December 18, 2014, 01:37:15 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Policar

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 30
EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 27, 2013, 07:18:10 PM »
False dichotimy, from the very first post, and along the way, have I not advocated learning how to fix affected footage without resorting to a new camera, techniques that will help whether you are on a t3i or a 1dc?

Please read back.

I'm not suggesting anybody buy an alexa, c'mon seriously.

If the attitude is 'a 5d3 will fix it' my response is 'not always'.

But if the problem is unacceptable amounts of aliasing (enough that the average viewer would pick it out), then the 5D Mark III WILL fix it. A lot of us have shot extensively with the Mark III and other Canon dSLRs and virtually all of us have had the same experience. Every other Canon dSLR line skips and produces tons of aliasing (excepting the 1DC and the 1DX is apparently somewhere in-between), the 5D Mark III pixel bins and produces very subtle aliasing that's not noticeable to the average viewer even under the worst circumstances.

Moire is clearly not a problem for you -- you've found a way to deal with it in post that is acceptable both to you and to your clients. That's fine, and plenty of dSLR owners feel similarly. But for those of us who do find it problematic, we also find that the Mark III remedies it close enough to 100%. And I'm going to go ahead and recommend the camera over the Mark II and 6D on that basis. For someone considering upgrading I'm not sure it's worth it, though. There are bigger steps up for video.

Does the Mark III improve resolution, DR, etc.? Goodness no. And your C100 will be the much better camera and something Mark III owners will envy. But -- all that said -- it REALLY does fix the aliasing problem. Really. Like night and day. It's a real dichotomy: unacceptable moire in certain circumstances vs a normal looking picture. Virtually everyone who has actually used the camera -- and most of us who have used it don't particularly love it for video so it's not a bunch of fanboys spouting nonsense -- has had this experience.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 27, 2013, 12:03:37 AM »
10 bit = grading, compositing.

Certainly not for delivery.

Half pixel is enough blur to kill worst jaggies.

Only go higher on very geometric subjects.

I have old crt and lcd tv for review before I deliver, for sd output half pixel gaussian blur makes massive difference, especially on crt where sharping can be horrific.

But the C100 realistically only has about 11 stops of latitude. Compressing them into 8 bits gives you 0.7 bits per stop. The Alexa has 14 stops. For real. In ten bits. That's .7 bits per stop.

All I'm saying is, assuming you use an external recorder with the C100, that's plenty of flexibility either way.

I'm glad your blur workflow works for you, but I don't post the footage I shoot for the most part. And I'd be scared to blur dSLR footage any more than it's already blurry. And I've encountered plenty of dSLR footage (like the link above of the brick walls) that would still exhibit horrible aliasing with that much blur.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 26, 2013, 10:48:44 PM »
If it works for you it works for you, but I'd be scared to blur footage that's already so blurry, and I usually deliver to clients who do their own post. Not everyone will share your experience is all I'm saying. Not everyone can do their own post or devote that much time to it. For stills the 6D looks just fine, excepting autofocus maybe. For video I couldn't recommend it. Not when a used Mark II is cheaper and a new Mark III is materially better for video.

The C100 looks great. I don't know why people get so worked up about 8 bit versus 10 bit, but if 10 bit recording matters to you, look elsewhere. Clients don't care, and the C100 doesn't need a 10 bit wrapper since its DR is poor relative to the F3 and Alexa, anyway. Should be worlds beyond any Canon dSLR, likely even the 1DC, but I doubt it will approach the underrated F3 for highlight detail or tonality is all, even with an external recorder.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 26, 2013, 09:36:52 PM »
I don't entirely agree. The moire on the 5D Mark III is dramatically less than on all other Canon dSLRs, excepting the 1DC. It's no worse than most video-specific cameras; the other dSLRs are MUCH worse. It samples the entire chip (through binning) whereas others skip pixel lines. Because of that, the low light and moire reduction are worlds better than the other Canon dSLRs and on par with what you'd see in a 100% magnified still. Worlds better.

