Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

BIG NEWS - Hands on with CONTINUOUS raw recording on Canon 5D Mark III

Recommended Posts

Agreed.

 

Zacuto should include the 5D3 running ML in RAW on their next shoot out . . . that will be really interesting. Everything else is NOISE.

 

Thanks, and it's sad the Zacuto shootout is about the best there is currently. Stills shooters have DPR and DxO and TDP and therefore we know exactly how the D800 and 1DX etc. compare on an objective, reproducible, apples-to-apples basis, even if we might have quibbles with that basis. Video? Crickets...

 

Another thing to consider when comparing the 5D3 RAW with the BMCC is the crop option in ML. As I understand it, ML will allow 1:1 pixel crops, which will essentially make the full frame 135 5D3 into a little BMCC pocket cam sensor (I generally dismiss the BMCC as a 3lb GoPro with the lens removable but the battery not). I predict there will be poorer false color and aliasing suppression, and more noise in that mode, and it will be more directly comparable with the BMCC.

 

The BMCC won't have the full frame mode anytime soon though.  B)

 

On the subject of file time limits, it's clear from the ML forums that the 4GB is just a temporary issue. I predict a practical 1080p/25 limit of 30 minutes continuous on a 128GB card, which our friends in the European gov't should be very happy to hear!  :rolleyes:

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

This isn't "perceived detail", or false detail.  This is blades of grass:

 

316th14.png

...that's unaltered 5D on top, BMCC on the bottom, 1:1 to each other @ 200%

 

 

29agsl.png

...if it were "false" detail then further enhancing wouldn't further resolve maintained blade structure, here still at 1:1 to each other, 5D on top and enhanced BMCC on the bottom (mild de-moire + my LCE scheme).

 

m4z20.png

...and here we have 5D on top and BMCC on the bottom scaled down to 1080.  The comparison would be even worse for the 5D if you were to go the other direction. 

 

Sort of. Some of that BM stuff there is verging on looking like screen caps from a video game with AA 100% turned-off though. Aliasing is false detail. Even the 5D3 RAW has some aliasing for sure, as much as you'd ever want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah or lots of natural world/wildlife/scenics. People always forget it's not all long format scripted stuff.

 

And again, these other "real world" examples are fabricated based on what someone sees in a typical edited down fashion.

 

I can see it now, besides with actors in any form, not just long form, all those moments lost because you either weren't rolling or just had the camera cut out on you, you will have even more lost moments when trying to capture wildlife, or anything live and unpredictable.  

 

This rationalization over 40sec being useful will all likely be moot when ML applies the trivial fix for spanning but it does reveal much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4K in the home is rather stupid.

People said the same thing about 1080p and how you'd need a 70" screen to even notice it etc. Heck I noticed it even on a 24" screen. Why do you think video games at 1920x1200 need AA to not look nasty on even 24" screens? Because that resolution is nearly enough to match the eye! Look at a retina iPad for a while and then look at a typical 24" PC monitor, the PC monitor suddenly looks blocky and grainy as heck.

 

It'll take some time but 4K in the home will arrive and it makes every bit of sense in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sort of. Some of that BM stuff there is verging on looking like screen caps from a video game with AA 100% turned-off though. Aliasing is false detail. Even the 5D3 RAW has some aliasing for sure, as much as you'd ever want.

 

Dude, it's blown by 200%. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People said the same thing about 1080p and how you'd need a 70" screen to even notice it etc. Heck I noticed it even on a 24" screen. Why do you think video games at 1920x1200 need AA to not look nasty on even 24" screens? Because that resolution is nearly enough to match the eye! Look at a retina iPad for a while and then look at a typical 24" PC monitor, the PC monitor suddenly looks blocky and grainy as heck.

 

It'll take some time but 4K in the home will arrive and it makes every bit of sense in the world.

 

You're watching that screen at likely less than 2' from the display.  Please take the time to understand what's being discussed.  You're adding nothing to the discussion here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then, smart guy, remind me when the breakthru in human evolution occurred that, not in a millennia, not in a century and not even in a generation but within the span of a product cycle uplifted the resolving power of our eyes so that the resolution in a 4K display of average television size isn't completely wasted as a result of physics and biomechanics.

