canon rumors FORUM

Gear Talk => EOS Bodies - For Video => Topic started by: MonteGraham on September 23, 2013, 01:42:43 AM

Title: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: MonteGraham on September 23, 2013, 01:42:43 AM
I know this may have been beaten to death but im new to the forum.. Whats better 7D vs 5Diii for video? Pros vs Cons
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Menace on September 23, 2013, 05:03:58 AM
Full frame vs APS-C?

I'll take the FF any day.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on September 23, 2013, 06:11:42 AM
As a very happy 7D user, and assuming all other factors are equal... go for the 5D3.

More recent tech, better high ISO, better & more GOP options (DSLR video is either very compressed or very very very compressed, the 5D3 at least lets you choose the least bad option) and the option of RAW video output if you are really very serious.  There is far less moire / aliasing on the 5D3 (do not believe anybody who tells you there is none) and there is a headphone socket for audio monitoring.

I'm going down the C100 route as video is more important to me that stills.  And my 7D exceeds my ability and aspirations as a hobby stills photographer.   If you are very serious about video you may want to look beyond a DSLR form..  The great thing about the c100 is that it is a more natural fit for my lenses.

There are somethings to be said for the 7D however:

Great at low isos and medium isos if you use 320, 640 etc.
Price.
Cheaper lenses, particularly at the UWA end.

Here's a big thing, depth of field.  The object seems to be to get as little depth of field as possible, to emulate the so called film look...

Beaten to death.  The film look also requires proper lighting, art direction (colour and light pull your attention, you want a closed set up, where you are in control of anything that is exposed, not at the mercy of mixed lighting etc) and as 135 / leica / minature format DSLRs have sensors that are larger than s35 movie film the effect is potentially more pronounced than you would ever see in a feature film.

I admire the flexibility that say an f1.2 50mm and 135 / leica / minature format DSLR gives you, but I can't imagine ever actually shooting at f1.2, unless the subject was a fair distance away and I really needed the low light capability.

I find that I get more managable depth of field with APS-c / s35 format sensors.  You still get that great bokeh with the right lenses, you still get the great smooth fall off wide open, just your depth of field is significantly increased around the focus plane, a huge help when working close, you get most of the desired aesthetic, and less of the pain in the ass requirements for hyper critical focusing, the 7D and it's ilk are that bit more forgiving.

For example in an interview situation I would maybe use a 70-200 f2.8 (my version isn't parfocal, but thats a different issue) and I know that once my camera is set and the subject set that I'll usually have enough focus latitude to permit slight movements by the subject, as folk naturally do when talking.

On a 135 / leica / minature format DSLR you are going to have far less latitude, which may be tolerable on your rear monitor or 7" marshall, but will look awful on a 50" plasma or projected.

It is something to bear in mind.

The 5D3 is the better of the two cameras you mention, but for video, the 7D may be fractionally easier to work with in my experience, and if you are buying exclusively for video I would actually recommend something else altogether.

The form factor of DSLRs is terrible, with menus, controls on the wrong side, lens filtering etc, poor audio options. etc etc.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: MonteGraham on September 23, 2013, 09:30:09 AM
As a very happy 7D user, and assuming all other factors are equal... go for the 5D3.

More recent tech, better high ISO, better & more GOP options (DSLR video is either very compressed or very very very compressed, the 5D3 at least lets you choose the least bad option) and the option of RAW video output if you are really very serious.  There is far less moire / aliasing on the 5D3 (do not believe anybody who tells you there is none) and there is a headphone socket for audio monitoring.

I'm going down the C100 route as video is more important to me that stills.  And my 7D exceeds my ability and aspirations as a hobby stills photographer.   If you are very serious about video you may want to look beyond a DSLR form..  The great thing about the c100 is that it is a more natural fit for my lenses.

There are somethings to be said for the 7D however:

Great at low isos and medium isos if you use 320, 640 etc.
Price.
Cheaper lenses, particularly at the UWA end.

Here's a big thing, depth of field.  The object seems to be to get as little depth of field as possible, to emulate the so called film look...

Beaten to death.  The film look also requires proper lighting, art direction (colour and light pull your attention, you want a closed set up, where you are in control of anything that is exposed, not at the mercy of mixed lighting etc) and as 135 / leica / minature format DSLRs have sensors that are larger than s35 movie film the effect is potentially more pronounced than you would ever see in a feature film.

I admire the flexibility that say an f1.2 50mm and 135 / leica / minature format DSLR gives you, but I can't imagine ever actually shooting at f1.2, unless the subject was a fair distance away and I really needed the low light capability.

I find that I get more managable depth of field with APS-c / s35 format sensors.  You still get that great bokeh with the right lenses, you still get the great smooth fall off wide open, just your depth of field is significantly increased around the focus plane, a huge help when working close, you get most of the desired aesthetic, and less of the pain in the ass requirements for hyper critical focusing, the 7D and it's ilk are that bit more forgiving.

For example in an interview situation I would maybe use a 70-200 f2.8 (my version isn't parfocal, but thats a different issue) and I know that once my camera is set and the subject set that I'll usually have enough focus latitude to permit slight movements by the subject, as folk naturally do when talking.

On a 135 / leica / minature format DSLR you are going to have far less latitude, which may be tolerable on your rear monitor or 7" marshall, but will look awful on a 50" plasma or projected.

