Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Magic Lantern 5D Mark III raw video and camera reliability

Recommended Posts

Really appreciate this roundup. 

 

Regarding the RAW workflows, or even Davinci software....what's the current low end entry point for a Mac portable?

 

As I understand it, there's a Macbook revamp coming next month, and I'm aware of the Hackintosh but that's too much in the way of hacked products for me. Likewise, I'm not interested in buying a cheap ancient desktop then going upgrade crazy.  Is anyone here working with RAW files on an off the shelf Macbook? 

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

Is it really 0.01% though?

 

Stills photographers are pretty interested in raw I'd say...

 

The problem is that Canon wants to make too much money.  The accountants and marketing people want to maximize profits by targeting the masses.  By doing this, you stiffle the creativity of the engineers. 

 

One must wonder if the Canon engineers purposely left breadcrumbs in the firmware code in hopes of having the full fruits of their labor discovered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really 0.01% though?

 

Stills photographers are pretty interested in raw I'd say...

Well it was a wild guess :D

But Canon make their money in the consumer segment. I would guess they dont even care about magic lantern. Maybe technically they could have done RAW Video in 2008 for a 50D but there was no demand so there was no supply. And nowadays they dont want to destroy their eos cinema line :>

 

And just to remember:

For those who are doing video with dslrs ... the masses want do small workflows, little files, compressed formats. RAW is again for the small percentage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Canon wants to make too much money.  The accountants and marketing people want to maximize profits by targeting the masses.  By doing this, you stiffle the creativity of the engineers. 

 

One must wonder if the Canon engineers purposely left breadcrumbs in the firmware code in hopes of having the full fruits of their labor discovered.

 

Absolutely true.

 

There are too many people with their eye on the billions of dollars rather than the millions.

 

If they start losing billions instead of gaining millions you'll know who to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is that Canon wants to make too much money.  The accountants and marketing people want to maximize profits by targeting the masses.  By doing this, you stiffle the creativity of the engineers. 

 

One must wonder if the Canon engineers purposely left breadcrumbs in the firmware code in hopes of having the full fruits of their labor discovered.

 

It was those engineers who thought sending 1080p 14 bit RGGB in the buffer was a good idea, enabling the ML hack.

 

But I think Canon is a bit unfairly treated, only because they are the leader in the lower budget segment. They gave us the XL1 removable lens camera, then the 5D2 cheap 1080p full frame camera, and now the C-series including the 4K DSLR camera, the jack-of-all-trades C100, and the HFR RAW C500. All price and quality leaders in addition to revolutionary, and they all work, and work well.

 

And unlike other companies Canon's actually more open than most. With RED, you have Jannard threatening to sue everybody for using compressed RAW, and wildly overpricing proprietary recording media to hide the true cost. Sony and Panasonic also play the proprietary media game. Canon is happy to let Atomos and Convergent and Aja etc. handle the recording duties with no royalty or proprietary media for Canon's benefit. That's awesomely generous. And they have allowed the EF format to be cracked and speedboosted and strapped in front of the Blackmagic cameras and I don't think they are getting a royalty for that. And now ML has its crack and the only thing they have said is stay away from cracking the 1 series.

 

Any other mfr that generous and tolerant? Can we really demonize Canon?

 

I know it sounds like I work for them or something but I am just a very happy customer of their products and I like to keep online discussions real.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To go back to the CF SSD attachment research. It would be good if someone could develop a CF to SDi converter system so one could use a Gemini or similar for conversion to ProRes 444 or Cineform RAW. This would avoid the problem of power from the camera, Storage, manageability and NLE compatibility.

 

Question is is this doable. Didn't think so until I saw the picture of the soldering iron and the camera connected to a Hard drive in a workshop. Others have though along similar lines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They gave us the XL1 removable lens camera, then the 5D2 cheap 1080p full frame camera, and now the C-series including the 4K DSLR camera, the jack-of-all-trades C100, and the HFR RAW C500. All price and quality leaders in addition to revolutionary, and they all work, and work well.

 

The Canon C series are definitely *not* price leaders.  The C500 is insanely overpriced - it costs $26,000 but can only record 8 bit MPEG 1080p in camera.  It is surely one of the worst value cameras on the market today.  But it is physically almost identical to the C100 which Canon sells for $6000.  That gives you an idea of the margins Canon is making, because a heat sink and an SDI socket are not $20,000 parts. 

 

The 5D2 was a great camera.  But let us not forget it was released without manual control of the aperture (classic Canon deliberate crippling) and shooting only at the non-standard 30.00fps.  They back-tracked on that pretty quickly when all their customers started buying Nikon lenses with manual aperture control.  And the 5D2 still has a crippled HDMI out to this day.

 

 

Canon is happy to let Atomos and Convergent and Aja etc. handle the recording duties with no royalty or proprietary media for Canon's benefit. That's awesomely generous. 

