw image is more solid than the Sonys (I own an A7s) and the BMMCC/Pocket. 4k on the Mk4 will give it a resolution edge over all those cameras but without c-log it's unlikely it will have the dynamic range of the 5D Mk3 raw. None of the aforementioned cameras can match the 5D MK3 raw for dynamic range. The A7s comes close but it has too many issues that have relegated it to production stills and BTS only use.

I love 5D raw but this is kind of untrue. Having used both, BMCC definitely has the edge on 5D RAW when it comes to DR (unless you're using the dual gain hack, in which case they're neck to neck), but overall I think 5D RAW looks much more pleasing. It has better color handling than Blackmagic and you simply can't beat the full frame look. I've taken a habit of grabbing a few shots with both cameras on every shoot I do, and I always end up using the 5D Raw one. It simply looks better with a lot less grading work required.

And I can easily see people grabbing the MK4. As far as video capable DSLR:s go, 5D:s are some of the most pleasing and hassle-free to use, with an image that's still mostly good enough for most low budget/internet delivery work straight out of the box. Canon's the Apple of cameras; they simply work, and they're easy and fun to use, which can't be said of the likes of Sony or Blackmagic.

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
4 minutes ago, Ehetyz said:

I love 5D raw but this is kind of untrue. Having used both, BMCC definitely has the edge on 5D RAW when it comes to DR (unless you're using the dual gain hack, in which case they're neck to neck), but overall I think 5D RAW looks much more pleasing.

I did extensive tests, the 5D had more recoverable dynamic range in every single test: high contrast daylight, streetlight, low key light etc. And no I'm not talking about dual ISO mode, it has too much aliasing to make it usable for video. How you process the CDNG files in post is the key. I think it comes down to the difference between a high quality full frame sensor designed specifically for professional photographic use vs an S16 sensor designed for industrial applications. And yeah the 5D color is much better, it's less noisy, and it has little more resolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/19/2016 at 10:13 PM, jonpais said:

Sky Lake has hybrid hardware/software support for HEVC, whereas Kaby Lake is supposed to be fully hardware supported, which should bring improvements, particularly where content is greater than HD (eg 4K)

What is the source of this information? My understanding is Skylake already has full hardware support for 8-bit H.265/HEVC (such as output by the NX1). It was Haswell and Broadwell which had partial support. This was tested here: http://labs.divx.com/hevc-hwaccel-skylake

Kaby Lake will have hardware support for 10-bit HEVC but this has nothing to do with whether Skylake has full hardware support for 8-bit HEVC. It does:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/28/understanding-the-biggest-improvement-intel-corp-i.aspx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not that familiar with MJPEG but the more i research it, it kind of sounds like it's RAW video concept except uses JPEGs instead of RAW files..? Could it be MJPEG is the compromise Canon found of getting you closer to Raw video capabilities which is what everybody's been nagging them to do ever since ML appeared? I must admit 1DX II 4K footage does look fantastic and from reports resolves quite well in post. But the workflow with the big files to transcode oh my.. i guess those used to ML Raw will  find it a walk in the park.. but those used to fast drag n drop n edit and small files are going to be taken back.. It's just kind of strange the options are you either get 4K 500mbps MJPEG or 1080p H264. No other codec options in between. Even that would be ok if they at least allowed 4K HDMI out so you could record 4K ProRes etc to external recorder.. But i guess i'm expecting too much in this department.. It's Canon.. not Panasonic.. you're given one or two codec options at most to deal with.. at least there is a high quality low compression format option. On the stills side, the new Dual Pixel RAW editing info definitely seems interesting if not game changing as far as post capabilities..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Django said:

I'm not that familiar with MJPEG but the more i research it, it kind of sounds like it's RAW video concept except uses JPEGs instead of RAW files..?

Canon first implemented MJPEG on the 1Dc; like ProRes it's intra-frame compressed, but it's limited to 8bit and is known to cause banding on the 1Dc. Unlike raw, white balance, exposure, highlights, and shadows are all burnt in. Without c-log the dynamic range takes a significant hit recording to MJPEG, whereas raw records the full dynamic range of the sensor with good highlight recoverability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is the rendering.  Say a person takes one minute of footage at 500mbps, using Premiere pro cc, what would the rendering be?  500mbps, or .mov with 95 percent?  Using my G7, I render at 100mbps.  Seems like a very large file in the end with 500mbps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, squig said:

Canon first implemented MJPEG on the 1Dc; like ProRes it's intra-frame compressed, but it's limited to 8bit and is known to cause banding on the 1Dc. Unlike raw, white balance, exposure, highlights, and shadows are all burnt in. Without c-log the dynamic range takes a significant hit recording to MJPEG, whereas raw records the full dynamic range of the sensor with good highlight recoverability.