Resolution, DR, color depth, etc. is the same. But moire is dramatically better. Whether it's an issue for you is up to you, but I've seen that sample video's results repeated time and time again any time brick walls or fabric or certain textures of hair enters the frame. For more organic, low frequency material the difference is imperceptible. If you shoot certain kinds of material frequently, the 5D Mark III might be the only Canon dSLR that's useable. I've shot on the Mark II, 7D, t2i, t3i, a few Nikons, the GH2, etc. and pretty extensively. (Also, the Epic, F3, and I've done a lot of post with Alexa footage, which is the best of all by far.) And the GH2 and Mark III are the only two dSLR-type cameras without aggravating levels of moire.

The C100's HDMI is 8 bit. Only the F3, Alexa, and Red offer 10 bit log or 14 bit linear or whatever. Its c log is also fake log with the highlights compressed wrong and over saturated, whereas Sony and Arri have true log curves. That said, it looks like a nice camera and a more worthy, versatile upgrade for videographers than any dSLR, the 1DC included.

It took me a lot of use to notice the differences between the Mark III and the other dSLRs I shoot with, but the difference is there. How much have you shot side-by-side with both? I promise if you shoot both with the right material (such as the test posted above) you'll quickly notice a difference that is dramatic and significant to many videographers. What do you do when faced with fabric that induces moire? You can't always tell the talent to change or throw it out of focus -- and the problem is often less visible in the viewfinder than in the footage itself.

All Canon dSLRs (excepting the 1DC) still have poor resolution and DR and grade poorly in post relative to true video cameras, granted, and I agree the C100 is a more worthy upgrade for video. By far. But just because you don't need moire reduction and low light doesn't mean others won't.

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: 6D not usable for shooting video?
« on: January 26, 2013, 08:12:30 PM »
Sometimes XDCAM just hasn't the colour depth.

Sometimes a Digibeta or HDCAM is just too conspicuous.

Sometimes a Red runs too hot.

Sometimes a GoPro just isn't enough.

Every camera has concessions.  And the major concessions the 6D has, are nowhere near solved by having a 5D3.

It used to be the 5D2 bores.  Glad they've been more upwardly mobile this time.  If you are a 5D3 user and you want to pith all over the 6D's parade then have fun.  The guys shooting on C300's, Sony F's or Arri's haven't even noticed you are in the room.

It is all relative.  If somebody is capable of getting good video out of a 5D3, then they will be capable of getting good video out of a 6D.

Both the 6D and 5D3 are good video cameras, but the superiority complex 5D3 users really are having a big old laugh to themselves when it comes to moire etc.

I strongly disagree. The 5D Mark II remains a very nice camera, but its low light is poor, the codec has issues, and for wide shots in particular the aliasing can be terrible. Everyone knew this even while they were using it. For certain jobs it's just as good as a Mark III, and it's a viable camera for most purposes, but I feel confident walking in with a Mark III that I can deliver everything a client expects, except resolution on par with high end systems. With the Mark II, I'm worried about wide shots, low light, fabric, and hair. Projected large, there's a difference in wide shots in particular. Granted I found the upgrade from a t2i I owned (and 5Ds and 7Ds when available) to a 5D III to offer depreciating returns, but all the major problems (noise past 800 ISO, unacceptable amounts of skew, unacceptable aliasing, etc.) are tempered. Saving $1000 and getting a 6D for video and suffering many of the same problems seems foolish. That said, upgrading from a 5D Mark II might be very unnecessary depending on your needs. It sounds like your needs don't require the strengths a Mark III provides over a 6D or 5D Mark II. But there are people for whom the difference is getting a shot and not getting it. Technically all three cameras can produce visible aliasing, but look at the video posted above. Only one camera provides consistently acceptable results on fine patterns.

Furthermore, none of the camera systems you've listed (digibeta and go pro?) are comparable in any way to dSLRs and wouldn't be used for the same productions. Apples and oranges. Whereas the 6D and 5D III are like... apples and apples that are much better for certain types of video.

