Jump to content

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


Andrew Reid

Recommended Posts

Andrew is guilty of this as well, as evidenced by a recent tweet. But no worries! It's all good.

 

I dunno, "raw" makes me think of unpeeled potatoes. So RAW is not an acronym? Ok, how about Raw Access Workflow? That's right, you heard it here first. :D ROFL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 727
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Posted this on Bloom's blogpost. Part of me thinks he realised he dropped the ball on this one and wants the whole thing to go away. Like Andrew said with great power comes great responsibility.    

The other day i put down a preorder on a Mexican wrap at a food stand in Soho.   If enough people put down a preorder I might get the wrap next year, so everyone do it!   I had my preorder on the

Somebody has to say it, so i'll go first.   2012: BMCC (Black Magic Cinema camera) 2013: MLCC (Magic Lantern Cracked camera)

I'm noticing a deafening silence from the DSLR gang of LaForet, Chung and Hurlbut. These guys gained their prominence from the 5D, but now seem to be trying to distance themselves from it because they now have corporate sponsors with various accessory manufacturers ( Movi / Kessler / Teradek / Tilta ) and promoting a free 5D3 RAW hack is too cheap for them since they're in the "big leagues" now.

 

Case in point, - I just noticed that Dan Chung quitely changed the domain of his blog from www.dslrnewsshooter.com to just www.newsshooter.com

 

Want 5D RAW coverage from these boys? Better get your sponsorshop agreement in order. :D

No. There's no 'deafening silence' unless that's what you wanted to see, which i expect is the case.

 

Philip bloom talked about RAW in his latest blog post in a pretty level headed manner tbh, which included excitement, appreciation for it's image quality, and the potential downsides.

Shane Hurlbut is testing it as we speak, and attested to the fact via twitter.

 

And sure, Hurlbut 'gained his prominence from the 5D', and now he's in the 'big leagues'. His prominence and big league status of course had nothing to do with the award winning, big budget Hollywood films he's been shooting for years? Here's a guy who's been giving back to the community of low budget filmmakers for a long time now via his blog but at the drop of a hat you'll accuse him of conspiracy based on no factual evidence. What is wrong with you? Honestly this is simply ridiculous and flat out disrespectful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the idea here. Just waiting for it to hit that last step: recording raw/dng to an Atomos.

I'll stick with ProRes422 til that happens.

I think it was mentioned on the ML forum that getting the RAW out of the HDMI is a problem due to dodgy colour and other settings applied by Canon for which the math remains a mystery to the ML team. We'll see though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Kedbear you are not looking at things objectively enough.

 

Philip Bloom greeted the biggest news for DSLR shooters in the last 3 years first by ignoring it completely, then on Twitter belittling it.

"the obsession of this whole 5dmk3 raw hack is just nuts. Please just calm down and go and shoot something instead please!"

For me that is scandalous especially as Philip is in a position to help enthuse so many people about Magic Lantern and for being influential in getting Canon to support it.

You know the saying, with great power comes responsibility?

His negativity over this doesn't tally with his enthusiasm for image quality on the Cinema EOS cameras when he speaks about them at Canon sponsored events. Those images he's raving about on the 1D C and 1D X and C300 are nowhere near as cinematic as raw on the full frame 5D Mark III sensor.

He's entitled to his opinion, as much as I am entitled to think it odd.

Then to his blog post - which I had a real hard time reading - Philip hid the biggest news of the last 3 years half way down a HUGE page about how inconvenient raw is, along with patronising 'patting on the head' comments like "There is absolutely nothing wrong with making the appearance of your work better than it actually is"

Don't try to dress that up as level headed advice, because it isn't the right advice at all for his audience. They should be embracing raw because in a few years it will be a huge part of their jobs to know it.

Now a lot of people look to Philip for DSLR video related advice and I think he genuinely doesn't like the raw workflow, probably doesn't understand the technical stuff, and doesn't want to shoot it for paid work, which is fair enough - each to their own. The problem with this is he only ever sees filmmaking from the point of view of commercial and convenience.

Then there's the inconsistent advice. Ergonomics, practicality and small file sizes are his concerns unless he is shooting with his 1D C, then all that flies right out of the window!! His 1D C commentary is all about how wonderful the image is, and he glosses over the obvious shortcomings which I picked up on in my review - one of which is the price!!

Am I not entitled to want consistency in his views? If I find something odd then I have the right to question it.

If you also have the misfortune of still following him on Twitter (I don't) you will also get a glimpse into the cult of personality he's cultivated, in my opinion. That stuff has nothing to do with being a filmmaker, instead it shows formidable self obsession.

I don't get this thing about his blog being some kind of charity to aspiring filmmakers, like he makes it out to be. It's a business. He sells his tutorial DVDs through it and affiliate network advertising on a site with that much traffic makes a lot of money, far exceeding the hosting costs. I am on the same server and I know the costs. They are miniscule. There's absolutely nothing wrong with commercialising a blog either, but why does he pretend that he doesn't!?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There's no 'deafening silence' unless that's what you wanted to see, which i expect is the case.

