Jump to content

2.5K CinemaScope anamorphic raw on the 5D Mark III


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have been waiting for anybody to say that this is a joke, dream, or whatever. But HELL! I fill like I have been waiting for this for more than three past lifes! And for no reason sombody give me raw recording with a camera I already own? Thank GOD! I can believe anything now, like Jesus is working with the ML team, because this is a F miracle.   
 
I would like to say more but I'm clenning my tears and calming my boner... Smiling face 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the other anamorphic resolutions for 4:3 and 3:2...

 

2x anamorphic from 4:3 (1770x1280) = 3540 x 1280 (2.66:1)

2x anamorphic from 3:2 (1920x1280) = 3840 x 1280 (3:1)

 

1.5x anamorphic from 4:3 (1770x1280) = 2580 x 1280 (2:1)

1.5x anamorphic from 3:2 (1920x1280) = 2880 x 1280 (2.35:1)

 

Do those aspect ratios look right? I'm not too sure.

 

Looks right to me. Shouldn't be hard to calculate, just resize the width to 150% or 200% for a 1,5x or 2x anamorphic lens. Of course there are always variables, like focus distance can change the squeeze ratio with some lenses. But overall, this should be fine.

 

How flexible are the resolutions on the hack?

Is it possible to make custom resolutions like 1440x1280 or 1270x1080? Those would be good for 2.35:1 with 2x anamorphics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

For example, since you're mentioning F35 vs 5D. For each pixel in the final 1080 resolution, the F35 had 6 pixels in the sensor and the camera downsampled them to get that one pixel. That means each pixel has full red, green and blue information. No interpolation. 

Now, compare that with a bayer pattern sensor like the one the 5D uses, where only 25% of the pixels go to red and blue. From 25% to 100% there's a 75% interpolation gap there. Yep, that's a big gap to fill in compared to a F35 right?

 

 

Hello Miguel, so according to you, there is a "huge difference" between the 14bits raw from the 5d sensor and the f35?
According to your explanation, it seems to be, but in the field, things don't are a bit more "complex" ?
I mean, with a good post prod, you can make your 5d 14bits raw footage whatever you want am i wrong?
I've seen some f35 footages, looks as appealing as hell, really more "filmic" than what has been achieved with the 5d..
But again, with a good post prod, isn't it possible to achieve almost the same look?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Achtung! I said comparable not the same, and it really is. CMOS sensor technology has caught up with the F35's cutting edge 6 year old CCD technology in terms of everything but rolling shutter.

 

The sensor is way ahead of the image processor but with raw on the 5D you are taking the image processor completely out of the pipeline.

 

Therefore your colour science is almost entirely in post.

 

 

but let's not forget that there are alot of things happening when the analog signal gets converted to digital on CMOS which we can call the manufacturer's mojo.There are always some necessary calibrations and etc going on which result in vastly different outcomes. So if you get raw from specimen A and raw from specimen B, they are never equal which also means that alot of the information that was in the analog stage got lost or changed forever and so with normal color-correction procedures you can never get what you want - you would have to re-colorize the picture by hand.

 

Plus the chips are different from every manufacturer and therefore must create different outcomes (+ it's CCD vs CMOS so that's even more difference)

 

Just look at how BMCC butchers the cyans,blues and orange colors - even in RAW we see this weirdness either cause by the sensor itself (doubt that), calibration or the in-device image processing. The blues and the oranges just want to poke my eye out in this comparison - and it's because of what is already in the RAW file. That's why BMCC gets less love as one would think it should deserve as the first cheap RAW camera.. the picture just feels wierd - the colors on that thing are like a botched breast augmentation job. Not to mention what happens in low-light - the colors are completey murdered.

 

comparison2_zpsd5156657.jpg

(source - an awesome comparison by Cinema5D, Top BMCC, Bottom 5D mkiii)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Hello Miguel, so according to you, there is a "huge difference" between the 14bits raw from the 5d sensor and the f35?
According to your explanation, it seems to be, but in the field, things don't are a bit more "complex" ?
I mean, with a good post prod, you can make your 5d 14bits raw footage whatever you want am i wrong?
I've seen some f35 footages, looks as appealing as hell, really more "filmic" than what has been achieved with the 5d..
But again, with a good post prod, isn't it possible to achieve almost the same look?

 

 

 

What looks better, 35mm film or a 5Dmk3? Can you make 5D footage look as good as film in post? nop. A good post will get you the best out of the footage but can't do miracles.

What's better, a 2009 Ferrari 458italia or a 2013 Subaru BRZ? I'll take the Ferrari thanks. (feel free to replace the 458 with a 911 turbo if you're not a fan of italians). And I love the BRZ, but they play on different leagues.

 

So the day the 5D can shoot images as filmic as the F35 I'll be sooo happy to leave it at home and just shoot with my 5D.

 

b6wob4.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I love the BRZ, but they play on different leagues.

Real talk, but i also agree with Andrew..
Any look can be achieved with Raw, film look too..

I'm just waiting for a stable version of ML and a Hoodman card 1000x.. And then, i'll make my own test, with cinematography grade (play with curves, saturation and add some film grain..), i'm pretty sure that results will be incredibly amazing..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say it's mathematically impossible to match the footages in all situations - the easiest situation would be a scene without with a nice flat 5600k lighting (or a nice outdoor overcast). 

 

The pro cameras are pro for one thing - they look pro in most situations even before you start doing color corrections.

 

But man am I so glad that the ML Raw beats the crap out of the overpriced Canon's C series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


 

But man am I so glad that the ML Raw beats the crap out of the overpriced Canon's C series.

 

Let's not get carried away, the c300 (or c100 with hdmi) can certainly hold it's own with the 5D3 under most shooting conditions, and definitely kicks the 5D's ass when filming action or going handheld. And the slightly better DR of the c300 seems to be visible in better highlight roll-offs.

 

But the 5D hacks are still developing, so we shall see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the day the 5D can shoot images as filmic as the F35 I'll be sooo happy to leave it at home and just shoot with my 5D.

 

b6wob4.jpg

 

The highlights in the top left corner look pretty digital to me... (clipped and 'rescued by making it gray instead of white) this is perfectly possible with raw.

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

×
×
  • Create New...