The F3, Epic, and Alexa are likewise suited for a different kind of production. It's not like they're even better or worse (in terms of IQ, they're better, though the Epic has mediocre low light), they're simply designed to be operated by more people on a bigger set, provide a more flexible image, and interface better with a traditional crew. They're designed mostly for TV production and theatrical features. dSLRs are more crash cams and web video. There are jobs for which a dSLR is much better than an Alexa, and even if you're lucky enough to be hired for narrative production, I doubt you'll encounter many shoots without a dSLR tucked away somewhere grabbing the odd insert.

I'm glad you're off in Alexa land ignoring us dSLR shooters who are off your map, but there are shooters who won't find a 6D useable and who will find a 5D Mark III great. There are also users for whom the difference will be virtually unnoticeable. For talking heads (and assuming no issues with moire in hair or fabric) both are just about as good. For wide shots, fast motion (skew and the ALL-I codec matter), and low light the difference is worth more than $1000.

To some people. Just as the $60,000 step up into Arri land is likely worth it to you! (And I'm in agreement, the Alexa is just the best thing going for narrative production, not that I can get hired to shoot on one.)

If they could shove one of these in a C100 or C300 (no mirror) somehow I would be so ecstatic. Doesn't seem likely.

EOS Bodies / Re: 5D Mark III Optimal Video Settings
« on: January 09, 2013, 07:41:09 PM »
I prefer neutral (and possibly visioncolor, check it out) to faithful, which has some weird color quirks, but the above is a fine recommendation. Prolost has a good recommended look, but it looks a bit softer since there's no sharpening.

Really, there's no way to win with the 5d. The footage is always soft and noisy and the tonality is pretty poor. There are ways to make it worse by going too compressed and sharpened (standard) or too soft and flat (cinestyle) in which case you lose DR or tonality, but any decent look (such as the above or prolost flat or visioncolor) can capture all the available dynamic range and resolution, it's kind of just a choice of if you want in-camera sharpening (more halos, less mosquito noise) and a less tweakable look with decent tonality out of camera or you want more adjustability (so you can intercut, but you'll need to do more work in post). For the money the footage is amazing and lighting and composition trump camera system, but you can only put so much lipstick on a pig. Compared with a video-specific system the mark III is weak... So just embrace it for what it is.

Prolost flat is nice, though. Google it. Vision color is not bad if you don't want to grade. Great colors.

EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: Anyone still using a 20D?
« on: January 03, 2013, 09:36:09 PM »
I have a Rebel XT (same sensor as the 20D, or very similar) and a 5D III.

The difference in image quality is not as great as I'd expected. At a given ISO between 100 and 1600, per pixel, the cameras perform within a stop or so of each other, which is surprising given how new the 5D III is and that they have similar pixel density. As regards sharpness, the Rebel is about as good for a 8x12 as the Mark III is for a 12X18, I would guess, and at the same print size the 5D III probably has over a stop advantage in terms of how clean the image is, nearly two stops. It has a bit more dynamic range.

For some bizarre reason the Rebel XT seems to handle JPEGs better, while the 5D seems soft per-pixel. I don't know why.

The Mark III has a beautiful finder, amazing fast autofocus, great build quality, and a nice LCD. Full frame gives a really special look with fast 35mm and 50mm lenses (and 135mm lenses, too, I think). I think you will not use your 20D much after getting the Mark III. It's a very nice camera.

Third Party Manufacturers / Re: Red Dragon Sensor
« on: January 01, 2013, 05:57:33 PM »
But skin tones and foliage will still look like plastic.

Still kind of amazing, though. It's odd that red's weaknesses (high ISO and color rendering) are every other manufacturer's strengths... I guess you can't have it all.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: December 30, 2012, 12:21:54 AM »
I pushed and pulled at Alexa footage, but I couldn't get macroblocking or posterization or over-saturation -- or anything. I'm sure there's a difference compared with RAW, especially with regard to resolution -- after all Avengers and Skyfall were shot on arriraw but for 4k exhibition -- but it's trivial for tv, and prores is very fast and easy to work with and the baked in colors look beautiful. Alexa footage looks just like carefully developed 5219 film, down to the halation filter and "glow," except the grain structure is a bit different and it's much cleaner. Red has less latitude, despite being RAW, unless you enable one of the HDR modes.

