Messages

16

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

« on: March 25, 2013, 06:53:12 PM »

The camera handles like crap, it's really heavy and even with the handles didn't feel great.  Rent one and check it out, but make sure you try to edit some of the footage, even 60 seconds of footage and you'll see really quick what a pain it is.  Believe me I was as pumped about this camera as anyone and mine actually came in last week but I passed on it.  Might get the MFT in the future but there are just too many issues with the EF.

And some of the posters are giving excellent feedback on the camera itself, but I'm looking at the camera AND what you'll be using it for (which is arguably more important).  You're not doing occasional studio shoots, you're doing real estate videos, which means you'll be shooting a lot and very frequently.  Battery life would also be a big issue in your case, since the internal battery lasts maybe an hour.  Also consider that you won't be shooting real estate videos in 2.5K RAW, it's just going to slow you down way too much, so try and take that spec out of the equation and look at it as just 1080p ProRes.

Fair points, all. I don't find raw as cumbersome as you seemed to. Perhaps my two-year-old machine is faster than the one you had available. The dynamic range of this camera still shows in the 10-bit 4:2:2 encoded files. Again, ProRes or DNxHD puts little extra burden on the workflow than the C100. Perhaps a bit more storage space, but with a benefit.

You point about the camera handling different than a proper video cam or a DSLR is also fair. It is clunky. A shoulder rig, slider, or tripod are a must. Whether Cgdillan uses these anyway is something he must consider.

Curious as to what issues the MFT version overcomes for you, given the issues you claim of the camera? None of those issues are changed in the MFT version. Is it just that the extra benefits of the MFT lenses (e.g., wider and/or faster) helps to further justify putting up with the costs you cite? I can understand that. Otherwise, you seemed very negative on the camera for certain reasons, only then to say that you might get one again in the future when none of those issues will be addressed.

In the end, I agree with you Axilrod. For a day-in, day-out workhorse (perhaps closer to run'n'gun), these issues might outweigh the image. A camera must be practical for its purpose. That's why my initial reaction to the OP was quite negative on the issue. Until I saw what I saw on my monitor. I'm just in love with the image this camera produces.

17

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: No 30fps in the video menu in my 5d3

« on: March 20, 2013, 07:35:36 AM »

Check the country settings. What are they?
What framerates do you have available?

18

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

« on: March 19, 2013, 09:13:06 PM »

Cgdillan - here's what you requested. I set the iris on the BMCC so that the outdoors were not clipping (i.e., I exposed for the out-the-window shot). I raised the shadows in Resolve. My skills and bringing up the shadows and making this look decent aren't great, but perhaps this will help you decide whether to rent the cam to see for yourself.

http://youtu.be/QeJGcoc7UeY
	Small | Large

19

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

« on: March 16, 2013, 03:24:49 PM »

That doesn't sound too bad. You just confused my decision a little bit more. haha. How do you feel the camera handles? picking your f/stop and shutter and ISO? Is it not as bad as some have made it sound? I really want to see a shot a bright sunny day with al the lights on indoor in any room, and in post, push the shadows way up and bring the highlights way down. I imagine I would expose more for the interior as its most important, but still under expose to be able to capture the exterior. If you were able to do that, that would really be awesome. do you think it's a camera that could be used on hand held glide cam? or is it too heavy? I will likely be renting one soon after hearing your thoughts. any suggestions on workflow for if/or when I rent it?

Cgdillan - check your PM box. I rendered out my video from a few days back. I didn't want to post the quick video publicly, as it was of my messy kitchen!

I don't have any issues with how the camera handles as far as functionality. My understanding of this camera is that, unlike DSLRs, it effectively has only ISO 800. That is, it gets its full dynamic range at ISO 800 and the other ISO's push/pull from there, losing a stop of DR for each ISO. The other ISO choices (400, 1600, and 3200) do not affect the raw file (their only stored as metadata). Therefore, choice of ISO only affects how the image is interpreted before being compressed in the compressed formats (ProRes and DNxHD). Therefore, I don't plan on ever changing the ISO for raw shooting and will be reluctant to do so when shooting DNxHD.

I was pleasantly surprised by how easy it is to change f-stops. I think I was surprised because, prior to the latest firmware, the original release of the camera did not report the f-stop. The current firmware does report the f-stop (for all of my lenses, at least) and never failed. You just push + or - to adjust. There is an iris button that opens the aperture to the widest point before clipping the highlights. This is useful, since this camera benefits from exposing as "bright" (i.e., open, wide, much to the right,...) as possible, then pulling down the exposure in post to what you want it to be. This gives the cleanest image. Shutter is in angle (not speed), so it is a bit cumbersome. I use it at 180, but it is easy to change by going into the menu (not with buttons). Note: ISO and shutter are in the menu, f-stop is by hard buttons.

