Jump to content
The ghost of squig

A Pocket 4K, X-T3, 5DMk3 ML raw odyssey

Recommended Posts

EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I'm looking forward to hearing your input!

 

IOS is definitely nice on 18-55, really great lens all around. You may be well off getting an after market grip to beef up the Fuji body. I definitely notice where the dynamic range looked a bit limited on the Canon. Really beautiful image though. I am often surprised how much Dynamic range the XT3 captures. The shadows definitely will get messy if you push them a lot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sold a couple lesser Canons (incl. a 70D) to buy an X-T3 to pair with my 5D3 on ML. The BMPCC4K was never really an option for me due to lack of autofocus.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you come through to. I'm feeling very jealous about BRAW when you describe it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, andrew_dotdot said:

The BMPCC4K was never really an option for me due to lack of autofocus.

 

I don't really use video AF unless its a very specific occasion. And my main work camera is a Canon with DPAF, which is as good as it gets, specially in continuous.
With that said, the push AF feature on the BMPCC4K coupled with a native m4/3 lens should not be swept under the rug.
It is very usable and quite quick.

(No continues worth mentioning though.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I don't really use video AF unless its a very specific occasion. And my main work camera is a Canon with DPAF, which is as good as it gets, specially in continuous.
With that said, the push AF feature on the BMPCC4K coupled with a native m4/3 lens should not be swept under the rug.
It is very usable and quite quick.

(No continues worth mentioning though.) 

Yeah, it’s that excruciating trade-offs game. I do documentary and have a policy that if it’s ‘on sticks’ it’s raw. That’d be the use case for the BMPCC4K for me, but the 5D3 floats the boat there. But the 70D was routinely fell short in picture quality as the on-the-move camera leveraging the AF.

There’s no doubt the DPAF in the 70D I sold, or a client’s C100mkII that I often use, is a lot better than the AF-C mode in the Fuji. If the EOS-R had entered the market with better video specs, I might well have plonked down the cash and gone over budget for it.

Then again, just this morning I res’ed up a project from the 8-bit proxies to the Fuji’s UHD h.265 10-bit originals got a FHD render back out that was pleasantly comparable to the 5D3 ML raw in a way that the 8-bit footage from the 70D never ever was was. 

But here, if I’d been shooting BRAW I might not even have needed to make proxies, and how nice would that have been? And there closes the “circle of compromises “. Best not to think about it too much and just get on with it! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, andrew_dotdot said:

 

But here, if I’d been shooting BRAW I might not even have needed to make proxies, and how nice would that have been? And there closes the “circle of compromises “. Best not to think about it too much and just get on with it! 

Yeah BRAW is really appealing in that regard. I convert my XT3 files to prores and leave it at that. Still have to bother with converting them though, which is not the case with BRAW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, andrew_dotdot said:

There’s no doubt the DPAF in the 70D I sold, or a client’s C100mkII that I often use, is a lot better than the AF-C mode in the Fuji. If the EOS-R had entered the market with better video specs, I might well have plonked down the cash and gone over budget for it.

In s35 mode on the EOS-R I don't think you could get five out of five on a blind test next to the C100mkii.

I did some side by side with my BMMCC as well and the R has more detail and almost identical DR to the BMDs Prores HQ.

Personally I use it in full frame HD for mini docs all the time. It's either going online for social media or projected on big movie screens. So no need for anymore detail. I always have my BMD on standby but so far I just keep using the R. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After a couple of days playing around with the 3, I can get them all to match up pretty well with Filmconvert and a bit of tweaking, sometimes I couldn't tell which was which. What made the P4K and X-T3 shine was my old Leica 35mm Summicron-r, it really helps take the 4K digital edge off, and adds some nice flare, not always welcome on run and gun doco work, but that's why I carry a mattebox. I've got a 1/8 Black Promist filter on order, it will be interesting to see how that works with the 18-55mm Fujinon.

What did surprise me is the X-T3 is cleaner and sharper than the P4K at high ISO, my Viltrox speed booster hasn't arrived yet, that extra stop of light and S35 crop should even things up a bit. At 3200 ISO the P4K looks to be on par with the 5DMk3 noise wise, albeit without the fixed pattern noise.
I'm shooting some stuff for a doco next week where the P4K will be on sticks shooting a 2 hour 12:1 Braw master, whilst I move around a dining table with the X-T3 shooting FHD on a monopod to get close ups.

It's been overcast here, I'm waiting for the sun to come out so I can do some definitive dynamic range tests. The 5DMk3 still has the edge in terms of post manipulation, Braw doesn't have as much highlight control. 10bit HEVC and Braw are quite close in post.

The P4K and the X-T3 both lose saturation and detail in the shadows, the 5DMk3 does better there, but it's noisier in the shadows. I saw a test on the X-T3 vs the Nikon Z6, the Nikon did much better than the X-T3 in the shadows, if only Nikon would bring out an update with a good internal 10bit codec, with an XQD or CFexpress card, it could do internal raw 🙄.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

In s35 mode on the EOS-R I don't think you could get five out of five on a blind test next to the C100mkii.