It seems Canon's got a stop more highlights in c log on the c300 than in jpegs from their dSLRs, so that's a step in the right direction, but it's not nearly enough, not even close to the Alexa from what I've seen. I'm on board with what RAW promises (more highlight detail and a better image) but I'm just too lazy to make my computer do all the work when the camera can do it and get 99% as good a result. Out of camera JPEGs are a delivery format. Log on the Alexa and F3 are intermediate formats, meant for flexibility. Unfortunately only the Alexa (and maybe the F3 with s log and an external recorder) offer this combination of ease of use and IQ. Otherwise you have to pick your poison, and Canon's poison is reduced latitude, but still better than its dSLRS it seems. I personally dislike how red footage looks, but it's technically excellent and can look good with enough work in post. Prometheus looked amazing--the c300 won't do that! But it's for a different market, and the Scarlet and BMCC are already price-competitive.

Also remember that even redcode is compressed and a very detailed scene can induce artifacting with it.

Fwiw, I shoot stills in RAW, but I'm a bad photographer for the most part! It's just an indulgence since I like playing in photoshop and there's a lot more highlight detail there. For short form content I can see the Scarlet, for instance, being a lot of fun. For a feature, I'd dread the workflow.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: December 29, 2012, 07:46:39 PM »
^I think you're conflating sensor quality with codec quality. To make a long story short, if everything you said about raw is true then photographers wouldn't bother with raw either.

And as far as the advantages of downscaling go, look at the footage coming off the BMC that's been properly graded. It's easily as good as the c300 (8MP vs. 2.5MP).  And the downscaling helps reduce some  artifacts, but it doesn't make it sharper necessarily.

Yes. It does. The nyquist sampling theorem states that if a system samples at a given frequency then it can record half that frequency accurately without aliasing. So a 4k sensor array can resolve a perfect 2k image without aliasing. But most people don't care about a little aliasing, which is why, as you point out, the BMCC can resolve 1080p nearly as well as the C300. A bayer chip can resolve 70% or more of its stated resolution if you don't mind aliasing. The BMCC is reported to exhibit pretty bad aliasing. (Even the Alexa, a 2.5k array, has a bit of aliasing, but it's really minor.)

When you work in photoshop, you're not working in RAW. Your end product, even if it's a TIFF that's going to print, isn't RAW. The advantage of a RAW workflow is flexibility at the cost of speed. Not so much image quality. The data will be processed and turned into RGB (or whatever your colorspace) pixels eventually. But in theory, RAW will always be the most flexible format. I think we can agree on that. Flexible does not mean best. If I sacrifice a tiny bit of flexibility with the Alexa by shooting prores instead of arriraw, I get insignificantly less resolution, a codec that actually edits in real time, and the same latitude as I had before. A competent shooter handing footage to a competent post house will produce the exact same image on that camera whether using prores or RAW (totally impossible to differentiate) assuming the exhibition medium is tv. For theatrical 4k projection, RAW will offer a very small amount more resolution (but not a lot, Arri has just added 2k prores video so theatrical shooters don't have to bother with what a pain in the ass arriraw is). Only the most inept shooter, totally bungling white balance and exposure, will notice any significant difference. Or the most brilliant shooter--Deakins claimed he noticed a slight, nearly imperceptible resolution edge when screening Skyfall tests shot on arriraw and upscaled for IMAX, though no difference in DR as compared with prores. Fwiw, it all looked much better than Red's 5k, used on some additional photography. The bigger difference is that prores files will be vastly faster to process. High end video doesn't look like a compressed JPEG (which is designed for delivery, not as an intermediate format); it's very flat and much less compressed. Some day when computers are way faster there may be an advantage to RAW video that outweighs the disadvantage in speed that comes from working with it, but how much Alexa footage is shot in arriraw vs prores? Very, very little. Game of Thrones looks fine to me. In Time looked fine and that was recorded in uncompressed HD video, not arriraw. Red forces you to use RAW but most producers wish it didn't.