They were using MJPG in their IXUS point and shoot's as far back as 2001.  

640x 480, 15fps, 422.  I still have an Ixus v3, 2002, not sure whether to trade it in or not on this new 5D mk. IV!?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, joema said:

What is the source of this information? My understanding is Skylake already has full hardware support for 8-bit H.265/HEVC (such as output by the NX1). It was Haswell and Broadwell which had partial support. This was tested here: http://labs.divx.com/hevc-hwaccel-skylake

Kaby Lake will have hardware support for 10-bit HEVC but this has nothing to do with whether Skylake has full hardware support for 8-bit HEVC. It does:

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/28/understanding-the-biggest-improvement-intel-corp-i.aspx

I confess to not being an expert on computers, so I overlooked the bit about 8-bit vs 10-bit support. Here is where I found information about Kaby Lake

And here is a quote from the same story over at Anand Tech:

...support for HEVC Main10 Profile was announced with 7th Gen, although it was unclear if this was decode only or encode as well. This is still a step up from Skylake support, where Main10 required hybrid hardware/software decoding acceleration. Moving it into hardware for Kaby Lake will help with performance and power consumption, particularly of 4K content where HEVC vs. H.264 differences are bigger than Full-HD. The demo on stage showed GoPro software taking 4K data from six cameras and being able to switch between the content of each camera without stuttering or delay, on a 2-in-1 mobile device.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Jn- said:

They were using MJPG in their IXUS point and shoot's as far back as 2001.  

640x 480, 15fps, 422.  I still have an Ixus v3, 2002, not sure whether to trade it in or not on this new 5D mk. IV!?

The Quicktime Animation and uncompressed AVI codecs are even older, but you wouldn't say it looks bad. It's just not efficient. Definitely not a deal breaker for most, I would rather have this over 4:2:0 long gop. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, squig said:

As for Saadawi: he's got 7 days to return the money he stole from James Drummond. If payment is not made in that time I'll contact Sebastian at cinema5D. When I was a cinema5D forum moderator we banned a guy for much less brazen offences. I can't imagine Sebastian allowing a fraud and a thief to continue posting on his site. I meant what I said Ebrahim, pay up or I'll have you banned from every site. I happen to be a respected member of all of them, and I'm friendly with a lot of the mods. We're a global village; people from all nations, races, religions, and sexual orientations are accepted. What we don't accept is thieves stealing from other members of any filmmaking forum. One way or another you are going to pay for your crimes Ebrahim Saadawi. Don't forget Ed's threat to out you to your friends, family, and school either. Me and Ed have put a lot of time into trying to put you on a righteous path. Don't fuck this up son, you will live to regret it.

Frankly Ebrahim, I wouldn't find anything useful to see "someone's name" (go figure for mine if I would be you!) connected with such disgusting stuff... A third one of Google search results comprehending your name (with your photo included) are related to scam/scammer tag(s):

https://www.google.pt/search?q=ebrahim+saadawi&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&ei=qZW4V9v5JYTY8ge6y7XQBA  

Is that funny? :-(

 

PS: Something that puzzles me: the parents invest in their child's education; the guy, some years later, is fluent in an influential and foreign language such as English (no one learns an idiom in a couple of months), without mention his background towards to be doctor/dentist... for this?! C'mon dude, take the right scope on the shit you Ebrahim are doing and addressing to yourself! A few dollars are worthy of all this crap?! Here you could earn the same bucks in just a couple of days or in one sole gig with less than your posts seemed you know about the business.

Very sad to see... Only you can clean your name, just do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 19 August 2016 at 8:13 PM, Timotheus said:

At least that crop means there's some good APS-C glass to use for 4K (Sigma 18-35, 50-100)

:-/

I was kind a worried when i invested in 18-35&50-100 1.8

but after few shots on crop sensors

i fell in love ☺️

Sharpness and lowlight is must have and welcome in my book

also can be used on fullframe ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rinad Amir said:

I was kind a worried when i invested in 18-35&50-100 1.8

but after few shots on crop sensors

i fell in love ☺️

Sharpness and lowlight is must have and welcome in my book

also can be used on fullframe ?

