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

"...i own the MKIII..."

 

"Can someone with a MKIII hack try shooting something in soft natural light with a filmic low saturation grade and post it up? V interested to see."

 

You understand these two things don't go very well together, right? :) Why don't you just do it yourself???

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

Everything changes so fast now, and I'm starting to know so many people who own better kit than me, I think I may cancel my BMD preorder and just start borrowing gear again (aside from my lenses). It's getting hard to keep up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually JG It's a little like medicine improves but only for the select few. Not many have been able to get hold of the latest camera's either through pandering to pro's or just unavailable. The only stuff that is new are the hacks being made for and by technology starved consumers.

 

Rare BMC Footage

https://vimeo.com/7638752

Circa 1927 and with cutting edge pleasing blue and orangey colour brushes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You understand these two things don't go very well together, right? :) Why don't you just do it yourself???

haha. Yeah i just don't have a fast card and tbh was going to wait for Magic Lantern to be more stable before jumping in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the fix? Seems you do not understand what i am suggesting so perhaps ask rather than being sarcastic?

 

When you shoot film it has a far lower saturation and less contrast/more tonal range than the way most people are grading these RAW files...

 

 

No, it doesn't. 

 

If you were to remain with a fully photochemical process you would have to choose to shoot for a low-contrast effect or deliberately print it seeking a low-contrast effect.  This is why "one light" prints using standard printer lights almost universally contain more contrast than the final, timed print of a film will.

 

Raw digital cameras and digital acquisition of film elements requires a viewing LUT and this has introduced repeated instances of seeing a misleading representation of the image acquired.  Worse than this is this low-contrast, bad LUT version becoming accepted as "that's just how it is" or creating a perception that "that's just how that camera shoots" (see: repeated references on camera forums to a supposed Alexa "look" that's utter hogwash) and so that version carries forward to the final version (see: first ever F35 film, Superman Returns...ugh).

 

Film is low-contrast straight off a datacine, viewed naively without a proper LUT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually JG It's a little like medicine improves but only for the select few. Not many have been able to get hold of the latest camera's either through pandering to pro's or just unavailable. The only stuff that is new are the hacks being made for and by technology starved consumers.

 

Rare BMC Footage

https://vimeo.com/7638752

Circa 1927 and with cutting edge pleasing blue and orangey colour brushes

 

That's a lovely film isn't it? I assume it's a kind of prototype two-strip process? That or hand coloured...

 

Personal gear wise, I've not bought another interchangeable lens camera since the 550D. I might swap it for the 600D.  I have a lot of lenses though...

 

I'm on the 4K BMD list but I'm thinking it might be an excessive expense, all told.

 

This year I've used C300, FS700, Alexa and Epic on projects that weren't my own though. Having used the whole lot I'm still not that unhappy with the old 550D :) it definitely makes you work to get it right on set.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. 

 

If you were to remain with a fully photochemical process you would have to choose to shoot for a low-contrast effect or deliberately print it seeking a low-contrast effect.  This is why "one light" prints using standard printer lights almost universally contain more contrast than the final, timed print of a film will.

 

Raw digital cameras and digital acquisition of film elements requires a viewing LUT and this has introduced repeated instances of seeing a misleading representation of the image acquired.  Worse than this is this low-contrast, bad LUT version becoming accepted as "that's just how it is" or creating a perception that "that's just how that camera shoots" (see: repeated references on camera forums to a supposed Alexa "look" that's utter hogwash) and so that version carries forward to the final version (see: first ever F35 film, Superman Returns...ugh).

 

Film is low-contrast straight off a datacine, viewed naively without a proper LUT.

 

Yes it's important to note that a 2D curves adjustment isn't a replacement for a custom 3D LUT.

 

Compare the two in Alexa footage, and with the former you have no skintones! The LUT is lush.

 

Still, a lot of people find that look of uncorrected Alexa to be very hipster, and request it. Bananas, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. 

 

If you were to remain with a fully photochemical process you would have to choose to shoot for a low-contrast effect or deliberately print it seeking a low-contrast effect.  This is why "one light" prints using standard printer lights almost universally contain more contrast than the final, timed print of a film will.

 

Raw digital cameras and digital acquisition of film elements requires a viewing LUT and this has introduced repeated instances of seeing a misleading representation of the image acquired.  Worse than this is this low-contrast, bad LUT version becoming accepted as "that's just how it is" or creating a perception that "that's just how that camera shoots" (see: repeated references on camera forums to a supposed Alexa "look" that's utter hogwash) and so that version carries forward to the final version (see: first ever F35 film, Superman Returns...ugh).

 

Film is low-contrast straight off a datacine, viewed naively without a proper LUT.

 

Film with a purely photochemical process after a one-light has less saturation and contrast than a lot of the RAW videos posted. From the last project i did that's what my eye tells me. Film is not super contrasty and saturated, i don't know why you're arguing that it is? The neg is not designed to create high contrast/saturation, that doesn't make sense. The Neg gives you a nice range of contrast to retain as much info as possible within the boundaries of what film can achieve. 