 

PS> they had HD in the labs since the 1950s, before we went to the moon, before a majority of TV owners were "enjoying" color sets.  Technology improved in all that time but our eyes are the same.

See my message above. And heck look out the window and then look at a blu-ray on a HDTV 1080p TV set. If you can't see a difference then you have bad vision. 4k sets they say start beginning to give you that looking out a window feeling.

 

Another thing people print out images and say you need to do that to see all the details, well many prints are no larger than a regular PC monitor so how come the prints look much sharper than that 1080p on a 24" screen never mind 55"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  
This is not true, and even if it were, almost none of the content being screened is 4K. Even Skyfall, which Sony used to push 4K projection, was sourced from a 2K master.
And 1080p TVs are hugely more widespread, but that doesn't change the fact that all TV broadcasts are 720p.

I'm pretty sure there have been some true 4k theatrical projections.

All TV broadcasts are not 720p. In fact relatively few are. Most stations are 1920x1080i. Only ABC and cable affiliates such as ESPN and FOX and cable affiliates such as FX are 720p. Blu-ray are mostly 1080p (with the very occasional 1080i).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to nitpick but this is untrue. Very very few screens are showing in true 4K at this moment in time. There are hundreds or maybe even thousands of the Sony Dual lens 3D systems in theaters across america that say they are 4K in the Sony branded pre-roll in the theater. These are really projectors that have 2 x 2K projection systems in one projector body. They are usually projecting from 2K (2D) DCPs or 2K 3D DCPs that are actually split between each lens/sensor and projected interleaved (which does not actually give you anywhere near 4K projection). Additionally, the current Digital Imax system does the same thing with two completely separate interleaved 2K Christie Cinema projectors projecting from a 4K DCP. This translates to a very, very slight increase in detail over a single 2K system (and is done to give each eye more light). This translates to very few true 4K DCPs being projected on true 4K projectors. Even in specialty situations where we have a movie like Prometheus that was captured at 5K native. I believe I read that Prometheus was posted as a full 2K DI. The Visual effect sequences were definitely rendered in 2K. So this means that even when they had specialty 4K screenings at select locations those were partially or completely 2K content on a 4K system.

 

Even in a true 4K situation, such as when I saw Samsara projected at the Arclight Hollywood in 4K it was stunning but not nearly as much of an improvement over 2K (in a high end theater setting mind you) as you would hope. And this is coming from a guy with 20/10 vision who has overseen dozens of premieres and special screenings (many of them at the arclight). 4k is amazing but it's not as amazing as it should be or as prevalent as you are led to believe.

 

The single most stunning resolution experience I have seen was the Dark Night in Imax at Universal City. Those prints were supposedly struck from the negatives. This means the viewer was seeing something between 8k and 16k on the screen during the imax sequences. THAT was what I always hoped true 4K would look like. Someday.

Yeah Dark Knight in a real IMAX theater was pretty amazing. Soooooo crisp for all the IMAX scenes! Almost like you were really on the streets of NY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're watching that screen at likely less than 2' from the display.  Please take the time to understand what's being discussed.  You're adding nothing to the discussion here.

Not everyone sits 10'-20' away from their 55" HDTV set! Way past THX recommended. Even with a retina iPad at normal ipad distance I can still see some pixels because even that isn't quite high enough density for viewing distance.

 

4k TVs make ever bit of sense in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're watching that screen at likely less than 2' from the display.  Please take the time to understand what's being discussed.  You're adding nothing to the discussion here.

 

No more like 3' and the grain and pixel are easy to see. Sitting a nice distance from a 4k HDTV blow the heck out of sitting stupidly far from a 1080p set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And again, these other "real world" examples are fabricated based on what someone sees in a typical edited down fashion.

 

I can see it now, besides with actors in any form, not just long form, all those moments lost because you either weren't rolling or just had the camera cut out on you, you will have even more lost moments when trying to capture wildlife, or anything live and unpredictable.  

 

This rationalization over 40sec being useful will all likely be moot when ML applies the trivial fix for spanning but it does reveal much.