It is something to bear in mind.

The 5D3 is the better of the two cameras you mention, but for video, the 7D may be fractionally easier to work with in my experience, and if you are buying exclusively for video I would actually recommend something else altogether.

The form factor of DSLRs is terrible, with menus, controls on the wrong side, lens filtering etc, poor audio options. etc etc.

Great insight.. The thing is i started with the 7D as my first DSLR about a year and a half ago. I just recently updated to the 5DMKIII. Im getting into Wedding Photography and ill be purchasing another 5DMKIII body. I also dabble in a little bit of video making(not as serious about it as still photos). My reasoning for keeping the 7D around would be for videos if its video capabilities are as good as 5DMKIII.. I really dont want to sell it because me and "Silvia" have been through a lot. We bonded and got to know one another on  4 different continents. Im just trying to find a justification as to why keep her..
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on September 23, 2013, 09:57:21 AM
Reason 1. Resale value is (comparatively) rubbish.
Reason 2. What are you going to use if your 5D3 is dropped / breaks / gets stolen during a wedding.
Reason 3. What if you want to shoot video and take stills at the same time?

The 7D is a very good 2nd camera to have in your kit bag.

I would keep it around.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: MonteGraham on September 23, 2013, 01:31:20 PM
Reason 1. Resale value is (comparatively) rubbish.
Reason 2. What are you going to use if your 5D3 is dropped / breaks / gets stolen during a wedding.
Reason 3. What if you want to shoot video and take stills at the same time?

The 7D is a very good 2nd camera to have in your kit bag.

I would keep it around.

Touché +1
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cayenne on September 24, 2013, 01:45:40 PM
Also, for EXTREME high end picture...Magic Lantern is getting closer every day I think, to getting the capability to shoot full 14bit RAW video from the 5D3....ready for prime time (not just alpha software).

This will be huge if you want to do some high end shooting and post color grading on your footage from the 5D3 FF sensor.

C
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Policar on September 24, 2013, 03:54:07 PM
Both are awful by today's standards and incredibly by two year ago's. The 5D has three or so stops better low light, but both look fine at low ISOs. The sensor is obviously bigger. There's no aliasing or moire. Both are very soft and flat and difficult to post with and have mediocre DR.

While the argument for the 5D having shallower depth of field and thus a "film look" is indeed kind of silly (as the 7D has a super35-sized sensor, and the 5D's is oversized, requiring you to stop down) the availability of f2.8 zooms and a 24mm 1.4 prime are a big deal because the 5D has much better low light due to the larger sensor and in effect the 24-70mm f2.8 is like a 16-45mm f2 lens on a super35 camera... pretty close to ideal. Then you get f1.4 and faster primes (24,35,50,85, 135mm at f2), and that's basically like an f1 set of primes on super35. And dirt cheap relative to cinema lenses. So there's that. But usually I like to shoot around f4, anyway, and on the 5D f5.6; the shallow focus look is played out.

Long story short, get an C100 (or better).
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Etienne on September 24, 2013, 04:39:25 PM
I know this may have been beaten to death but im new to the forum.. Whats better 7D vs 5Diii for video? Pros vs Cons

5DIII has:

virtually no moire or aliasing. That is a huge advantage.
Excellent low light performance for both video and stills
Audio monitoring 3mm plug
Full frame makes a difference. Although 7D sensor is super 35, film cameras often will use very wide aperture lenses, equal to f/1.4 .  DOF at f/2.8 is very shallow on FF, not so much on APS-C
Audio levels can be changed while filming with 5DIII. This is important.
Although soft out of camera, the 5DIII footage can tolerate quite a lot of sharpening, and sharpens quite well in post.

However, if video is your main concern. A C100, or even C300 (almost 3x more $) is a better choice, if you want to stay in the Canon camp. Non Canon options abound: Sony FS100, FS700, but lens adapters can be a pain. Black Magic has fans too.

Personally I'm tempted by the C100, maybe if there's a price drop I can swing it. The C300 is just too much for me now.


Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Axilrod on October 01, 2013, 01:51:22 PM
5D3 all the way, the 7D is almost 4 years old.  5D3 has better codec, way better low light performance (ISO3200 is my limit for pro work on the 5D3, but for the 7D it was 800), and it's full frame of course.  The footage just looks much cleaner overall IMO.  It's a no brainer for me. =
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: syder on October 09, 2013, 04:15:13 AM


More recent tech, better high ISO, better & more GOP options (DSLR video is either very compressed or very very very compressed, the 5D3 at least lets you choose the least bad option) and the option of RAW video output if you are really very serious.  There is far less moire / aliasing on the 5D3 (do not believe anybody who tells you there is none) and there is a headphone socket for audio monitoring...


The form factor of DSLRs is terrible, with menus, controls on the wrong side, lens filtering etc, poor audio options. etc etc.

The 5D also gives you the option of adding an external recorder and shooting Prores/DNxHD 422 - at far higher bitrates and with a superior chroma subsampling ratio which does give you significantly improved footage compared to the internal codecs. Nowhere near the quality of the 14 bit 4:4:4 RAW with ML - but a lot less hassle.