Furthermore, it's not JUST sensor quality. The Alexa has a fine sensor, but it's the video processing (colors that emulate 5219 stock extremely accurately, high and low gain path merging, how the prores codec is implemented) that matter. And a poor RAW developer (just look at how many permutations redcine has been through to arrive at its current implementation, which produces rather boring colors) can be problematic; not everything is as good as Adobe's plug in, which is slow. Arri's in-camera software is better than any results you can get out of red's RAW developer. You need a Pablo or Da Vinci system to get a decent look out of that camera, and even then it's not ideal.

Have you used any of these cameras or are you just reading specs online? Granted the one camera you mention that I haven't used (the BMCC) does seem to have the best IQ for the money by far. So if that's your only concern, go ahead and buy one. Canon isn't catering to the testbed-in-a-box Frankenstein's camera market (not necessarily a bad thing, just a pain in the ass for both shooters and in post). Black Magic and Red have that covered.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: December 29, 2012, 04:02:21 PM »

From the perspective of post, both RAW and 4k are a pain in the ass. The Alexa (which has an image sharper than 35mm when shot at 2.5k RAW and very close at 1080p). is so popular because of this. It's what's used on most new TV productions and its image is generally more pleasing than the Red's. It's easier to work with, too. Why do you need better than that? Are your videos going theatrical? Are your clients screening at 4k? We don't even have affordable 4k monitors to post on. There will be a significant market for 4k video some day soon, but until then "true" 1080p is extremely sharp, and a $6000 C100 is cheap enough that replacing it in five years (without replacing any lenses) won't break the bank.

I think your perception of the advantages of Raw are all wrong. In a way, it's easier for big budget productions to get away with not shooting in raw because they can light everything very well on set. For the indie guy, Raw affords the artist a lot of latitude to nail the proper exposure and WB in post. Just like film, there is more detail to recover in the shadows and highlights using RAW.

In short, Raw offers the same advantages for cinema as it does for photography, and these advantages are far from trivial.

Now, i agree that it can be a pain in the ass in post, but if you get the right workstation it's easily managed.  And within a couple of years the firepower needed to handle the Raw workflow (at least in 1080) will become standard issue.

What leads you to believe any of that? The Alexa has far better latitude than the Epic and is MUCH easier to light for; DPs I've worked with who've worked with both always say as much, and I've been on set with the two as A/B cams and the difference in highlight rendering is very dramatic in the Alexa's favor, despite it recording Prores 444 (at 10 bit) and not 14 bit RAW. This is because the Alexa has two gain paths and it merges a tremendous amount of information into one high quality, very gradeable flat image. I've posted extensively on both Alexa and Red (for TV, in 1080p) and the Alexa footage is much more flexible with better latitude. The only situation in which RAW offered me an advantage was when white balance was totally off, but that's a sign of an incompetent DP.

What experience has led you to believe what you've written? Because it contradicts what everyone else who has used those two cameras has found. The footage coming out of the Alexa looks nothing like your dSLR jpegs. It's flat and in a true log colorspace and has more latitude by far than any other video or still system.

Furthermore, 1080p raw would be a terrible format to work in; the "real" resolution would be 2/3s that at best. And 4k raw downscaled to 1080p takes all the horsepower of debayering and then the horsepower of downscaling for a deliverable that will ultimately not be much sharper than "true" 1080p (like out of the c100 and c300) in the first place. Those are "4k" bayer cameras; they just do an immediate conversion to "true" 1080p; unfortunately they have fake log curves and poor dynamic range. Fwiw, I've rendered hours of red footage (both in 4k and quad hd) on super high end mac pro work stations maxed out with ram and it takes days and days without red's $5,000 proprietary card. With CUDA you could surely get real time 1080p raw, but that's got the equivalent sharpness of 720p at best. You're talking out your ass about this stuff, frankly. Some day something similar will be here, but it's not as close as we think and in that time you can recoup the low cost of a camera system purchase (spend more money on the lenses than the camera).

Rent an Alexa. Rent an Epic. Shoot difficult footage side by side. Post side by side. Then get back to me on how much inherently better RAW is than Prores.