 

You are joking with us, right?  It has taken nearly 5 years for Canon to remove the crippling from the HDMI output of their DSLRs.  They have only done it for one model - the 5D3.  And hidden in the firmware with this update was new code to prevent the camera working with third party batteries.  

 

And they have allowed the EF format to be cracked and speedboosted and strapped in front of the Blackmagic cameras and I don't think they are getting a royalty for that. 

 

The EOS mount was introduced in 1987.  The patents have expired, that is all.  It is not an act of generosity on Canon's part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously I am referring to the external recording on the C-series...the C500's internal format is just a convenience/proxy feature and it's intellectually dishonest to build an argument ignoring something so obvious.

 

If you would kindly pay for the R&D expenses on the C-series we will all be very grateful that we only have to pay a standard markup on parts. Otherwise I suggest adding up the total cost of ownership for the high end camera systems from ARRI, RED, Sony, Panasonic, Vision Research, Aaton, etc. and seeing how the C500 compares to its peers when ready-to-shoot. You might still prefer the other cameras fair enough, but it won't be on price.

 

Anyway, I understand Canon's philosophy after taking the plunge and getting the C100 + Ninja 2. Basically, Canon wants to force anyone who's ambitious enough to be filming for more than web delivery and who cares about fine details of image quality up to the C series. And with the C100's price that's not so much of a leap. Once you get used to working with pro gear that you're not fighting all day and night to make work both in capture and post you will understand how pointless an exercise the DSLR thing is in 2013.

 

I am 100% for universal empowerment but I think the 550D/GH2 is that camera and if you need more than that skip all the nonsense in-between. You will agree, and it won't even cost more than a hilariously pimped out DSLR or BMD kludge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The response by TC says it all I think. Superb myth busting there. You're a credit to the forum.

 

For me there is no defending the C500's external recording requirements, and the pros I know who have shot with it say the same. External recorders are a PITA. It's a complete scandal that the C500 doesn't do raw internally like a $3000 DSLR or a $1000 Pocket Cinema Camera. Dumping uncompressed DNG raw to a SSD is trivial stuff. Canon chose to go for maximum margin, minimal design changes to the camera, maximum profit for their partners making the external recorders. One of them (I forget who) was even charging something like $4000 for the firmware required to make it accept the C500's raw output!! How do any of them think this kind of thing is going to wash in today's ultra competitive camera market?

 

Again it is a shame Canon took the beancounter route for the C500 as it could have been superb. For me there's no reason why they couldn't have added compressed DNG and a SSD slot, sold it for the same price as the C300 and then they would have had a worthy competitor to Sony. As it is the C500 is not competing.

 

I hope for your sake peederj you realise that your C100 + Ninja has a shelf life of about 1 year and huge potential for deprecation in price. It is already comfortably outgunned on image quality by raw on the 5D Mark III. I know you will confront this argument by saying the ergonomics are great, but I'm not talking about ergonomics I'm talking about the image. An external recorder is poor for ergonomics anyway - that's one of the things (spidery arm, HDMI cable) that pros were running away from DSLRs to avoid!

 

So your honest advice to people on this forum is to upgrade their 550D to the C100 and everything in-between is nonsense... Seriously are you a Canon plant? Just look at your own logic. Is the following nonsense? -

 

Blackmagic Production Camera - 4K and global shutter, free copy of RESOLVE 10

5D Mark III raw recording from full frame sensor internally to CF card - show me a competitor to that!

FS100 and Speed Booster - incredible low light performance and flexibility with the lens mount plus 1080/60p

Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - ProRes internally for $999! Form factor a GF1. What's not to like?

GH3 - 1080/60p at 50Mbit, 24p at 72Mbit ALL-I - does your C100 do that for $6000? No

Not to mention STILLS on 5D3 and GH3

Blackmagic MFT 2.5K camera - beautifully cinematic and Speed Booster compatible

KineRaw mini (2K raw for $3k)

 

You have to be practically blind, deaf and dumb to dismiss all that as 'nonsense'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 you're not fighting all day and night to make work both in capture and post

 

Huh?! I've never had to fight with my GH2/3 to make it work. I don't have to fight with them in post either. Even if I had to do so, would that fight be tougher than it would be with your C100´s 8 bit AVCHD codec?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh lovely, a forum boxing match...again.


I don't mind as it isn't personal/ad hominem...forcing everyone to defend their opinions is the most efficient education you can get. I know this is a forum for low-budget hackers and my urging people to upgrade out of that miasma will run into a lot of resistance. But it's good for you...do you think if you become a successful filmmaker you will still be using DSLRs?