The form factor of DSLR's is either great or awful depending on what you're doing. They're flexible enough to be small and discrete if needed, or they can be pimped out with a rig, mattebox, evf, follow focus etc. 

Things like audio really depend on what you want the camera for. Most fiction/high budget documentary stuff will have a separate sound guy who will be quite happy to record sound onto a separate device. One man band at an event - then the crappy audio can be an issue. It's easy enough to remedy with a separate sound recorder tbh - but this does mean a little more work in post (which if you're banging work out on tight deadlines will be a pain in the ass) and having some kind of rig setup.

The big question though, is what do you want the camera for? A Sony F65/Red Epic pisses all over a 5D in just about every way imaginable, but if you're on your own you wont be able to operate it probably and so the 5D would be a more appropriate option for the gig (more so a C100). Tools don't exist in isolation from the context they're used in, and you need to think about what will be the right tools for the jobs you'll be taking on.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 11, 2013, 12:07:07 AM
I know this may have been beaten to death but im new to the forum.. Whats better 7D vs 5Diii for video? Pros vs Cons

5D3 by a million miles!
It doesn't have line skipping so you get 2 stops better SNR from that alone, never mind the larger sensor and far less moire and aliasing. And ML RAW is the real deal on the 5D3, infinitely better.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 11, 2013, 12:08:52 AM
Both are awful by today's standards and incredibly by two year ago's. The 5D has three or so stops better low light, but both look fine at low ISOs. The sensor is obviously bigger. There's no aliasing or moire. Both are very soft and flat and difficult to post with and have mediocre DR.


Long story short, get an C100 (or better).

why not just load up ML RAW???
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cinema-dslr on October 11, 2013, 07:38:35 AM
Both are awful by today's standards and incredibly by two year ago's. The 5D has three or so stops better low light, but both look fine at low ISOs. The sensor is obviously bigger. There's no aliasing or moire. Both are very soft and flat and difficult to post with and have mediocre DR.


Long story short, get an C100 (or better).

why not just load up ML RAW???


I recently made the jump to a c100& ninja2  and am loving it.
even beter iso performance than 7d, 5dm3, sharp, better ergonomics and controls.

would love to have a camera that can do both great stills and great video.
But todays dslr's are simply to crippled to do it.

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.
the 5dm3 can do the same via hdmi-mini-out but that conector is so flimsy its just not safe enough to rely on.

same thing with sound, client worries aside i never had troubles with using a external recorder and syncing in post via pluraleyes/dualeyes.
But i did have problems recording externaly and directly on the dslr via 3mm minijack (bad connection=no sound=nothing to sync with).
Now just plug it in the camera..why didn't someone think of this before ;)

If the 7dmark2 gets closer to the Cine camera's than i'll get one as a second cam
magic lantern on the 5dm3 is greath but raw functionality is only usefull for short clips/shots not if you plan to shoot 1hour+ of footage on a day.

It would be great if some smart programmer could unlock the c100 and make it a even beter cam.
 
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on October 11, 2013, 03:40:30 PM

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.


Dang!  Dang & Blast.  I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)

I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras.  And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.

I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files.  I think it's this years trick.

I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is.  The C100 is.  A 10 year old z1 is.  The key is the intermediate and editing codecs.  It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.

Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cinema-dslr on October 11, 2013, 08:07:13 PM

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.


Dang!  Dang & Blast.  I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)

I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras.  And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.

I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files.  I think it's this years trick.

I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is.  The C100 is.  A 10 year old z1 is.  The key is the intermediate and editing codecs.  It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.

Yes i know i've shot plenty of stuff on dv that got broadcast but thats not really the point .
The codec from the c100 is pretty good and really efficient but allot of data gets trown away during compression wich will show up in editing during grading etc..
With the ninja you get 4:2:2 in a edit ready codec so no need to do any conversion.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on October 11, 2013, 09:52:05 PM

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.


Dang!  Dang & Blast.  I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)

I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras.  And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.

I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files.  I think it's this years trick.

I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is.  The C100 is.  A 10 year old z1 is.  The key is the intermediate and editing codecs.  It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.

Yes i know i've shot plenty of stuff on dv that got broadcast but thats not really the point .
The codec from the c100 is pretty good and really efficient but allot of data gets trown away during compression wich will show up in editing during grading etc..
With the ninja you get 4:2:2 in a edit ready codec so no need to do any conversion.

4:2;2, why not 4:4:4?  What about all those I's & Os you are chucking away?

Your folk who care that the canon codec is 4:2:0 should by rights care that your ninja codec is 4:2:2.

Seriously man, if you care enough to understand depth sampling to this degree, then you'd know which is 'broadcast' and which isn't.

And what do you mena by grading?  Colour correction?  Manipulation of Gamma Scale? Gamut?

Of course the conservative broadcast safe limits seriously restrict even current or old DR range cameras.

Fixing WB isn't grading.

Adding a vignette isn't grading.

And even converting 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 isn't actualy adding anything, much like converting 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 isn't really fooling anybody but yourself, certanly not resolve.

Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cinema-dslr on October 12, 2013, 07:04:32 AM

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.


Dang!  Dang & Blast.  I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)

I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras.  And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.

I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files.  I think it's this years trick.

I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is.  The C100 is.  A 10 year old z1 is.  The key is the intermediate and editing codecs.  It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.