 

Ok the MKII video posted is less saturated than film processed photochemically, but it's waaayy less saturated and contrasty than some of the videos being posted, and far more in the direction of what film looks like.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this digital LUT problem. You shoot on your camera with LUT applied to the viewing monitor, then in post you apply the LUT, and there you go it's the same as when you shot it. If you mean people are trying to grade footage to look like the LOG profile of an Alexa before grade/LUT applied, yes that's weird.

 

Anyway, rather than arguing about it, i guess i should just buy a fast CF card and test it for myself huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone worked out what the base ISO is on these DNG files?

 

I seem to be getting less noise at 640/800 - do DNG files naturally have this as their base ISO? 

 

Do dslr's have a base iso at all? There is AD conversion on chip. In photography, the lowest iso is always the 'base' iso and will give the best results in all aspects: dynamic range, noise, etc. Raw on the 5D is basically dslr-raw-files at high speed, right? So the lower the iso, the better it should be.

 

Please let me know if i'm wrong, I never fully understood this base iso concept :) Just the photography part...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do dslr's have a base iso at all? There is AD conversion on chip. In photography, the lowest iso is always the 'base' iso and will give the best results in all aspects: dynamic range, noise, etc. Raw on the 5D is basically dslr-raw-files at high speed, right? So the lower the iso, the better it should be.

 

Please let me know if i'm wrong, I never fully understood this base iso concept :) Just the photography part...

No DSLRs shouldn't really have a base iso.

Just a bit weirded out by these DNG files being spat out by my 60D.

Indoors with the main [bulb] light on, 640/800iso produced less noise than 320 - [shouldn't] it be the other way around?

 

So am just wondering what's going on, because these DNGs behave differently than the normal raw files.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Still, a lot of people find that look of uncorrected Alexa to be very hipster, and request it. Bananas, eh?

 

Indeed.  It's frustrating though reading "Alexa look" which doesn't cover all the great looking stuff that doesn't have this look at all, that just looks like you're looking at film.  I particularly enjoyed John Brawley's available light shoot-out where I was convinced, until seeing the key at the end of the test, that the Alexa was the 35mm entry...it was hands down my favorite based on the online representation but I know that the projected presentation would likely have me in line with the prevailing attitude there, that 35mm was still the winner overall, even (or perhaps especially) digitally projected.  Without some form of faux analog processing, currently, digital projection isn't flattering for digital acquisition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, let's keep it simple and on topic more or less.

 

IMO it's fine to publicly criticise people, as long as you are open. When you say only nice things to their face and then bitch about them behind their back, then it's wrong/ hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come on guys.. There's enough on topic stuff to discuss about. I noticed someone is working on 14 to 12 and 10 bit compression in camera. Sounds interesting to me. Would help the 5D2 and slower cameras to be reliable at higher resolutions.

Apparently 12 bit is 15% compression and 10 bit 29%

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come on guys.. There's enough on topic stuff to discuss about. I noticed someone is working on 14 to 12 and 10 bit compression in camera. Sounds interesting to me. Would help the 5D2 and slower cameras to be reliable at higher resolutions.

Apparently 12 bit is 15% compression and 10 bit 29%

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5601.0


I noticed an earlier post (containing links) to what appears to be a speedy CF card from Toshiba... wasn't sold in the US yet. Does anyone involved with this board have any experience with this card and if so, have you been pleased with its performance? I also wonder if it would make the ML endeavor more reliable/faster.

Lowrie's "Mark III Field Guide" mentioned that the DIGIC 5 is seventeen times faster than the DIGIC 4... which is new information to me and I do count noteworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has anyone worked out what the base ISO is on these DNG files?

 

I seem to be getting less noise at 640/800 - do DNG files naturally have this as their base ISO? 

Should be somewhere in the ISO100-200 range for most DSLR. I think ISO 200 for some Nikons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Film with a purely photochemical process after a one-light has less saturation and contrast than a lot of the RAW videos posted. From the last project i did that's what my eye tells me. Film is not super contrasty and saturated, i don't know why you're arguing that it is? The neg is not designed to create high contrast/saturation, that doesn't make sense. The Neg gives you a nice range of contrast to retain as much info as possible within the boundaries of what film can achieve. 

 

Ok the MKII video posted is less saturated than film processed photochemically, but it's waaayy less saturated and contrasty than some of the videos being posted, and far more in the direction of what film looks like.

 

I don't understand what you mean by this digital LUT problem. You shoot on your camera with LUT applied to the viewing monitor, then in post you apply the LUT, and there you go it's the same as when you shot it. If you mean people are trying to grade footage to look like the LOG profile of an Alexa before grade/LUT applied, yes that's weird.

 

Anyway, rather than arguing about it, i guess i should just buy a fast CF card and test it for myself huh?

If you ever shot some Fuji Velvia 50 and such that was pretty contrasty and wildly saturated.

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...