Messages

16

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 02:03:30 PM »

I've shot my latest film on the 5D3, IMHO the video quality is noticeably better than the 5D2, particularly the noise when pushing the ISO past 800.

Judging video from a still is the wrong approach, also judging video that was shot incompetently vs. video which was properly lit and exposed  is also not a way to judge a camera's capabilities.

Lastly, noise in video is generally much more accepted by the public than noise in still photography. I watch so many DVD and Blu Ray big budget films which look pretty sad in the shadows and darker scenes noise-wise...yet I don't hear many people complaining about how bad the film looked.

Absolutely, but the Mark II and Mark III produce very similar footage (excepting aliasing issues) at low ISOs, with the Mark II arguably having the edge slightly for sharpness (due to false detail) and having a bit less read noise. At high ISOs the Mark III is far nicer, but this isn't that.

Again, the footage posted above is WAY worse than what the Mark III is capable of, and it's also under the conditions that are least impressive with the camera. But the crop taken from a still is better than the camera will ever produce for video.

17

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 11:56:01 AM »

When you look at a 2mp frame grab, its going to look bad.  That's true for all digital video cameras operating at 2K.
 
4K is much better, and with 8K, single frames are very nice.
 
Show a frame grab from video of your iphone.

Not true at all. Most cinemas project at 2k. The Alexa produces amazing 2k footage... This K stuff is nonsense.

If I find the time I'll shoot the same subject with my Mark III, C100, and iPhone 5 at similar focal lengths. But I already know what the results will be.

18

EOS Bodies / Re: Are 5d3 owners happy with the video, ALL i?

« on: March 25, 2013, 11:08:36 AM »

The video from the Mark III is pretty soft with some chunky noise but that second shot is unusually bad and was either shot or processed wrong to look like that. At best, Mark III footage won't look quite as good as the first frame grab, no matter what you do in post or on set. But it can get reasonably close. I don't know about the iPad but under ideal conditions the iPhone is sharper with better resolution than any Canon dSLR, but with less manual control and a worse "look" obviously. But for exterior video in low contrast light in wide shots in some cases it might produce the better image. I wouldn't count on it, though.

19

Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now

« on: March 24, 2013, 01:52:29 PM »

Thanks. Maybe I'll have to pick one up next time they're on sale. But even $700 is a lot to spend to get slightly better IQ and an extra stop at one focal length I already have covered decently. But it does look like a much nicer lenses for what it does.

The 100mm f2.8 macro is my other most-wanted and it was in stock, too. Hmm.

I agree with your diminishing returns concern.  If you do not need to go the extra stop, I wouldn't do it.  I had to because I was shooting in unacceptable lighting for sports and had to f/2.2, just to keep ISO at 5000.  Only then did I discover how sharp the lens was.  However, that was sort of a by-product for what I was using it.  I agree the IQ gains may not be enough to warrant its purchase. 

The opposite is true on the lower end.  The new 24-70L II zoom lens is better than the 24L, 35L, and 50L stopped down, by what my eye detects to be quite signficant on my files.  In your case, not so dramatic.

The 135mm f2 does seem like a uniquely nice portrait lens, though. I mostly shoot video (with a C100) so I try to find lenses that are useful for both video and stills and both 1x and 1.5x crop sensors, but unfortunately leaning heavily on my video needs means I've amassed a lot of subpar lenses for stills (like the Samyangs, which are useless for stills, and their 24mm f1.4 is just poor optically). The 24-70mm II looks like the lens to have for stills, but for video it's not so nice.

Maybe I'll pick up a refurbished 50mm f1.4 to replace the 50mm f1.8 that has bokeh I can't stand when stopped down, though. Or splurge on the Sigma, which seems rather special. Choices...

20

Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now

« on: March 24, 2013, 01:09:40 PM »

Thanks. Maybe I'll have to pick one up next time they're on sale. But even $700 is a lot to spend to get slightly better IQ and an extra stop at one focal length I already have covered decently. But it does look like a much nicer lenses for what it does.

The 100mm f2.8 macro is my other most-wanted and it was in stock, too. Hmm.