Yes i know i've shot plenty of stuff on dv that got broadcast but thats not really the point .
The codec from the c100 is pretty good and really efficient but allot of data gets trown away during compression wich will show up in editing during grading etc..
With the ninja you get 4:2:2 in a edit ready codec so no need to do any conversion.

4:2;2, why not 4:4:4?  What about all those I's & Os you are chucking away?

Your folk who care that the canon codec is 4:2:0 should by rights care that your ninja codec is 4:2:2.

Seriously man, if you care enough to understand depth sampling to this degree, then you'd know which is 'broadcast' and which isn't.

And what do you mena by grading?  Colour correction?  Manipulation of Gamma Scale? Gamut?

Of course the conservative broadcast safe limits seriously restrict even current or old DR range cameras.

Fixing WB isn't grading.

Adding a vignette isn't grading.

And even converting 4:2:0 to 4:2:2 isn't actualy adding anything, much like converting 4:2:2 to 4:4:4 isn't really fooling anybody but yourself, certanly not resolve.

Using the ninja just gets you the best possible videosignal that the c100 can give.
8bit 4:2:2 recorded on a highlevel 4:2:2 10bit codec ready to insert in your editing suite and stable enough to not breakdown when adjusting level, bringing out shadows,highlights etc....
4:2:2 simply contains more info than 4:2:0 so why not make use of it?

The ninja transforms the 50i output (even when recording 25p) from the c100 to the 25p output you wanted, so no need to explain your editing software how to interpret the footage.
The ninja records on ssd in my opinion a more solid recordingmedium than small sd cards.( however that is just my inexperience with sd cards and haven't jet had any problems with them since i always record on them simultaneous with the ninja as a backup)

I agree that the broadcast discussion is essentially a mute one and is just used by productionhouses as a stick to separate the big from the little guys.

However with a ninja the c100 is essentially a c300 with a even beter "broadcast"codec.
And 4:2:2 doesn't hurt with greenscreen to
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on October 12, 2013, 03:55:05 PM
I actually wouldn't mind 50i for some applications when I can't be arsed carrying the pmw-500.

50i, of course being the more natural broadcast specification if you are splitting hairs.

The so called 'film look' doesn't suit everything.

The main reason I wouldn't automatically use a ninja with a c100 is the same reason I sometime use ProRes LT.

Against a deadline, it can be quicker to work with smaller files, which are 'good enough' for the task in hand.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 12, 2013, 04:15:55 PM
even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.
the 5dm3 can do the same via hdmi-mini-out but that conector is so flimsy its just not safe enough to rely on.

To be honest, for most stuff a Ninja to HDMI out of the 5D3 does almost nothing. They mangle the output at some earlier stage. ML RAW utterly blows away, in very single regard, Ninja recorded 5D3 footage. The former looks insanely better than in camera recorded footage, while the latter BARELY looks better (unless you are comparing non-all-i and swinging the camera around or something else is going on to make almost the entire frame change frame to frame, the in camera stuff really falls apart for that, certainly if you are not using all-i; all-i might make it closer, never bothered to carefully compare since ML RAW came out before I got the chance).





Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: syder on October 17, 2013, 12:24:55 AM

even the c100 is crippled with a non broadcast codec but with a ninja you get to a broadcast level.


Dang!  Dang & Blast.  I don't know of any camcorders other than some settings on P2 and XDCAM that actually shoot in a broadcast codec (certain settings of MPEG2 for most digital broadcasts)

I've never quite understood the term 'broadcast codec' in relation to cameras.  And I've had stuff broadcast shot on dv dvcam hdv digibeta xdcam xdcamhd dvcpro dvcpro50 HDCAM EOS H.264.

I know certainly the broadcast editors I work with wouldn't generally thank you for RAW files.  I think it's this years trick.

I wouldn't get too hung up on what broadcast quality is.  The C100 is.  A 10 year old z1 is.  The key is the intermediate and editing codecs.  It'll be squished back to MPEG2 levels anyway before broadcast.

When people talk about broadcast standards they mean the published standards which broadcasters such as the BBC will accept as main camera footage for a broadcast program. They do accept lower quality footage from B-cam material which comprises less than a certain amount of a broadcast, but for a complete program to be aired you are looking at.

From the BBC guidelines...

3 Technical Requirements - Video
3.1 Video Standards
 
3.1.1 High Definition Format 
• 1920 x 1080 pixels in an aspect ratio of 16:9
• 25 frames per second (50 fields) interlaced - now known as 1080i/25.
• colour sub-sampled at a ratio of 4:2:2
The HD format is fully specified in ITU-R BT.709-5 Part 2.

So there is a reason that people don't call 4:2:0 material broadcast standard - because broadcasters wont accept full programs shot that way. I'm pretty sure last time I read them properly they specified a data rate of 50mb/s too.

Sure you can broadcast material shot on far lower specs on the God channel or other backwater parts of freeview/cable. And they do show snippets of people's mobile phone footage and CCTV on the news. But you can't shoot a complete show for BBC One HD like that.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: paul13walnut5 on October 17, 2013, 12:04:36 PM
If an when we ever get our c camera (and it probably will be the c100) I'll look at putting a ninja into the package.