The first one we know covers FF. Actually, they launched the cropped version from there. But the second one: which focal lengths are exactly covered on FF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Emanuel said:

The first one we know covers FF. Actually, they launched the cropped version from there. But the second one: which focal lengths are exactly covered on FF?

The sigma 18-35 and 50-100mm are aps-c lens this means that for canon they will have an ef-s mount so you would need and adaptor to feet them on a 5d.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tiago Rosa-Rosso said:

The sigma 18-35 and 50-100mm are aps-c lens this means that for canon they will have an ef-s mount so you would need and adaptor to feet them on a 5d.

 

Wrong, technically ef-s lenses are only made by canon, they have a longer plastic bit at the end. Third party lenses like the Sigma's mentioned above will go on any full frame EF camera just fine , even if they're only designed to cover aps-c, they still feature the regular EF lens mount. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, gatopardo said:

I don't know where that number (1.7) came from. to my calculations it's 1,91 for a 1:1 4k readout. And, if true, that's too much crop in my opinion. Even a tokina 11-16 would be a 21mm FOV that may not be wide enough. 

6720/4096=1.64 which isn't just less than 1.91. It's less than 1.7, counting rounding error.

But the whole crop business is speculation. I have no idea if it's true or not. I don't know where people are getting this information.

An 11-16mm is already a 17mm FF equivalent, anyway. Even if you were right, a 21mm FF equivalent is about 13mm on Super35, wider than the VAST majority of cinema lenses, for which even 18mm is considered an ultra wide.

Anyhow, I'm not buying this in part because I can't afford it right now. If it doesn't meet your needs, you can buy something else. But the need for an ultra ultra wide is esoteric, and your math is wrong to begin with. And we don't know if it's a crop or not anyway... I dunno, the weird codec seems like a bigger issue to me tbh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Policar said:

But the whole crop business is speculation. I have no idea if it's true or not. I don't know where people are getting this information.

The 1DC has crop

The 1DXmk2 has crop

We can't be 100% sure but compared to the latest 1DXmk2, the 5Dmk4 has 50% more pixels and 100% less processing power (1 digic 6+ Vs 2 digic 6+)... so do the math...

Unless Canon comes up with a surprising video optimization, we are heading toward useless crop factor, 1.7x ? 1.9x ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, OliKMIA said:

The 1DC has crop

The 1DXmk2 has crop

We can't be 100% sure about the heavy crop but compared to the latest 1DXmk2, the 5Dmk4 has 50% more pixels and 100% less processing power (1 digic 6+ Vs 2 digic 6+)... so do the math...

Unless Canon comes up with a surprising video optimization, we are heading toward useless crop factor, 1.7x ? 1.9x ?

Could be line skipping. It seems likely there will be a crop factor since Nikon is on board with it, too. But I think it's premature to freak out.

6720/4096 is 1.64. If it's per-pixel then it's a 1.64 crop, not far from super35 at all. 1.7 for quad HD maybe. I don't get why the number 1.9 keeps coming up, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally "freak out" because I know how Canon tends to limit the video specs. Line skipping or pixel binning would probably lead to bad results, like the usual 1080 that looks 720 we would have a 4k that looks 2.7k...
But in the end, I hope I'm wrong. If Canon does deliver good 4k on this Camera I'll be the first one to buy. If not I'll switch brand because I don't have the cash to buy any C-line camera, nor the will and space to carry it around.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, OliKMIA said:

I personally "freak out" because I know how Canon tends to limit the video specs. Line skipping or pixel binning would probably lead to bad results, like the usual 1080 that looks 720 we would have a 4k that looks 2.7k...
But in the end, I hope I'm wrong. If Canon does deliver good 4k on this Camera I'll be the first one to buy. If not I'll switch brand because I don't have the cash to buy any C-line camera, nor the will and space to carry it around.

What's interesting is that they've introduced the "fine detail" picture style, which uses (or seems to use) a better debayering algorithm than their standard one. If you look at 5D Mark 3 JPEGs at 100% the per-pixel detail is poor... same as the video detail at 100%. That's one reason both perform much better in raw, but it's less noticeable in stills because by that point you're pushing the lens's resolving limits.

Anyhow, there are definitely reasons to go with another brand, particularly if you need 4k in a small camera. But I think Canon's thinking is if you're a working professional you can easily afford a $10k-$30k investment in your camera system.

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.


×
×
  • Create New...