21

Lenses / Re: Canon Store having refurb sale right now

« on: March 24, 2013, 12:38:47 PM »

Passed on the 135 L but sort of regret it. Just for reference, how much better is this than the 70-200mm f2.8 L (non-IS) at 135mm? Is it much smaller? I dislike the weight of the zoom.

22

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens

« on: March 15, 2013, 04:45:00 PM »

I can advise to avoid the Tamron 70-300.  It costs less than $300.00, but very few photos were usable.  It seems that the autofocus does not work consistantly.  I could not afford a more expensive lens at the time so I rented a 100-400 and later a 70-300L.  This delayed my need, as well as making sure that I new what I wanted.   I saved up and when I found a refurbished 70-300L at 20% off the refurbished cost ($1039.00) I jumped on it. 

Avoid the cheap lenses, rent a good one for the short term.  When you can afford it then buy what you need.

Good Luck

Autofocus is spot on with the Tamron. It is significantly slower than the L zooms, however. Are you sure you're referoing to the VC model (which is $350) and not the non-VC one, which is not highly regarded? I'm not normally a Tamron fan, but this lens is a gem.

23

Lenses / Re: best NON L long lens

« on: March 15, 2013, 02:34:02 PM »

I sold my 55-250mm IS for $100 on eBay. I sort of wish I hadn't! For the money it is a decent lens, but you say you want FF, so....

I am also extremely fond of the 70-300mm VC Tamron, which is a better lens in every way. The VC is awesome, it focuses reasonably fast (not that fast, though) and the size and weight balance well with a 5D. But it's super strong at 70mm and weaker at 300mm, so if you want fast AF and sharpness at 300mm I can't recommend it as heartily. In general I sort of prefer it to my 70-200mm f2.8 non-IS, but since I mostly shoot video (for which speed matters most) I will probably ditch the Tamron when push comes to shove. That said, I like it a lot!

24

Lenses / Re: TS-E 45mm & TS-E 90mm Finally Getting Replaced? [CR1]

« on: March 15, 2013, 02:27:08 PM »

Might finally sell my 4x5 if the 45mm is great.

Speed not a concern... strangest thing to ask for on such a lens. I would live with f8! After all these are used for deep focus photography and on tripods or in studio. T/S is about increasing depth of field.

25

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Canon 5D Mark 2 or 5D Mark 3??

« on: March 10, 2013, 07:01:33 PM »

I recently upgraded from the Mark III to the C100 (and had a t2i before that). I rarely recommending waiting on a product that likely won't be released, but see if Canon has a C50 up its sleeve at NAB before buying because the C100 is incredible.

(And buy a Mark III over the Mark II at this point, but wait for a good deal. It's not that much better, but if you're a professional you'd do better being able to avoid skew and noise at high ISOs.)

If you're a pro you can likely pay off a C100 in a few months, less at the frequency with which it sounds like you're working, but if the C50 comes out and has the same sensor but is cheaper... why not?

26

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Help deciding between BMCC and C100 for RE Listing Videos

« on: March 10, 2013, 03:54:14 PM »

I think the c100 could make your life a lot easier, but if you are really looking the biggest jump in IQ over your existing setup, i'd say the clear winner is BMC.

The pains of working with RAW are real, but being able to make the image look exactly like you want it too, without worrying about losing detail or banding, is a huge advantage.

But think about it this way,  even if you had to buy a brand new workstation to handle raw....

$3000 BMC + $3000 workstation< c100

Have you used either camera?

27

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Help deciding between BMCC and C100 for RE Listing Videos

« on: March 10, 2013, 12:30:42 PM »

The C100 is an AMAZING camera. Very underrated. Awesome image and interface. It's closer to the Alexa than to the 5D Mark III. Resolution is great, colors are beautiful (if warmer/less accurate/more subjective than the Alexa, they're certainly way better than Red), and the interface and ergonomics are great and the battery lives forever. It's the prefect owner/operator cinema camera. One person can use it easily and yet the image quality is approaching other high end cinema cameras. It can be set to intercut with dSLRs, or used as a b-cam for the Alexa with an uncompressed recorder. WideDR mode has Canon Log levels of DR but in a linear space. The specs (AVCHD/8bit, etc.) are poor, but despite that it's great. It uses superwhites (watch these in post) and a wonky log curve to retain decent tonality despite the poor spec.