On the occassion we are shooting anything specifically for the BBC we use XDCAMHD, in line with all their ENG crews.  We never shoot full programmes for the BBC, ITV have been happy with DSLR material delivered in APR (so 4.2.0 to 4.2.2 container)

I see a huge trend that folk want to do what Philip Bloom does, whether they need to or not.  Lots of folk hanging ninjas off their 5D3's using ML hacks to run massive bandwith footage through resolve to show five mates on vimeo.

I'm at the corporate / commercial level, and just don't have the need or the time or the hard-drive capacity.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 18, 2013, 02:24:18 AM
I see a huge trend that folk want to do what Philip Bloom does, whether they need to or not.  Lots of folk hanging ninjas off their 5D3's using ML hacks to run massive bandwith footage through resolve to show five mates on vimeo.

I'm at the corporate / commercial level, and just don't have the need or the time or the hard-drive capacity.

I thought lots of folks were getting Philip Bloom for his semi-downer 'enthusiasm' when it came out.

Anyway lots of folks use ML RAW because it is THAT awesome. SOOOOO much more detail than you get from 5D3 internal or Ninja recording and SOOOOOOO much more processing latitude. SOOOOOO much richer colors! It's really quite night and day. Although Vimeo certainly hurts video quality, ML RAW still makes a big difference even more Vimeo posted stuff. Quite a big difference. (Ninja OTOH I doubt much compared to ALL-I and not much compared to regular mode either unless you have major near complete frame to frame changes and then it can make a good deal of difference). It's really exciting and revolutionary when it comes to nature type videos. The videos you can get out of it with ML RAW are so amazingly beautiful, the extra detail, color, DR help tremendously for nature world stuff. It's really exciting and fun to film with it.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Janbo Makimbo on October 18, 2013, 02:58:20 AM
Get a life!!
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: joema on October 19, 2013, 04:18:57 PM
...
When people talk about broadcast standards they mean the published standards which broadcasters such as the BBC will accept as main camera footage for a broadcast program....So there is a reason that people don't call 4:2:0 material broadcast standard - because broadcasters wont accept full programs shot that way. I'm pretty sure last time I read them properly they specified a data rate of 50mb/s too...

There is no single broadcast standard. There are many individual broadcast standards, elements of which are determined arbitrarily and without technical foundation.

There is no clearer example of this than the BBC not accepting high-def 720p material, even when captured with true broadcast *studio* cameras. No matter what the color space, no matter how high the bit rate, the BBC views 720p as "non-HD", and will not permit it except in small snippets. This is despite ABC, FOX, ESPN, and A&E broadcasting exclusively in 720p.

In fact Oscar-winning movies such as Black Swan, parts of which were shot on a Canon 7D, cannot be shown on BBC One HD for this reason. That movie was also nominated for an Oscar in cinematography. See attached frame grab and matching production still.

BBC Content Delivery Guidelines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_delivery_of_programmes_to_worldwide_v1.0-2011.pdf (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_delivery_of_programmes_to_worldwide_v1.0-2011.pdf)

Discussion: http://www.britishcinematographer.co.uk/articles/125-the-great-debate-16mm-film-p2.html (http://www.britishcinematographer.co.uk/articles/125-the-great-debate-16mm-film-p2.html)

Of course the BBC is free to set whatever standards they want. For all I know, they may soon decide to only accept 4k at a gigabit per sec.

However I don't see how the BBC issue relates to whether a 7D, 5D3 or any similar camera is suitable for the type of video 99.9% of the people here are shooting. If you are producing "A" camera content for BBC, a DSLR won't suffice. Who here is doing that? If not, then why be influenced in the slightest by those standards, which obviously have little relationship to producing highly meritable material.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cinema-dslr on October 19, 2013, 05:38:12 PM
when shooting on 7d/5d there is no reason to worry about broadcast standards.
I've shot a movie with a 5d m2 and didn't worry about it

however when purchasing  a new camera it's good to know that the C100 will let you record 4:2:2 uncompressed via hdmi with a harddisk recording medium if and when you want/need it.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: syder on October 20, 2013, 08:06:15 PM
If an when we ever get our c camera (and it probably will be the c100) I'll look at putting a ninja into the package.


I see a huge trend that folk want to do what Philip Bloom does, whether they need to or not.  Lots of folk hanging ninjas off their 5D3's using ML hacks to run massive bandwith footage through resolve to show five mates on vimeo.

I'm at the corporate / commercial level, and just don't have the need or the time or the hard-drive capacity.

Bloom gets a lot of totally unfair criticism these days... He wrote a really good article about why 4K and RAW are totally over the top for most people at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/ (http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/)

Quote
Let’s start with raw

PROS:

WAY better dynamic range than most cameras.

Huge flexibility in post.

Can help mistakes made on shoots or help us get past issues we couldn’t overcome.

It opens up many creative options in really hard shooting environments, making my life as DP easier often and this is not about laziness.

CONS:

Generally cannot be edited natively, proxies are needed after going into software like DaVinci resolve to interpret the raw data and tweak them before exporting to the proxy format. This is very time consuming.

Much larger files than compressed codecs meaning lots and lots of cards. Though there are raw compressed options out there like R3d and cineform which I am expecting will be licensed and put into the new 4k BlackMagic Production Camera.