I haven't put it on my glidecam yet. If you have one that has a harness/body support, then it probably isn't too heavy. If you're strong, it probably isn't too heavy. But, it is heavy. I bet it would be fine on a glider with a lightweight lens (e.g., the Tokina 11-16) for short shots.

Workflow: I'm working this out myself. The workflow with DNxHD or ProRes are no different than what you'd do with DSLR footage. With raw, your first stop is something that handles the .dng files. Photoshop, Lightroom, After Effects, Premier Pro, or Resolve (others?). I've used Resolve and Photoshop. Resolve Lite is free and it handles these files fine. Open in Resolve, adjust levels and color correct, then render it out to a compressed format to cut/edit just as you would any other camera's files. The nice thing is, you can choose different formats (even 10-bit 4:2:2 or 4:4:4), allowing more color correction in your NLE, if you don't want to come back to Resolve. You can round trip back to Resolve if you like, giving you access to the raw files again. This is easy in Premiere Pro and Final Cut. Resolve is great and very powerful. I use Sony Vegas Pro, so I'm still working out some kinks (due to Vegas, I think). So, at best, there is one extra step in "developing" the raw files. You can add more steps for more fine adjustments or to suit your objectives. Having this flexibility is why I wanted and love this camera. And yes, you need SSD's and lots of storage. 5 MB per frame. A reasonably fast computer helps, too. Resolve Lite seemed faster on my machine than the full version of Resolve.

Just my thoughts after less than a week with the camera (and 6 months of anticipation).

20

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

« on: March 16, 2013, 10:33:01 AM »

I just received my BMCC earlier this week (thanks, Adorama!). I thought I'd revisit this thread with some thoughts after playing around with the camera and its files a little. These are still quite initial impressions - so it is FWIW, as always.

First, I am blown away at the dynamic range. Just playing around with the camera, I was taking a few shots of my wife in our kitchen during midday. The kitchen had no lights on - just what was coming in through the windows. I exposed to for the highlights (out the window) and indoor details were still discernible. Not well-exposed, mind you. But, discernible. Far better than I'd ever get with the 5D3. So, I think this might accomplish what the OP intended with regard to having both out-the-window detail and (some) indoor detail. Cgdillan - if there are any specific shots you'd like me to try, I can do so (I learn more every time I use the camera).

Second, the color is just amazing. Colors are so spot on compared to what I'm used to with Canon DSLRs. Not that I hate the colors of the DSLRs. It is just that the skin tones and colors are more natural on this camera. Add to that the flexibility of the color grading using raw, and it really is great if you can stomach/afford the workflow.

Finally, the camera is heavy and bulky compared to even the 5D3. The "bulky" statement comes from the feeling that the camera is just not as balanced as I'm used to with the 5D3. But, it isn't meant to be. It is a cinema camera.

For the OP's question, my suggestion would be to rent one and try it. I know that Lensrentals carries it.

21

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Fixing video shot with the wrong shutter speed

« on: March 09, 2013, 09:08:16 AM »

No.

If I understand your problem, it is that you had a lower shutter speed than you would have liked. My assumption is that you got more motion blur than you would like. So, your question amounts to, "Can I remove motion blur?" As far as I know, the answer is no. You can try using a sharpen or unsharp mask filter in your NLE to try to get some sharpness back. However, the sharpness and detail isn't there in the first place, so I doubt this will help.

22

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

« on: March 07, 2013, 10:31:33 PM »

Please forgive the noob question..what does HTP stand for?

Highlight Tone Priority

It is supposed to add a bit of latitude in the highlights. The cost comes in noise. I tried it once and the result was just horrible. Never touched it again!

23

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

« on: March 07, 2013, 07:29:58 AM »

The dynamic range of the BMCC is what I'm really excited about. I have a BMCC on order since the fall. However, axilrod brings up the key issues that I would be concerned with for real estate. Also, the wait with the BMCC is becoming quite frustrating. What has become clear to me is that they simply are not producing the BMCC in large quantities. Unless their production increases significantly over what it has been over the last 4 months, it seems that it might be a long-long time before people who order today receive their cameras.

You said that you are mainly concerned about the high DR shots in which you have plenty of time to set it up. Here's an off-the-wall idea. Get a slider (you probably have one already) with a very good motion control unit. Shoot the same shot at two exposures with your 5D3. Edit the footage together to have the "out the window" shot from the lower exposure and the interior from the higher exposure. HDR video.

24

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

« on: March 06, 2013, 05:27:48 PM »

No, the same rules of ISO for stills do not apply exactly to video. First, the 160 rule only applies to video. Second, the noise reduction in video can be altogether different. The resolution of video is so much smaller than that of stills, that the image doesn't start looking bad until much higher ISO's, in my experience. Finally, it depends on the resolution that you will finally deliver the video. If you deliver web-based 720p, then you can get by with quite a bit of ISO noise before it becomes too detrimental to the picture, depending on the content, of course.