That said, DR is still not the C100's strength. It blows away dSLRs but it is not as good as the Alexa, F3 (though only a half stop away, though, from the F3 with slog and ACHD beats XDCAM, seriously), or Red with HDRx (it's, imo, on par with Red without HDRx, maybe better). Really only the Alexa has amazing DR out of the box. I haven't used the BMCC but my guess is it's decent, maybe better than the C100 in this regard.

The question boils down to if you want to do more work but have more control (BMCC), like if this were your hobby or if you wanted to do less work but have to do it right int he fist place (C100). It reminds me of the "pros shoot JPEG" mentality, but that's kind of how it is. The C100 can provide gorgeous footage but you need to be a competent shooter. With RAW you can do all sorts of dumb stuff (overexposure, WB shift) and salvage it in post, but that's so much more work.

In normally lit rooms during the day it holds highlights out the window way better than a dSLR, but worse than the Alexa. You might need to turn some lights on (bring in daylight balanced CFLs or something) or choose your angle and exposure carefully, but if you're a competent shooter it will blow away your dSLR. Unfortunately it's superior more for tonality, noise structure, reduced skew, color, etc. than for DR, but nonetheless it's in a whole other league from dSLRs without being more difficult to use. Love this camera.

28

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Highest ISO for good quality video?

« on: March 06, 2013, 07:00:05 PM »

It really depends on the camera. And personal taste. The only way to know is to try for yourself in a controlled environment and then see what results you get in the field with the settings you've chosen... adjust until you're happy.

With the 5D3, I find the read noise is really gnarly but the gain is pretty clean. So I turn HTP off and try to shoot at 100, 160, 200, 320, 640, or 1280 ISO when possible. Beyond that it gets pretty noisy. Sometimes. I've used the camera up to 10,000 ISO and found the video acceptable, though. It really depends. The shadows are grainy, but the rest is pretty clean so if you keep your exposures good and don't mind losing some shadow detail in post you can get away with anything.

If you can light with very low contrast and expose properly at 160 ISO that will probably give you the best results, but I'd say up to 640, even 1280 is pretty safe if you keep HTP off and don't use cinestyle, which lifts the blacks too much and makes exposing difficult. Dynamic range should be pretty similar, though HTP will lose you a stop in the highs for cleaner mids and shadows.

For red, Alexa, and the canon cinema cameras, 800-850 ISO is the normal iso, but you can pull the image digitally and make it cleaner. I just saw some Alexa footage shot at 400ISO. Such great tonality. But the trade off is you need more light and highlights clip sooner.

I wouldn't sweat it too much. Just keep your ISO low if you can and avoid HTP, cinestyle, etc. "Professional" video is shot all over the place. (As are stills.)

29

EOS Bodies / Re: Canon Cinema EOS C50 [CR1]

« on: February 20, 2013, 04:32:52 PM »

I thought about how they could further strip the C100 down to justify a significant pricedrop without cannibalizing C100 sales. The 8bit 420 AVCHD is quite a limitation already and getting rid of 720 50p/60p (the C100 REALLY doesn't have that?? thats so hard to believe!) leaves almost nothing to cut down. basically they are approaching the video quality of a 500D/550D/600D/650D....and that at a pricepoint of 6500$ !!!

The C100's video is far beyond the 650D in my experience. I suggest processing your clips differently or respecting the superwhites if you're having DR issues. Can't help you with sharpness, the camera is already supremely sharp. Beyond that I can't suggest anything except metering and choosing your gamma carefully. From my perspective it out-performs (or at least is close enough to) the F3, which I prefer to anything below the Alexa.

30

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?

« on: February 15, 2013, 01:02:13 PM »

You certainly could, although it's the first I've heard of that problem.

I know personally a fair number of people who consider the Epic borderline unusable. I considered the non-MX Red essentially unusable. Even with the Alexa we've gotten a lot of bad bugs. "Useable" says quite a lot in today's age of buggy computers-in-a-camera-box. I wouldn't take this so personally!