The huge cost in acquisition media and the enormous cost of storage on top of this.

You need to learn new skills. This is almost a pro actually. Working with raw is not as easy as many think. Education is key here.

It’s not magic. You still need to know how to expose properly and I actually think a light meter comes into its own here, knowing how many stops of light difference there are between the shadows and the highlights. STILL hold the highlights more than the shadows for most raw cameras as a rule.

People will want to shoot everything with it, then hit a massive bottleneck on their projects in dealing with files. It will be a hard but necessary lesson.

Now the pros and cons of 4k

PROS:

Incredibly detailed images, 4 times that of HD but they are not obviously so.

Fantastic ability to crop in post. Something I do on all my interviews for docs now that I shoot 4k for them. I am not shooting 4k docs – just 4k talking heads. I can then go in for tights or back out whenever I want in the edit. Way better.

“Future proof” I am bit hesitant about this as I see very little need for future proofing most of my work. Now for high end drama and big docs then yes. Do it.

You have a higher end format to sell to clients. Sometimes an advantage. Not always though…see cons.

Scaling down to 2K in post often yields quite stunning results.

CONS:

Inefficient codec mean massive files. Even efficient ones are pretty big, which means expensive cards and lots of storage.

Inability to edit natively for the vast majority of people. Proxies are used which of course adds time.

Most production companies I have dealt with cannot take it.

Almost nobody can actually watch 4k. I can’t.

It can lead to lazy cinematography. Although I use the crop to help me in interviews, this is not due to being lazy but to give me options. You should never forget the tight shots because you can crop. The whole aesthetic changes. The depth of field remains the same so it doesn’t look like a true close up

You need to be even more skilled, as mistakes are easier to spot.

Incredibly unforgiving and harsh. Showing the flaws in everything, especially people. Fantastic for beauty shots etc..for drama it’s actually too detailed and causes the DP many issues.

Needs a really big screen to really see the difference.

Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.


Unless I've missed a very recent development the ML hack can't record onto a Ninja II (it bypasses the Canon ADC so can't be output through HDMI) - it's onto 1000x CF cards only... And PB has always said that for professional work running ML is questionable at best - and the RAW workflow is effectively too hit and miss reliability wise and just too slow to be worthwhile. If you're making a living shooting material and really need RAW then buy a BMCC or something which is designed to do it.

I agree about there being a slightly odd online community making super high quality RAW videos for a few friends on Vimeo, but then I guess it's people being hugely excited about the fact that they feel that can generate images which technically are of a similar quality to those made by high end production companies using gear costing 10x as much as their 5DM3. The fact that the content is rubbish doesn't matter to them, but hey each to their own. At a technical level it is interesting as an example of the ways that open source communities can enable forms of creative activity, in terms of content, super malleable home video footage of someone's kids is still bland (hence the 5 views).

And as PB points out, not only is ML a bit risky for something you're getting paid for (dropped frames, corrupt CF cards etc being far from unheard of and at a professional level totally unacceptable), but a RAW workflow using Resolve to generate proxies to edit before a final pass through resolve to spit out a super high quality master is something which is totally useful for a feature, or a high budget drama series, or even a potentially a polished short which you're going to sending to festivals worldwide, but is an overcomplication and waste of time in many circumstances, and one which in a commercial context will often mean losing more money (through time spent and the necessary computational power to work on 14bit files and storage for them) than you would make back in extra work/higher prices.



There is no single broadcast standard. There are many individual broadcast standards, elements of which are determined arbitrarily and without technical foundation.

There is no clearer example of this than the BBC not accepting high-def 720p material, even when captured with true broadcast *studio* cameras. No matter what the color space, no matter how high the bit rate, the BBC views 720p as "non-HD", and will not permit it except in small snippets. This is despite ABC, FOX, ESPN, and A&E broadcasting exclusively in 720p.

In fact Oscar-winning movies such as Black Swan, parts of which were shot on a Canon 7D, cannot be shown on BBC One HD for this reason. That movie was also nominated for an Oscar in cinematography. See attached frame grab and matching production still.

BBC Content Delivery Guidelines: http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_delivery_of_programmes_to_worldwide_v1.0-2011.pdf (http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/dq/pdf/tv/tv_delivery_of_programmes_to_worldwide_v1.0-2011.pdf)

Discussion: http://www.britishcinematographer.co.uk/articles/125-the-great-debate-16mm-film-p2.html (http://www.britishcinematographer.co.uk/articles/125-the-great-debate-16mm-film-p2.html)

Of course the BBC is free to set whatever standards they want. For all I know, they may soon decide to only accept 4k at a gigabit per sec.

However I don't see how the BBC issue relates to whether a 7D, 5D3 or any similar camera is suitable for the type of video 99.9% of the people here are shooting. If you are producing "A" camera content for BBC, a DSLR won't suffice. Who here is doing that? If not, then why be influenced in the slightest by those standards, which obviously have little relationship to producing highly meritable material.


BBC HD broadcasts in 1080i. They don't accept 720 as HD material for broadcast because it would have to be upscaled. That hardly seems like rocket science.

People in the UK who run production houses likely to work on material for television tend to ensure that their workflows will conform to the specs of the BBC as it's still where a lot of well paid work ends up being screened. I'm sure the same applies in the US for their major broadcasters. I know at least a couple of people who have posted here produce tv content in the UK, so this is relevant to them. It isn't to me anymore as I've left the UK and now work in a university.