I did some side by side with my BMMCC as well and the R has more detail and almost identical DR to the BMDs Prores HQ.

Personally I use it in full frame HD for mini docs all the time. It's either going online for social media or projected on big movie screens. So no need for anymore detail. I always have my BMD on standby but so far I just keep using the R. 

 

The 20ms rolling shutter on the 5DMk3 is a little too high for my liking for shoulder-rigged doco work, the EOS R has more rolling shutter than the 5DMk2 (25ms), way too much for my liking. Are you using an OIS lens with the R?

One of the things I like about the X-T3 as @andrew_dotdot mentioned, the 1080p resolution is on par with the 5DMk3 raw, and the 1080p rolling shutter is only 12.6ms, slightly lower than the BMMCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think people can get a bit precious when talking about bit depths for colour, when I think that above 10-bit it's the compression and codec that is much more important.

If someone reading this disagrees then I'd highly encourage them to get your hands on some 14-bit RAW files and export them to a 10-bit, 12-bit and 14-bit uncompressed files and then compare those files in post.

There's lots of debate about if 8-bit is enough or if 10-bit is required, but there's no huge emotions in talking about 10 and up.

I shot a bunch of RAW test clips with ML at different bit depths and decided that 10-bit was all I needed, and coming from that footage to the 10-bit files from my GH5 I don't miss anything in terms of colour grading ability. 

What I do miss is the RAW image quality and how analogue it is in comparison to h264 and even h265.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been playing with the X-T30, and it's even more of a bargain than X-T3. However, it's so small and light that it doesn't work well with larger lenses.

The Fuji 18-55mm is a stunner on the X-T30 for documentary use though. It feels small enough to be balanced with the camera controls, and it's not always trying to escape forward and downwards from your grip. The OIS is amazing. The AF is amazing. It is even parfocal and you do not see it trying to refocus during a zoom. So you can do the odd zoom or even fast crash zoom and focus stays nailed on the subject the whole time.

The image has all the same qualities as the X-T3 and I can hardly tell difference between the 8bit and 10bit 4K.

Also the X-E3 does 4K, and although the detail and rolling shutter isn't up to the X-T30, it's even cheaper and I prefer the ergonomics. You don't get F-LOG but with Fuji film simulations, who needs to spend hours grading?!

4 minutes ago, kye said:

I shot a bunch of RAW test clips with ML at different bit depths and decided that 10-bit was all I needed, and coming from that footage to the 10-bit files from my GH5 I don't miss anything in terms of colour grading ability.

Yes it is surprising how the 10bit RAW stands up. You only notice the difference in the very deepest shadows and a slightly harsher highlight roll off, but since both ends are usually junk on even a sensor as good as the 5D Mark III's, and I prefer a lot of nice colour and contrast from my raw files rather than the HDR-puke look, it doesn't matter... Better to have the smaller file sizes, although 14bit lossless compression also stands up well in Magic Lantern.

Still by one of the best non-4K cinematic images for the money which is competitive with Digital Bolex and Alexa for a film-like look.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Yes it is surprising how the 10bit RAW stands up. You only notice the difference in the very deepest shadows and a slightly harsher highlight roll off, but since both ends are usually junk on even a sensor as good as the 5D Mark III's, and I prefer a lot of nice colour and contrast from my raw files rather than the HDR-puke look, it doesn't matter... Better to have the smaller file sizes, although 14bit lossless compression also stands up well in Magic Lantern.

I agree.

Some time ago Philip Bloom posted a 10-bit prores file from the P4K of a pretty high DR scene and it was amazing how far you could push it around. I pushed it to breaking point in both directions just to test it and it was much further than you would ever sensibly go in real life, so I tend to think of 10-bit as being all you'd need, unless you have a habit of forgetting to remove that 5-stop ND filter and just thinking that the display was turned off or something!

Of course, this is all in the context of cameras with 11-13 stops of DR, if we get more DR then we'll probably want a bit of extra bit depth to go with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The Fuji 18-55mm is a stunner on the X-T30 for documentary use though. It feels small enough to be balanced with the camera controls, and it's not always trying to escape forward and downwards from your grip. The OIS is amazing. The AF is amazing. It is even parfocal and you do not see it trying to refocus during a zoom. So you can do the odd zoom or even fast crash zoom and focus stays nailed on the subject the whole time.

It's a great little lens, too bad it's not f/2.8 throughout the range. Great bokeh, but a bit lacking in character for my liking,. I'm gonna try the Black Promist with and without the Iscorama. OIS anamorphic, how cool would that be :yum:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, The ghost of squig said:

After a couple of days playing around with the 3, I can get them all to match up pretty well with Filmconvert and a bit of tweaking, sometimes I couldn't tell which was which. What made the P4K and X-T3 shine was my old Leica 35mm Summicron-r, it really helps take the 4K digital edge off, and adds some nice flare, not always welcome on run and gun doco work, but that's why I carry a mattebox. I've got a 1/8 Black Promist filter on order, it will be interesting to see how that works with the 18-55mm Fujinon.