It's 49 not 40 seconds. And it's working out pretty marvelously as is for nature/scenic stuff for me already, but of course that stuff doesn't count because it merely some silly natural world video (of course there are times for that stuff you would like more than 49 seconds too but as has been said it's just a short matter of time before they more or less get past the 4GB thing anyway and you can get plenty of awesome stuff in the meantime).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure you know we are discussing two different lenses feeding two very different size sensors. As a result, the focal plane position and depth of field for the two shots will not be comparable directly. The BMCC will have a much greater DoF ...

 

 

Really?  You think under these lighting conditions DOF is a contributing factor, assuming no heavy ND was employed.  They shot at ISO160 and I'm betting at or near f/22 but, sure, the two cameras have different depth of field.  I'll even go so far as to agree they might have completely screwed up shooting a broad daylight landscape focused to infinity.

 

The files are there for you to inspect as well.

 

LOL..."butchered".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they shot at f/22 then the different diffraction characteristics of the lenses and their irises will also be an issue. One would hope a comparison would be done at a lens's best settings. And with primes rather than zooms I would think.

 

Again I apologize for complaining about the tests when not being able to run better ones of my own. A/B tests are the most useful but as a result carry the greatest responsibility in their design, execution, reporting and analysis. I want to get someone out there determined to meet that challenge. The manufacturers will fall into line very quickly as they did when DPR got big.

 

Really?  You think under these lighting conditions DOF is a contributing factor, assuming no heavy ND was employed.  They shot at ISO160 and I'm betting at or near f/22 but, sure, the two cameras have different depth of field.  I'll even go so far as to agree they might have completely screwed up shooting a broad daylight landscape focused to infinity.

 

The files are there for you to inspect as well.

 

LOL..."butchered".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok. I have gotten ML firmware loaded and have tested out the 5DM3's raw output...very impressive. But how do I record video in crop mode? I'd really like to try this out, but I can't figure out how to record RAW in a 1:1 crop.

 

Tnx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't you guys getting a little over-excited? I saw a test done over at Cinema 5D and some of the frames had 'digital noise

' pop up in them.  I'd be all over this if it wasn't still in the early stages of development. Doesn't seem you could reliably use this on a paid project just yet.  Also, as someone else pointed out, the CF cards that can handle the higher data rates aren't exactly cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites



Aren't you guys getting a little over-excited? I saw a test done over at Cinema 5D and some of the frames had 'digital noise


'


eyes agree der magic lamping fella alex also said der image is tear ring not sure if he means cryin or tearin assunder my guess is der camera is literally pullin itself apart.
eye tells ya canon are not goona repair warrant a camra in 2 pieces.
dis hack is the devils work.

in der name of  jesus jim jannard someone stop these evil doing  hacker children.

 


i tinks use fellas should wait for der pocket black magic camera in 2018

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure there have been some true 4k theatrical projections.
All TV broadcasts are not 720p. In fact relatively few are. Most stations are 1920x1080i. Only ABC and cable affiliates such as ESPN and FOX and cable affiliates such as FX are 720p. Blu-ray are mostly 1080p (with the very occasional 1080i).

You're right about TV. But still, when there aren't any 1080p broadcasts yet, why do people think quad HD is only a few years away?

And yes, of course there have been true 4K cinema presentations. I'be been to a few. However, they account for a tiny portion of cinema releases right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lookin forward to seeing that HDMI test. If we can bypass the CF card limit and all that, Atomos would be really happy to see people rushing to get one. 1080p ProRes with the dynamic range of RAW would be amazing!!! Sometimes you guys lose sight of the bigger picture...sure 2k and 4k would be great but if you really NEEDED it that bad you wouldn't be hot rodding a 5d3 lol. You wouldn't be able to manipulate it as much in post but the image would be sharper and more latitude would make the 5d3 even more of a beast than it already is.

A Ninja 2 setup with a hard drive would run you about $800 total, which would be a lot more convenient and offer more storage than 1000x CF cards which are looking like $250 for two 32gb cards. I was thinking about getting a Ninja 2 before this hack but if it can be done over HDMI and saved to the Ninja that would be sickkkkkk!!

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...