...and Black Swan not being on BBC HD has nothing to do with the use of 5D/7D B-roll footage. It's because the main cameras for the film were 16mm Arri film cameras and BBC HD wont accept 16mm transfers as high definition material.
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: LetTheRightLensIn on October 20, 2013, 10:24:30 PM
Bloom gets a lot of totally unfair criticism these days... He wrote a really good article about why 4K and RAW are totally over the top for most people at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/ (http://philipbloom.net/2013/10/10/4kraw/)

Actually of the criticism I've seen him taking is just on such articles as that, downplaying 4k and now suddenly RAW too (after having played giant hoaxed about it coming to Canon soon the other year and talking it up so much when they didn't allow it).


You need to learn new skills. This is almost a pro actually. Working with raw is not as easy as many think. Education is key here.

Quote
Let’s start with raw
PROS:
WAY better dynamic range than most cameras.
Huge flexibility in post.
Can help mistakes made on shoots or help us get past issues we couldn’t overcome.
It opens up many creative options in really hard shooting environments, making my life as DP easier often and this is not about laziness.

And I should add a LOT more detail grabbed, which sure as heck makes a big difference when filming natural world/nature stuff.

Quote
CONS:
Generally cannot be edited natively, proxies are needed after going into software like DaVinci resolve to interpret the raw data and tweak them before exporting to the proxy format. This is very time consuming.
Much larger files than compressed codecs meaning lots and lots of cards. Though there are raw compressed options out there like R3d and cineform which I am expecting will be licensed and put into the new 4k BlackMagic Production Camera.
The huge cost in acquisition media and the enormous cost of storage on top of this.

If you can get away with doing all major tweaks in the early stage it does speed up later stages a lot though (granted it's probably nicer to have the early stages done quicker).

Quote
You need to learn new skills. This is almost a pro actually. Working with raw is not as easy as many think. Education is key here.

Says the video guy. For a stills shooter used to still processing programs and methods one might say it's actually considerably easier.

Quote
It’s not magic. You still need to know how to expose properly and I actually think a light meter comes into its own here, knowing how many stops of light difference there are between the shadows and the highlights. STILL hold the highlights more than the shadows for most raw cameras as a rule.

How is this is a CON?? If it applies to every format then it can't be a relative CON by very definition.


Quote
People will want to shoot everything with it, then hit a massive bottleneck on their projects in dealing with files. It will be a hard but necessary lesson.

It depends, for some the only lessen is damn why didn't I shoot that part in RAW too.


Quote
Now the pros and cons of 4k
PROS:
Incredibly detailed images, 4 times that of HD but they are not obviously so.

I beg to differ as to the obviously so part. You may as well say that a retina iPad doesn't look obviously better than an older one or that IMAX movie shot on IMAX film doesn't look noticeably better than an old 35mm print.

Watching 2k video sure doesn't take you there and look like looking through a window.

Quote
Fantastic ability to crop in post. Something I do on all my interviews for docs now that I shoot 4k for them. I am not shooting 4k docs – just 4k talking heads. I can then go in for tights or back out whenever I want in the edit. Way better.

“Future proof” I am bit hesitant about this as I see very little need for future proofing most of my work. Now for high end drama and big docs then yes. Do it.

You have a higher end format to sell to clients. Sometimes an advantage. Not always though…see cons.

Scaling down to 2K in post often yields quite stunning results.

CONS:
Inefficient codec mean massive files. Even efficient ones are pretty big, which means expensive cards and lots of storage.
Inability to edit natively for the vast majority of people. Proxies are used which of course adds time.

.

Quote
Most production companies I have dealt with cannot take it.

Only a con for some people in some cases.

Quote
Almost nobody can actually watch 4k. I can’t.

Not yet, but plenty many will very soon enough on either monitors or HDTV. A good number of monitors get you have way there now.

Quote
It can lead to lazy cinematography. Although I use the crop to help me in interviews, this is not due to being lazy but to give me options. You should never forget the tight shots because you can crop. The whole aesthetic changes. The depth of field remains the same so it doesn’t look like a true close up

something to be wary of for some perhaps, but a pretty minor con to say the least, it doesn't have to be a con for someone at all so long as they don't sink into some lazy habit, you could just as easily come up with various such cons for 2k

Quote
You need to be even more skilled, as mistakes are easier to spot.

Not a con since it will never be worse. If you are really sloppy maybe it won't be better, but it will never be worse. And you could just as easily say that you need to be way more skilled to make up for 2K not being able to deliver fine details, no? And in that case it will ALWAYS be the case for some scenarios.

Quote
Incredibly unforgiving and harsh. Showing the flaws in everything, especially people. Fantastic for beauty shots etc..for drama it’s actually too detailed and causes the DP many issues.

Hardly a problem if you shoot natural world stuff! In fact it is a 100% always plus. And for beauty shots etc you could always process back and remove detail, but there is no way to ever add more detail when you could have used it.