What did surprise me is the X-T3 is cleaner and sharper than the P4K at high ISO, my Viltrox speed booster hasn't arrived yet, that extra stop of light and S35 crop should even things up a bit. At 3200 ISO the P4K looks to be on par with the 5DMk3 noise wise, albeit without the fixed pattern noise.
I'm shooting some stuff for a doco next week where the P4K will be on sticks shooting a 2 hour 12:1 Braw master, whilst I move around a dining table with the X-T3 shooting FHD on a monopod to get close ups.

It's been overcast here, I'm waiting for the sun to come out so I can do some definitive dynamic range tests. The 5DMk3 still has the edge in terms of post manipulation, Braw doesn't have as much highlight control. 10bit HEVC and Braw are quite close in post.

The P4K and the X-T3 both lose saturation and detail in the shadows, the 5DMk3 does better there, but it's noisier in the shadows. I saw a test on the X-T3 vs the Nikon Z6, the Nikon did much better than the X-T3 in the shadows, if only Nikon would bring out an update with a good internal 10bit codec, with an XQD or CFexpress card, it could do internal raw 🙄.

Interesting read ! Even more so that I have the same set of cameras !

I share most of your thoughts although there’s a slight contradiction in what you say about the low light between the 5D and the XT3. You say at 3200 it’s the same between the two but the 5D has fixed pattern noise. So it’s not the same at all 😛 ! And I concur ! I love the 5D raw image quality but fixed pattern noise shows quite easily ! And the Fuji has also the edge in termes of dynamic range. That being said all three cameras have a wonderful image quality. They all have their pros and cons. In low light, the bmpcc4k is great ! Even without noise reduction. It’s enough for me. With noise reduction, I’d even say it performs better than the X-T3 thanks to its more robust codecs.

Maybe I’ll write a longer report about all those cameras so we can argue a bit more :)

46 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I have been playing with the X-T30, and it's even more of a bargain than X-T3. However, it's so small and light that it doesn't work well with larger lenses.

The Fuji 18-55mm is a stunner on the X-T30 for documentary use though. It feels small enough to be balanced with the camera controls, and it's not always trying to escape forward and downwards from your grip. The OIS is amazing. The AF is amazing. It is even parfocal and you do not see it trying to refocus during a zoom. So you can do the odd zoom or even fast crash zoom and focus stays nailed on the subject the whole time.

The image has all the same qualities as the X-T3 and I can hardly tell difference between the 8bit and 10bit 4K.

Also the X-E3 does 4K, and although the detail and rolling shutter isn't up to the X-T30, it's even cheaper and I prefer the ergonomics. You don't get F-LOG but with Fuji film simulations, who needs to spend hours grading?!

Yes it is surprising how the 10bit RAW stands up. You only notice the difference in the very deepest shadows and a slightly harsher highlight roll off, but since both ends are usually junk on even a sensor as good as the 5D Mark III's, and I prefer a lot of nice colour and contrast from my raw files rather than the HDR-puke look, it doesn't matter... Better to have the smaller file sizes, although 14bit lossless compression also stands up well in Magic Lantern.

Still by one of the best non-4K cinematic images for the money which is competitive with Digital Bolex and Alexa for a film-like look.

You can tell the difference between 8 bit and 10 bit when shooting in Flog ! 10 bit 4K long gop at 200mb/s is as good as I want it to be ! No macroblocking, almost no banding. HLG is even cleaner ! If you shoot with film simulations, it matters a lot less...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Papiskokuji said:

Interesting read ! Even more so that I have the same set of cameras !

I share most of your thoughts although there’s a slight contradiction in what you say about the low light between the 5D and the XT3. You say at 3200 it’s the same between the two but the 5D has fixed pattern noise. So it’s not the same at all 😛 ! And I concur ! I love the 5D raw image quality but fixed pattern noise shows quite easily ! And the Fuji has also the edge in termes of dynamic range. That being said all three cameras have a wonderful image quality. They all have their pros and cons. In low light, the bmpcc4k is great ! Even without noise reduction. It’s enough for me. With noise reduction, I’d even say it performs better than the X-T3 thanks to its more robust codecs.

Maybe I’ll write a longer report about all those cameras so we can argue a bit more :)

Hehe, bring it on.

Actually it's the Pocket 4K and 5DMk3 that are about on par for noise at 3200 ISO, so far the X-T3 noise is very grain-like, and looks good to me up to 10,000 ISO with NR set to -4.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, The ghost of squig said:

Hehe, bring it on.

Actually it's the Pocket 4K and 5DMk3 that are about on par for noise at 3200 ISO, so far the X-T3 noise is very grain-like, and looks good to me up to 10,000 ISO with NR set to -4.

 

Oh yes ! My bad ! But I still think the pocket is a lot better than the 5D in low light :)

I’ll do a long post about the cameras as soon as I’m on a real computer ! Typing english on a french iPhone is a pain 😰

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.


×
×
  • Create New...