Jump to content

CineStyle on the 5D Mark III and fixing softness in post


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

I may often prefer my 50D to my GH2 for stills, but the iPhone does not deliver the resolution, flexibility, lens choice, low light performance, etc., etc. that I very much enjoy when using the GH2 for stills.

I have no qualms about using a GH2 on professional jobs for stills, as long as I work towards its strengths and away from its limitations. I would not say that about shooting stills on an iPhone.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

you should not use unsharp mask on the 5D3 - you should use a convolution sharpening filter (in PP it's called just "sharpen") - here's why: [url=http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278332-5D-Mark-III-Plenty-Sharp-and-Still-Anti-aliased-%28video-examples%29]http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278332-5D-Mark-III-Plenty-Sharp-and-Still-Anti-aliased-%28video-examples%29[/url]

also: the fact that CineStyle works on the 5D3 doesn't mean it will work well with it; it may, or it may not
I'm making a version of my Flaat picture styles custom-tailored for the 5D3, it should be out this week
if my picture styles need tweaking, CineStyle will need too; I don't know if it's the case yet; I'll post my findings around as I get results
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=cameraboy link=topic=456.msg2957#msg2957 date=1332688223]

i dont try to defender  canon  ....
its just reality of video industry...
[/quote]

Yes, you are quite right, it is the reality of the industry, unfortunately.  But I don't think it should be.  The reason that we are stuck with this reality is that the industry is dominated by three or four large corporations.  To make it worse, they are all based in the same country.  This is not good for healthy competition.  I would love to see BlackMagic or AJA find a chip supplier and release a camera.  They already have the know-how for the image processing hardware, it is their core business. 

[quote author=cameraboy link=topic=456.msg2957#msg2957 date=1332688223]
even panasonic  cripple gh2 hdmi (if u remember preproduction gh2 send to Philip Bloom had clean progresive 24P)
i dont own canon dslr  and i dont need that DOF porn from FF but i need true 1080p...
[/quote]

I knew the GH2 was crippled, but I didn't know that the pre-production GH2 had clean HDMI out.  Very interesting.  One thing has also been puzzling me - the video 'Eye of the Mind' was released by Canon France at 1080p on youtube [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCRMu2rLf_Y#ws]Canon EOS 5D Mark III : Eye of the mind (Official demo)[/url].  To me it looks pretty sharp.  Could it be that it was shot on a non-crippled pre-production camera?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=5DGH link=topic=456.msg2898#msg2898 date=1332567338]
Or, maybe it's because 16-235 mk iii is misread as 0-255. Ppro does that.  Try 16-235 on the new PhotoShop CS6 (interpret footage -> HDTV, REC. 709 16-235).
[/quote]

Seriously that is bad misinformation, mkIII is not 16 - 235 luma it's full range. This is the second reference to mkIII being 16 - 235, where have you read or assumed it's no longer full range. The myth needs busting. :-)


What version of Ppro are you talking about. CS5 squeezes the full range into 16 - 235 so it previews correctly which is unhelpful but that's what it does unless the native Canon MOVs are remuxed and the flag switched off.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Andrew, you don't seem to be taking this into account on most of your reviews, instead leaning more to round ISO numbers:
[url=http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/[/url]

I'm not sure it still applies on the 5DmkIII, but it's probably worth testing.

Or maybe there's another reason for you to run tests at 100 ISO? Would be great to get you opinion on this!

cheers,
Bruno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been working on Flaat v2 for the 5D3, here's what I've found so far:

* the good news: picture styles for the old cameras work just as well on the 5D3; that includes CineStyle, and of course Flaat; cutting 5D3 and 5D2 footage shot with the same picture style should be relatively easy, at least in terms of light and color

* the bad news: this means that, compared with my old APS-C canon, with the same picture style, dynamic range is basically the same; if the 5D3 has any extra DR to offer in video mode, it will require new picture styles

* the even worse news: it's not easy to get more dynamic range with picture styles; the information is there, I can see it playing with the RAW stills in DPP, but no matter how hard I fight with the picture style editor, so far 11.5 stops seems to be the limit; unless Canon gives us a new way to control how the RAW information from the sensor is converted to video footage, the 5D3 has exactly the same DR as the 60D or the old rebel

* the still unknown: even if DR is not any wider, useable DR may be better, given the 5D3's lower noise levels and hopefully improved codec; so if you have a 5D3, try Flaat_12p and let us know how it looks!

you can download version 2.0 of my suite of Flaat picture styles here:
[url=http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html]http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html[/url]

you'll see there's a name change, now they are called by the number of stops of DR that they get:
Flaat_1 is now Flaat_09 (slightly modified)
Flaat_2 is now Flaat_10 (very slightly modified)
Flaat_3 is now Flaat_11 (very slightly modified)
Flaat_4 is now Flaat_12 (very slightly modified) (it doesn't get to 12 stops, but it's more than 11)

also, there are two sets of picture styles:
* one based on Portrait, for nice skin tones, but with some color shifts (e.g. blue goes a bit towards cyan)
* one based on Neutral, without those color shifts
I always use the ones based on Portrait, the others I only made them because some people wanted to avoid any color shifts. I'd rather have nice skin tones than correct blue, but it's your choice.

Also, note that the recommendation for Tone has gone from =0 to =1.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=456.msg2929#msg2929 date=1332626335]
No need for 5DToRGB or MPEG StreamClip, Premiere Pro CS5.5 is a superb piece of software for editing natively in. Especially 1080/60p AVCHD natively, which is still very flakey in FCPX.
[/quote]

5DtoRGB does way more than just transcoding the footage. It does a great job of removing compression artifacts that Premiere or FCPX won't, so it's not just a case of transcoding to Prores, to me it's an essential "cleanup" pass.

You can tell the difference by comparing the channels before and after. Now it would be really cool if they released this as a Premiere or FCP plugin instead, so we would get the same results without the need to transcode.

Bruno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
[quote author=Bruno link=topic=456.msg3004#msg3004 date=1332786560]
Hey Andrew, you don't seem to be taking this into account on most of your reviews, instead leaning more to round ISO numbers:
[url=http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/]http://www.photographybay.com/2011/05/01/proof-that-multiples-of-iso-160-work-best-on-canon-hdslrs/[/url]

I'm not sure it still applies on the 5DmkIII, but it's probably worth testing.

Or maybe there's another reason for you to run tests at 100 ISO? Would be great to get you opinion on this!

cheers,
Bruno
[/quote]

More interested in the Flaat picture profiles, as they actually have a visible affect on your footage unlike the native ISOs! I have never really seen the benefit in real life shooting from them. In a test with the lens cap on, yes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the sharpen filter will not make it more detailed, it will just make it look like it had the details it has lost already. I tried sharpening the Proud Beast footage on DaVinci Resolve with different settings, and my finding was that all attempts to make it look sharper only promoted false details and made the picture look rougher. It was really difficult to find a value that would be low enough to not make it look worse. Very modest sharpening can be used post, but basically what is not there in the original footage when it is shot will not be recovered by the sharpening filter because it simply is impossible to invent non-existent details out of nowhere.
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...