Quote
Needs a really big screen to really see the difference.

an absolute fallacy!! Ever view a retina pad for a while and then look at a 2k 24" screen and see how hideously blocky the 24" screen looks? Yeah, exactly, so even on a 24" screen it would make plenty of difference. You are hardly need 75"+ or all the other nonsense some go on about. And it sure as heck makes a huge difference on a typical 46-55" screen. Unless you are silly and sit like 20' back or something, in which case nothign will ever look good anyway.


Quote
Will it actually take off as a consumer format for the home? I am very pessimistic about this.

He sounds like that same guys who said the same thing about HD.

Quote
Unless I've missed a very recent development the ML hack can't record onto a Ninja II (it bypasses the Canon ADC so can't be output through HDMI) - it's onto 1000x CF cards only... And PB has always said that for professional work running ML is questionable at best - and the RAW workflow is effectively too hit and miss reliability wise and just too slow to be worthwhile. If you're making a living shooting material and really need RAW then buy a BMCC or something which is designed to do it.

1. it's really become quite reliable
2. not everyone actually shoots things were each shot is totally critical and can't be re-shoot, tons of people very rarely ever shoot like that, but just because some do, well everyone else must too of course

Quote
I agree about there being a slightly odd online community making super high quality RAW videos for a few friends on Vimeo, but then I guess it's people being hugely excited about the fact that they feel that can generate images which technically are of a similar quality to those made by high end production companies using gear costing 10x as much as their 5DM3. The fact that the content is rubbish doesn't matter to them, but hey each to their own.

Hah how typical and out with the insults. Of course it is an "odd" community. And of course they will only produce rubbish.

(and side note: Why not apply it to all the great Hollywood DPs, many care a lot of DR and all sorts of things, will you call them all odd rubbish creators too?)


Quote
And as PB points out, not only is ML a bit risky for something you're getting paid for (dropped frames, corrupt CF cards etc being far from unheard of and at a professional level totally unacceptable),

what corrupted CF cards?
dropped frames are solved

granted it is still alpha though

Quote
but a RAW workflow using Resolve to generate proxies to edit before a final pass through resolve to spit out a super high quality master is something which is totally useful for a feature, or a high budget drama series, or even a potentially a polished short which you're going to sending to festivals worldwide, but is an overcomplication and waste of time in many circumstances, and one which in a commercial context will often mean losing more money (through time spent and the necessary computational power to work on 14bit files and storage for them) than you would make back in extra work/higher prices.

maybe, maybe not for those, but there are plenty of other end games, of course you only see the few types that you do



Quote
BBC HD broadcasts in 1080i. They don't accept 720 as HD material for broadcast because it would have to be upscaled. That hardly seems like rocket science.

It sort of does. So what then? All the 720p content they force on their SD channels where it must be HUGELY downscaled?? Yeah, that's REALLY being brilliant.

Quote
...and Black Swan not being on BBC HD has nothing to do with the use of 5D/7D B-roll footage. It's because the main cameras for the film were 16mm Arri film cameras and BBC HD wont accept 16mm transfers as high definition material.

yeah because showing it on SD channel instead will do it such a service
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Nishi Drew on November 01, 2013, 01:04:28 AM
If we're getting at the new RAW capabilities of both cameras, I say get the 7D, hack it and try it out(if the ML hack is available yet I don't recall). The extra cash saved over will get you a great lens or two and maybe a few cards and much needed batteries. Otherwise, if it hasn't been discussed, doing the necessary edits to RAW then transcoding the files to workable ProRes files should save plenty of edit time and space, and consequently costs as well.
Take a laptop to a shoot and constantly get those full cards cleared off to a larger HDD, that'll be extra gear and stuff to do but better than buying a boatload of expensive cards
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: Axilrod on November 06, 2013, 05:42:50 PM
I thought lots of folks were getting Philip Bloom for his semi-downer 'enthusiasm' when it came out.

Anyway lots of folks use ML RAW because it is THAT awesome. SOOOOO much more detail than you get from 5D3 internal or Ninja recording and SOOOOOOO much more processing latitude. SOOOOOO much richer colors! I

It is amazing, but it also requires SOOOOO much more hard drive space, SOOOO much more computing power, and processing is SOOOOO much more involved  ;).
Title: Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
Post by: cayenne on November 07, 2013, 09:57:44 AM
I thought lots of folks were getting Philip Bloom for his semi-downer 'enthusiasm' when it came out.

Anyway lots of folks use ML RAW because it is THAT awesome. SOOOOO much more detail than you get from 5D3 internal or Ninja recording and SOOOOOOO much more processing latitude. SOOOOOO much richer colors! I

It is amazing, but it also requires SOOOOO much more hard drive space, SOOOO much more computing power, and processing is SOOOOO much more involved  ;).

That being said....harddrive space these days is ridiculously cheap, that really should not be the factor stopping anyone from shooting RAW or having plenty of backup space.

Computing power, yep..that's still a bit $$, but coming down, and not out of the grasp of anyone even semi-serious working with good video. If you're not using a mac, you can build yourself a pretty high end computer with plenty of GPU to help cover rendering times,etc....so, at some point, computing power shouldn't be a large hurdle to cross for most people wanting to dabble in higher end video.

And sure..there are a lot of steps and hoops to jump through, but even that is getting better with Davinci Resolve handling the files directly out of raw2dmg tool.....

But hey....most of the better things of life are a bit messy....

:D

cayenne