 

Philip bloom talked about RAW in his latest blog post in a pretty level headed manner tbh, which included excitement, appreciation for it's image quality, and the potential downsides.

Shane Hurlbut is testing it as we speak, and attested to the fact via twitter.

 

And sure, Hurlbut 'gained his prominence from the 5D', and now he's in the 'big leagues'. His prominence and big league status of course had nothing to do with the award winning, big budget Hollywood films he's been shooting for years? Here's a guy who's been giving back to the community of low budget filmmakers for a long time now via his blog but at the drop of a hat you'll accuse him of conspiracy based on no factual evidence. What is wrong with you? Honestly this is simply ridiculous and flat out disrespectful.

 

I didn't mention Bloom and crossed out Hurlbut in my post just minutes before I read your post, mentioning that he is indeed looking into it, - I do apologize for making this assumption about Hurlbut. He deserves credit for putting out the most commercially successful 5D theatrical release to date, and I'm glad he's experimenting with the hack now! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Of course Philip is hiding behind a relevant argument but still hiding nevertheless. I think he is using story and practical shooting issues as smokescreen for the fact he doesn't understand raw workflow and cannot ably deal with it on the technical side. The very capable James Miller has to fill in for him on the technical stuff.

 

90% of his raw coverage is about the practical and commercial considerations of using it rather than the IMAGE and actual tips and help. How is this useful advice? It's like a broken record. Yeah big file sizes. Yeah... whatever. It isn't that hard to deal with anyway.

 

Yes that Cinema EOS china teapot is nice but what about the elephant in the room?

 

He is avoiding the main subject, which is the fact that raw is here to stay. Raw is here and all he can do is moan and warn people off it.

 

I think you have misunderstood my post. I said it’s unnecessary for most of people’s work. I have to be honest Sam. I would rather spent that extra time working on the ideas behind the film than dealing with it in post. If you are able to do both then great!

 

Again a straw man argument. Yeah yeah story is important, so are ideas. Hang on. Pink Floyd didn't sacrifice the soundscapes for lyrics or time constraints. They're purists, artists.

 

If he has commercial realities to think about then that's his problem. The rest of us can make a living off shooting raw no problem. Red users have been doing it for YEARS!

 

On price...

 

Of course Bloom would rather use an F5! It's all very well if you can spend $36,000 on a Sony F55 or Epic. F5 is small change so is 1D C! How is that useful advice to us? So his advice is to avoid the best possible image on a $3000 camera and spend $30,000 on making it a bit more convenient!? What kind of filmmaker would spend $100,000 on equipment but end up shooting H.264 for convenience?

Link to post
Share on other sites

His negativity over this doesn't tally with his enthusiasm for image quality on the Cinema EOS cameras when he speaks about them at Canon sponsored events. Those images he's raving about on the 1D C and 1D X and C300 are nowhere near as cinematic as raw on the full frame 5D Mark III sensor.

 

I think you are seeing things through some odd misty-colored glasses where Philip is a bad guy. Ego is probably involved too.

 

When you say "nowhere near as cinematic", that's just hyperbole. I could call that a flat bold-out lie, and be just as "right" as you are. There was a test on DVXUser where the C100 and 5d hacked shot the same scene. Not much difference to be honest. 5d raw was resolution wise, slightly worse because it had small amounts of stairstepping. Both looked excellent still.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

I come from the North of England where the whole ethos is to be self depreciating. I grew up from a working class background. I couldn't give a shit about egos. Trust me this is not about ego. It is about what is right for the DSLR community and what is good advice and what is useful to Magic Lantern and that they should deserve better from someone like Bloom.

 

Hyperbole? C100 is not raw or full frame or $3k. It's a whole different ballgame creatively. I've shot with the C100, the image is mush compared to raw on the 5D Mark III. You are looking at compressed 5D footage in the DVX comparison. You try grading a DNG from the 5D Mark III and a AVCHD frame from the C100 and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I come from the North of England where the whole ethos is to be self depreciating. I grew up from a working class background. I couldn't give a shit about egos. Trust me this is not about ego. It is about what is right for the DSLR community and what is good advice and what is useful to Magic Lantern and that they should deserve better from someone like Bloom.

 

Hyperbole? C100 is not raw or full frame or $3k. It's a whole different ballgame creatively. I've shot with the C100, the image is mush compared to raw on the 5D Mark III. You are looking at compressed 5D footage in the DVX comparison. You try grading a DNG from the 5D Mark III and a AVCHD frame from the C100 and see what happens.

I don't agree that you are objective, because you're too personally involved with Philip bloom. I do personally see ego coming thorugh in your posts and opinions when it comes to other higher end film-makers, for example Shane Hurlbut.

 

You're very good at supporting the low budget indie market, i'm unsure why you don't stick to that rather than comparing yourself to others and criticising them.