EOS Bodies / Re: A New Cinema EOS DSLR Body in 2013? [CR1]
« on: December 28, 2012, 06:48:19 PM »
1080p is IMO sufficient for 99% of all applications and if 1080p beamers in GOOD quality are roughly 1000 EUR/$ we will wait another 10 years.

I agree. 1080p looks surprisingly very good, even on a big screen. A whole generation of movies (the vast majority of DIs from the past decade) were done at 2k or a least with VFX done at 2k (2048X1080 at 1.85:1), so if 4k media requires 4k resolution then we are in trouble. The difference between a 2k and 4k scan is pretty trivial and has more to do with avoiding aliasing (oversampling) than producing signifiant additional sharpness. First generation 35mm prints have significantly more resolution than 1080p video, but the sharpness (area under the mtf curve) is not that different. Toy Story was originally rendered just above 720p. Most theatrical prints have around the same resolution as 720p video after they've played for a little while and on imperfectly calibrated projectors. I don't think 4k content distributors will ignore any movie posted in 2k so we will get 4k releases of movies posted in 2k the same way we have blu rays of 28 Days Later. Remember Avatar was shot at 1080p. But 4k is important for marketing because 3D HDTVs failed to catch on. It is also important from the perspective of camera marketing. Red has banked their whole business on it.

And, fwiw, the C300 and C100 shoot at 8MP resolution (4k), then downsampling to 1080p. And lenses show their full MTF. So the perceptual sharpness is much higher than a 1080p crop from a still image.

From the perspective of post, both RAW and 4k are a pain in the ass. The Alexa (which has an image sharper than 35mm when shot at 2.5k RAW and very close at 1080p). is so popular because of this. It's what's used on most new TV productions and its image is generally more pleasing than the Red's. It's easier to work with, too. Why do you need better than that? Are your videos going theatrical? Are your clients screening at 4k? We don't even have affordable 4k monitors to post on. There will be a significant market for 4k video some day soon, but until then "true" 1080p is extremely sharp, and a $6000 C100 is cheap enough that replacing it in five years (without replacing any lenses) won't break the bank.

RAW does have some value. Even Canon's "C" line has poor dynamic range. But the Alexa has the same latitude in arriraw as it does in prores and its prores444 can handle crazy grading, despite only being 10 bit. The video out of Canon's dSLRs is relatively poor compared with true high end video. Even very good 1080p is a huge step up. Don't think 1080p and associate that with the mediocre (but impressive for the money) video from the 5D Mark III.

Personally, RAW and 4k I'd rather not have. Too much work in post for insignificant advantages if you shoot half competently in the first place. I do wish Canon could manage better dynamic range and 10-bit HDMI out. I'm considering buying a C100 but a 7DC or somesuch could prove even more compelling just by virtue of likely being half the price and maybe having a more robust codec.

Those who need 4k and RAW can easily buy a Scarlet at a very good price.

Lenses / Re: New lenses for 46mp camera?
« on: December 24, 2012, 11:25:18 AM »
Not all lenses perform very well with the new camera.

But the "workhorse" lenses like the EF 24-70 f/2.8 II L do the job very good.

Interesting... Here's the hoping the 45mm TS-E II comes out soon and delivers good performance... My new most-wanted lens. (Well, maybe the 200mm f2 IS, but who's counting.)

I've long read how most of the current lenses are more than capable of out resolving anything on the MP horizon, and I thought it very likely to be true, but when i look at DXO's "mpix" rating of lenses, i start to wonder.
BTW-I'm ISF certified, yet i have no idea what a quad-HD television is, but i don't disagree with Bob's point.

Their megapixel ratings don't make sense to me... are they meant to be wide open (I can't find any reference to them except briefly in a dpreview article). Anyhow, it just seems like MTF stuff. Like it will always be lower unless it's 100% all the way to extinction at the camera's highest resolution, and nothing really achieves that.

Canon General / Re: Canon sent me an opinion survey
« on: December 23, 2012, 07:04:00 PM »
I got one, too! Canon seems to love to send me these.

I shoot on a 5D Mark III, but I put down a cheap EF-S 35mm f1.8 for my APS-C buddies.

Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16 17 ... 30