Jump to content

1dx II vs a7r2 - Dave Dugdale responds


Shield3
 Share

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Shield3 said:

I shot this to show Mr. Dugdale what about 3 minutes moving the sliders around in Premiere did to my 1dxII footage (from standard).  I think I oversharpened it slightly, but this was with the 35 1.4 @ F/4, ISO 800, 4k24.  I also probably overexposed slightly but man it's hard to get any of my kids to sit still so you get what you get.  WB set to 3300k.

No comments please on the Youtbe page itself (but feel free to comment here).

The end is a 200% punch in from the original footage.  Looks far better than what Doug was showing.  Shrug.

Dave is a very nice guy by the way and I have been talking to him quite a bit via email.

Shawn

Like I said before I owned both. Side by side the Canon blows the Sony away. It's footage stands up to post much better. Straight out of camera feels more organic. Comparing these two outside of size and resolution is pointless. Don't take my word for it. Use both for a month... Then you will understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

EOSHD Pro Color 5 for Sony cameras EOSHD Z LOG for Nikon CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

@hmcindie

Please don't feel offended. My criticism is not about your cinematography, it's about the horrible Canon 720p. I am convinced your films would as good or better, when using a Nikon D750/D8X0 or C100/C300. The much more better basic IQ of these devices is not a handicap for experienced/talented filmmakers, it's an advantage because giving the filmmaker much more flexibility in aesthetic expression...

@Ehetyz

Quote

5DMK3 et al are still quite good enough for most things

Doubtless, but that's not the point. The point is, without ML, the footage is round about 720p and that's far away from competition offers and IQ (please compare the generic video IQ, offline and resolution of the 5Dm3 with D750/D810 - Nikon wishes the floor with it). Canon's such called 1080p offers are 2009 and even then, they are 720p. It's not about "good enough for web" - it's about the fact that many competitors offer much better resolution, IQ and many more additional (useful) filming features and functions for DSLR user than Canon.
Canon's reputation is based in my eyes more on nostalgy, than on real IQ performance when currently compared with prices and offers of it's competitors. We own pretty all FF and APS-C (and -H)...But no more the newest generation with begin of 2016. Vastly overpriced products of a ultraconservative company not hearing on his users. Overpriced "old style" products...And please, don't tell me something about built quality ("built like a brick"), I know it...But bricks don't deliver a good IQ...They are much more better for construction than for shooting films/stills...

You know what? The Canon 5D ii and iii are somehow "filmic democratization tools" and the Canon 5D iii is surely a legend (not only in filming but also in stills). But Canon simply missed to carry forward the "legend" by developing state of the art DSLRs (lacking DR, real 1080p, zebra, waveform, etc.) at reasonable prices...The "legend" is fading away...Please consider, that Canon still prices the 5Diii currently (in Germany) at about 2.300,- Euro. It's simply ridiculous... ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

You broke the skintones entirely.

Back to the drawing board with that one.

Don't know how often you shoot 10 year olds but getting junior to sit still that long was torture.  So yeah, the original shot (with one fill light) was about a stop overexposed.  The shot on the left is untouched Canon standard with the contrast dialed down; the right is just me adjusting the highlight/shadow/contrast/sharpening sliders.  You like the skin tones on the left better?  I don't.  I'm just showing how quickly it can be sharpened up and the highlights pulled down and shadows lifted in post.

Just want to be clear though - you prefer the overall image on the left including the skin tones?  The right looks much better to me; my son has somewhat rosy cheeks.  Left (default) looks dead and devoid of any DR.  The sharpening is too much I will admit on the right.

Here's a TIFF - by all means I would love to see how you guys grade this so I can get better.  Shouldn't be more than 1 stop over exposed (his face) so I'd love to see what changes you guys make.  I use Lightroom for stills and Premiere for video.

1dc__00000_03420923.TIFF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well are you dialing down the settings in camera? C-log is meant to be pushed and played with in post, it is a stronger tone curve for grading. For this canon I would suggest shooting without dialing down the camera's contrast, it seems to causing your midtones (and skin) to wash out. If you want to drop saturation I would do that in post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Arikhan said:

@hmcindie

...720p ugly, mushy and baked in pixel soup...not about your cinematography...it's about the horrible Canon 720p....your films would as good or better, when using a Nikon D750/D8X0...The much more better basic IQ of these devices is not a handicap for experienced/talented filmmakers, it's an advantage because giving the filmmaker much more flexibility in aesthetic expression...

If the "ugly mushy...horrible Canon 720p" is that bad, why were you unable to distinguish the difference between that vs the FS7 or FS700 in Hmcindie's reel? He even provided the download link for the original content.