 

Something i'm unclear about, and i ask this with respect... Are you a film-making professional? Do you earn your living through DoP'ing / camera operating?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it was mentioned on the ML forum that getting the RAW out of the HDMI is a problem due to dodgy colour and other settings applied by Canon for which the math remains a mystery to the ML team. We'll see though.

 

kedbear - thanks. I don't have access to the ML forums over here (currently in Afghanistan) so operating out of ignorance. I like this concept. It would just better for me, once I get home that is, to record RAW/CDNG directly onto an Atomos. Know what I mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites

kedbear - thanks. I don't have access to the ML forums over here (currently in Afghanistan) so operating out of ignorance. I like this concept. It would just better for me, once I get home that is, to record RAW/CDNG directly onto an Atomos. Know what I mean?

Absolutely, if the HDMI port could be cracked it would be amazing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Something i'm unclear about, and i ask this with respect... Are you a film-making professional? Do you earn your living through DoP'ing / camera operating?

 

Yes but I am in privileged position of being able to fund my own projects and I DP essentially for myself and my own art, not on a spec shoot for someone else. This was a conscious decision I made about 3 years ago to go down the route of an artist rather than a commercial shooter. Hence the term indie filmmaker. If it was not for my anamorphic guide and GH2 guide I wouldn't have been able to fund my filmmaking. So very thankful to all who follow EOSHD.

 

I understand the needs of fellow commercial filmmakers a lot of my fiends in Berlin and London, and in the US are working in the industry. I am more an industry outsider in the way I work. If you have a problem with that I suggest you go and follow a different filmmaker.

 

I'm not the only one to be offended by Philip's attitude. Luke who is close to Magic Lantern devs is and I think the whole team expected more enthusiasm from 'the guru' https://www.facebook.com/NeumannFilms/posts/476670929070347

Link to post
Share on other sites

Something i'm unclear about, and i ask this with respect... Are you a film-making professional? Do you earn your living through DoP'ing / camera operating?

 

 

What prompted this condescending question? The fact that Andrew is outspoken? Is his lack of "pro" credentials a reason he should "behave"? WTF. Personally I love this forum for its tolerance of all opinions and lack of power-tripping PC mods who censor criticism because it might offend someone. Incorrect statements can be called out and debated ( as you did ), but let's note equate being nice with being professional. 

 

Christopher Doyle called out Claudio Miranda's bullshit and James Cameron called Spielberg a motherfucker in an interview. Let's just all grow up and live with the fact that sometimes you take the heat for positions you take ( or don't take ), and no one has immunity from criticism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes but I am in privileged position of being able to fund my own projects and I DP essentially for myself and my own art, not on a spec shoot for someone else. This was a conscious decision I made about 3 years ago to go down the route of an artist rather than a commercial shooter. 

 

 

This is abject nonsense. Your "artistic" filmmaking helps your commercial interests as well.  Your guides, they are commercial endeavors supported by your filmaking.  All of your reviews that generate viewership for this web sight, is that art?

 

Is Picasso's Guernica not art because it was done on commission?

 

If you were some rich kid who could shoot whatever he wanted, whenever he wanted, would that make you more of an artist that the guy who spends his whole life working as a DP under some director?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

That's not what I am saying at all HurtinMinorKey. Art and commerce are not separate endeavours.

 

I am an independent professional with my own projects. It isn't abject nonsense it is a statement of fact. I decided not to enter the established commercial filmmaking world and to concentrate on my OWN projects and making money that way instead like an entrepreneurial filmmaker. Tom Lowe is another one.

Seems you don't understand oh dear.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not what I am saying at all HurtinMinorKey. Art and commerce are not separate endeavours.

 

I am an independent professional with my own projects. It isn't abject nonsense it is a statement of fact. I decided not to enter the established commercial filmmaking world and to concentrate on my OWN projects and making money that way instead like an entrepreneurial filmmaker. Tom Lowe is another one.

Seems you don't understand oh dear.

 

Fair enough, but you said "...route of an artist rather than a commercial shooter."  There it appears you are implying the two were mutually exclusive.

 

I guess you didn't mean it that way, but my confusion is understandable, no?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Fair enough, but you said "...route of an artist rather than a commercial shooter."  There it appears you are implying the two were mutually exclusive.

 

I guess you didn't mean it that way, but my confusion is understandable, no?  

 

Yep, bad wording on my part, it is not what I meant.

 

What I meant was "route of a entrepreneur rather than a hired hand".

 

And BTW, nothing wrong with either route and not one is superior to the other, it just depends what turns you on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all I would like to congratulate you for the work you have done with the camera. I look forward very much.
 
Does RAW compression is possible in this camera?. This way you could take video 4k or 5k. Even if it were possible to take raw compressed, see the possibility of taking in these resolutions referred jpg. It would be nice to use 4k or 5k images out of this camera. So make the most of so ingenious work that has been done with this camera.
 
Many congratulations.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Administrators

Raw compression is most likely impossible in-camera as it requires very powerful processors like the Epic and a fan for cooling, neither of which the 5D Mark III has.

 

Even Motion JPEG still requires more processing than raw does!

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...