For me there is no defending the C500's external recording requirements, and the pros I know who have shot with it say the same. External recorders are a PITA. It's a complete scandal that the C500 doesn't do raw internally like a $3000 DSLR or a $1000 Pocket Cinema Camera. Dumping uncompressed DNG raw to a SSD is trivial stuff. Canon chose to go for maximum margin, minimal design changes to the camera, maximum profit for their partners making the external recorders. One of them (I forget who) was even charging something like $4000 for the firmware required to make it accept the C500's raw output!! How do any of them think this kind of thing is going to wash in today's ultra competitive camera market?

Again it is a shame Canon took the beancounter route for the C500 as it could have been superb. For me there's no reason why they couldn't have added compressed DNG and a SSD slot, sold it for the same price as the C300 and then they would have had a worthy competitor to Sony. As it is the C500 is not competing.


As a truly great filmmaker once wrote, "That's a consumer mentality, not a filmmaking one." ;)

The Atomos and Odyssey recorders double as field monitors, so not that much of a PITA. Plus having the recorder be external lets a thousand flowers bloom in that sector...you can get any recorder you want, at any price, with whatever features and media you want. And it's quite standard at the C500 tier to have external recorders, even though some of them clip directly onto the camera (e.g. for the F55 and Epic) rather than hook up somewhere else via cable, which can be better ergonomically (as counterbalance, as a monitor, etc.). Generally higher budget productions want redundancy in digital recording which this enables at full quality. If the recorder maker is charging a lot for firmware and media, that's an opportunity for a competitor. When the camera maker fashions themselves a monopoly in RAW recording and media for their camera, as most have, that forces the customer to pay. And you're criticizing Canon for this? You have never bought a professional camera is all.


I hope for your sake peederj you realise that your C100 + Ninja has a shelf life of about 1 year and huge potential for deprecation in price. It is already comfortably outgunned on image quality by raw on the 5D Mark III. I know you will confront this argument by saying the ergonomics are great, but I'm not talking about ergonomics I'm talking about the image.


Your own chart tests just showed the C300 easily handing the 5D3 RAW its head on moire and resolution...and that was just with the convenience internal codec. The C-series image is superior to the 5D3 ML RAW hack in all but bit depth...but with Canon Log and one-touch custom white balance you have to be a flatly incompetent shooter to get banding on the C series image. The 12 stops of DR at base ISO (the more useful 850 on the C-series rather than the 5D3's 100) is the same.

But anyway, that's a Canon product! :D

So your honest advice to people on this forum is to upgrade their 550D to the C100 and everything in-between is nonsense... Seriously are you a Canon plant? Just look at your own logic. Is the following nonsense? -


You have to be practically blind, deaf and dumb to dismiss all that as 'nonsense'.


Let's take each contestant in turn:


Blackmagic Production Camera - 4K and global shutter, free copy of RESOLVE 10


You're complaining bitterly about external recorders, which add value, but are quite happy needing external batteries, which add little. The design of this body is intended to look "Apple cool" rather than be professionally functional...there is no EVF, no XLRs, no ND's or IR filter even with a huge unused flange area, a miserable glare-filled touchscreen that doesn't articulate, we don't know whether the firmware will have absolute basics like reformatting the drive so you aren't stuck if you forgot and don't have a computer, no custom white balance for ProRes, unknown low light, no HFR/overcrank, inconsistent EF lens support, hand-held shooting at least arguably impractical, potential fan noise, SSDs required even for ProRes. We don't know all the catches with this camera, although it is the most promising on your list, because...it isn't here yet and they haven't even posted sample images. So it's not really a contestant until we can buy one in the shop and evaluate it...who knows when that will be?


5D Mark III raw recording from full frame sensor internally to CF card - show me a competitor to that!


Have to rely on hacked firmware, try explaining the loss of a $5000 shooting day based on such a cunning plan. Cumbersome workflow, poor downsampling leads to some moire and loss of resolution, have to constantly offload expensive CF cards to laptop storage, have only one CF slot whose pins can easily break rendering camera unusable, and there is no redundancy in the RAW recording, just the one CF slot. Requires all the DSLR rigging contraptions to make it work for video, no NDs, poor audio on 1/8th" jack, audio will require manual alignment with each and every video clip, limited record time depending on CF card, no HFR/overcrank, ~2MP max resolution in RAW, not all of those distinguishable. Still, it's arguably the best of your list, with great low-light, full frame look, excellent lens support, and stills. But hey it's a Canon product and they are evil money-grubbers and it was only the heroic hackers that are to thank.


FS100 and Speed Booster - incredible low light performance and flexibility with the lens mount plus 1080/60p


Poor resolution as per your charts, and the low light performance is nowhere near as good as the C100...the color all washes away. Needs ND and IR filters, poor plastic build and ergonomics (why the EVF on the top of the camera rather than the side as everyone else does?), onboard codec only AVCHD 8 bit 420 and no better than C100 internal. At least this is a camera that was designed for video, but it has been superseded by the FS700 which is a worthy candidate and if you need overcrank rather than low-light I would recommend the FS700 instead. Although...shock and horror...the FS700 will require an external recorder...No!!!...to record its full 4K resolution. Sony must be at least as evil as Canon.


Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Camera - ProRes internally for $999! Form factor a GF1. What's not to like?


Miserable little sensor with plenty of moire and false color artifacting because there is no OLPF and no oversampling. Just a hobbyist toy with dinky toy lenses, something fun for people to carry around. And still vaporware again. I would much rather have the Sony RX100, with its larger higher resolution sensor, 60fps, and far lower price and pocketability, and in fact I do have one.


GH3 - 1080/60p at 50Mbit, 24p at 72Mbit ALL-I - does your C100 do that for $6000? No


I like to say that color science/skin tone arguments are the last refuge of a fanboy, but in Panasonic's case, I have to say that their color science is dismal. Maybe fixable to some extent in post. At least in contrast to the Blackmagic MFT offerings all the MFT lenses will work well on these bodies, but those widdle wenses have no future, an electronically working EF adapter is expensive, and there is no hack for the GH3 yet to get a better picture out of it...you need an external recorder just like on the 5D3. But I would rather have one of these than one of the small-sensor BMD cams. The GH2 is still a great value camera for the beginner, just don't go crazy on lenses.


Not to mention STILLS on 5D3 and GH3


Yes get a 5D3 for stills! Or a D800 for better res/DR. I am not a Canon partisan, but I have settled on EF mount as my personal standard and don't regret it.


Blackmagic MFT 2.5K camera - beautifully cinematic and Speed Booster compatible


All of the problems I listed for the upcoming BMD 4K and Pocket cams rolled into one...a worthless doorstop that has been breathlessly hyped by a few online camera pimps (some of whom never disclosed that BMD had compensated them for their reviews, which is an FTC rule violation in the USA). The term "RAW" made people delirious, but this is a tiny-sensor camera streaked with rainbows of moire and miserable ergonomics, it never shipped (even to you Andrew!) and the few who got an EF version (smarting now a 4K version is supposedly about to appear) generally didn't shoot RAW with it anyway. It was good for its shaking up the industry more than its being a useful tool...I doubt the C100 + Ninja 2 would be as cheap as it is if the BMCC hadn't ever appeared. But if given one I would hand it to the intern to shoot BTS with as I think most unbiased people with a better option would. I might rather shoot with a GoPro Hero3 Black than one of these, at least that sensor is high-res and oversampled.


KineRaw mini (2K raw for $3k)


A lab experiment, apparently suffers from awful jello, but somehow got Dan Chung to champion it. Not available in the West probably for good reasons.

I am comfortable with the C100 and Ninja 2 as absolutely superior to all cheaper options currently available, on price, image quality, and overall ergonomics and workflow. The main improvements to be made on it are higher frame rates, 4K resolution, and a better built-in EVF, but I think it will remain a terrific 1080p camera for several years to come. I suggest people rent one and get comfortable with it and decide if it's worth struggling with hacks, kludges, and Rube Goldberg contraptions...or if it would be better to just focus on the composition and story and how to get the most out of each shot, knowing that the image is going to be fine at the end of the day. And as I said, price the total cost of ownership of a complete ready-to-shoot system out and you will discover Canon is really making stepping up into pro cinema accessible just like they did with the 5D2 and XL1 in the eras before this.

Thanks for hearing me out, I know it's not a popular opinion here, but it's a damn accurate one. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit of an update re: 50d

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=5586.msg40365#msg40365

some sample videos and DNGs including some shot on a Kowa B&H 2x anamorphic courtesy of @JulianH. It beats the 5d2 raw video to my eyes but needs an a/b test. Very minimal moire in comparison :) and I think it's up there with the GH2/3 for detail even recorded at this reduced resolution (there is more to be squeezed).

Still a lot of work to do and bugs to fix. Poor @Smeangol (50d dev). I'm not sure he knows what he's gotten into :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

release raw on the c line..these cameras would be beasts...no reason to protect c500 anymore..never seen one a set


There is every reason for Canon to protect the C500 - The future C600. They won't go that far as it will endanger their margins from professionals and rental houses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is that company that recycles the same sensor tehnology for quite a few years ( DX ), is it Canon ? and what is that company that charges almost double ( at least in my country ) for the "new" 24-70.

Check out XF100/105 price, or :D wait wait :lol:  Canon XA10 price against a Panasonic camcorder like ag-ac90, it's a joke, if it were for Canon the air we breathe would cost money.

 

The hell are you talking peederj ? are you from this planet ?

We can agree on one thing, Sony and Canon are the most greedy of them all but at least Sony has some new sensor tehnology.

 

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...