While my documentary team has moved on to 4k and Sony/Panasonic cameras, we used the 5D3 and D8x0 for years. I've edited hundreds of hours of material from both, and would never describe the 5D3 1080p as "ugly mushy horrible Canon 720p". It is simply a different look from the D8x0 -- both are capable of excellent video imagery. After post processing I've never seen a single person who could tell the difference -- just as you could not tell the difference in hmcindie's material.

It is true that technology has moved on and Canon has lagged severely in video. But if the 1080p content from the 5D3 was "horrible" (much less the 5D2), why have I never heard anyone describe Vincent LaForet's "Reverie" that way: https://vimeo.com/7151244

Likewise I have never heard anyone describe Shane Hurlbut's "Last 3 Minutes" (shot with 5D2) as "ugly mushy horrible": https://vimeo.com/10570139

If the 5D2 content is truly "horrible" why would LucanFilm's Rick McCallum use it on a major feature film? http://cdn.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/rick-mccallum-1.jpg 

McCallum on set with Philp Bloom: http://philipbloom.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Screen-Shot-2011-08-03-at-18.15.33-670x520-670x520.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@joema

Quote

If the "ugly mushy...horrible Canon 720p" is that bad, why were you unable to distinguish the difference between that vs the FS7 or FS700 in Hmcindie's reel?

Because turning down contrast, sharpness & co. in a higher end camera makes it completely impossible to distinguish it's native footage from 720p coffee machines. Just try it the other way around...just deliver footage OOC out a 5d x (without ML) and let us compare between this footage and (let's say) a GH4 1080p. Every bet, that it can be distinguished....
1080p is 1080p and there is not only "colour science". The Canon colour science is just ONE criterion where Canon excels - while it's failing in many other ones (measured at today's requirements and offers of competition).

Look, the BMPCC delivers phantastic footage OOC and is NOT known for "oversharpened footage" OOC. And this little camera at about 1.000 EUR of a small company blows a "legendary" camera like the 5d iii in 1080p out of the water and competes with current "resolution kings" --> take a look...
Before beginning with my films (during the last year, mostly political documentaries and interviews) I made a small survey by comparing OOC footage of the 5D iii with footage of the FZ1000 (!) - native 1080p. You think it's an inappropriate comparison? Nope...After asking about 50 "normal Joes", there were only 6 (!!!) who prefered the 5d iii footage. All other people told me to prefer the "clear sharp footage, realistic colours, contrasts, etc., etc." of the FZ1000. It seems the 5d iii is a "nostalgic filmmaker darling" without much detention of nowadays audience...

There are out here many guys wanting the camera manufacturers to hear on filmmakers...Why do filmmakers not hear on their audience?

In this forum there is much talk on DR, 4K, 8K and current and future standards like HDR 10 and Dolby Vision...On the one side...on the other side, some shooters seem to glorify 720p footage. My standing is quite in the middle - I would just be very happy with a "real 1080p" and some other useful features out of a Canon DSLR. Have you ever took a look to 5d IV and 1DX ii 1080p? It's much worse than on any current 500-800 Euro Pana hobbyist camera...Is this horrible and highly overpriced lack of 1080p quality the future of DSLR film making? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Geoff CB said:

For this canon I would suggest shooting without dialing down the camera's contrast, it seems to causing your midtones (and skin) to wash out. If you want to drop saturation I would do that in post.

This is helpful; I'll try this; I agree something is going on with the midtones when I shoot with the contrast all the way down.  Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gatopardo said:

This Canon is really a gem. You get good footage right of the camera. Good colors and not over detailed image. You don't have to diffuse / soften later. I don't understand this fixation on detail, especially with 4K cameras. 

Got it and second it. Nevertheless, take a look on this one here ; )

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/01/2017 at 0:00 AM, Arikhan said:

Doubtless, but that's not the point. The point is, without ML, the footage is round about 720p and that's far away from competition offers and IQ...

I have the a6300 (and did own the A7s and have shot with the A7sII) so I can't really see what the fuss is. I just shot with the 5d mark IV and had the a6300 as a b-cam (mostly behind the scenes and b-roll) and the image from the a6300 is considerably worse. But you never really hear that over the internet, you mostly just hear that A) 5dmkIV is garbage and that B) a6300 is the best camera ever. I participate in some facebook groups where people constantly recommend the Sony cameras to everyone. And I just can't agree. My own personal choice is that I'd rather shoot mushy h.264 with a 5d mark III than pinsharp 4k on the a6300.

P.S the 5d mark III with magic lantern RAW also beats 4k out of the 5dmarkIV. It is truly a hidden gem.

Link to comment
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.

 Share

  • EOSHD Pro Color 5 for All Sony cameras
    EOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
    EOSHD Dynamic Range Enhancer for H.264/H.265
×
×
  • Create New...