With the 5D Mark III, I have found ISO up to 640 to be very clean and ISO 320 and ISO 160 are totally indistinguishable to me. I don't even think twice about ISO 640. Beyond 640, I'll use 1250 and 1600 without worrying about it much, if at all; and I have used 3200 in really low light. If I'm lighting it, then I have had no problem getting enough light to use 160, 320, or 640 (if I want a high f-stop for deep depth of field).

Here's a "test" (not really a test in that it isn't a realistic shooting situation) showing the character of the ISO noise:

5D Mark III ISO Noise on Vimeo	Small | Large

Here's a video that I shot with the 5D Mark III (mostly cooking). I didn't add any lighting. https://vimeo.com/54664939. The bulk of the video was shot at ISO 640. Some shots were at 160, some at 320, and some at 1250. Can you tell which ones? I couldn't. I had to look at DPP. Looking at the original ISO 1250 clips, they look perfect to me. The key is getting good exposure.

25

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Overexposure problems when using Marvels Cinestyle v 3.4

« on: February 27, 2013, 03:36:20 PM »

The alpha version that I'm using does not auto-boot. You must load it each time you want to use it by going into the Canon menu and selecting Firmware update. Not a huge deal. The nice thing is that it can be on your SD card and only loaded when you need/want it.

Also, the alpha that I was using on the 5D3 is quite conservative in not writing over Canon settings. Thus, there are key ML features that aren't there right now. But, for me, having focus peaking, zoom, histogram, and vectorscope make it very useful and address a lot of shortcomings on the 5D3 with respect to video.

26

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: MANUAL FOCUS... how do you know you got it perfect!?

« on: February 27, 2013, 03:31:11 PM »

I focus prior to hitting the record button. To do so, just zoom in using the magnify function. Set the focus, then hit record.

To focus during recording, things are not so easy. I use a viewfinder, which does help. The one I use is fairly inexpensive (around USD100) and is called the LCDVF. This magnifies the LCD screen and makes it visible in daylight (plus adds a bit of stability if shooting hand-held). Still, getting precise focus this way is fairly challenging. I can almost do it on my 5D3, which has a better LCD than the one on the 60D, I think.

As is pointed out many times here, DSLR's are not substitutes for traditional video cameras, especially when it comes to the need to change focus during the recording.

There are other methods that use a firmware hack, called Magic Lantern. But, that's opening up a can of worms that you might not be interested in. If you are, try searching on "Magic Lantern Focus Peaking" in Google and you'll find plenty of information. If you have questions about that, I and others here will be happy to respond.

27

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Overexposure problems when using Marvels Cinestyle v 3.4

« on: February 27, 2013, 07:34:58 AM »

Thank you!!

Are you using a 5D3 with one of the beta versions of ML ?

You're welcome. Yes, I've been using the the ML 5D3 beta. Whenever I use the 5D3 for video, I've been using the ML beta. Unfortunately, I haven't had the time to shoot much video recently.

Good luck!

28

EOS Bodies - For Video / Re: Overexposure problems when using Marvels Cinestyle v 3.4

« on: February 24, 2013, 08:47:55 AM »

cayenne - I read over your other thread, too - so I'll respond to a couple of things.

First, to your question here: yes, I tend to underexpose (according to the camera's meter) when using Marvel. Actually, I rarely even refer to the in-camera meter. Rather, I use the histogram to set my exposure. As Axilrod suggests in the other thread, it is often desirable to preserve the highlights. The only way you can do this is to use the histogram. Also, the histogram I use is Magic Lantern's, which has a very helpful clipping indicator and a way to set/change white balance (and a vectorscope, if you prefer to set white balance by looking at the vectorscope).

Second, I prefer Marvel as a "flat" style compared to Techinicolo Cinestyle in many circumstances because it isn't so flat that you must do a ton of work in post to get some contrast back. However, Marvel is flat enough to preserve some shadow detail and some highlight detail in my experience. Properly exposed (as you are seeing), Marvel looks pretty good out of the camera, yet holds up nicely in grading. 

Regarding the lack of LUT for Cinestyle: I never used a LUT and was pretty happy with what I could get Cinestyle to achieve. The problem is that I HAD to apply something to every clip and I sometimes suffered problems with banding because I was stretching so much. My point is that, without a LUT, you get most of the way there by adding back a lot of contrast with either a contrast adjustment or by using curves and adding an S-like shape to the curve. Then, tweak to taste.

29

Lighting / Re: Advice on lighting set up in kitchen for video with 5D3

« on: February 01, 2013, 08:41:22 PM »

Can you forgive a noob question, but what is CRI? What does it stand for and how does it affect things and how does it work with respect to color temperature?

Here's a link for CRI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index

My pedestrian understanding is that the CRI measures the amount of true color (or the amount of the full spectrum) that the light source will provide (setting aside white balance). The higher the number, the more true the color representation. The lower the number, the worse. My mental model for low CRI is a light in a parking garage in which everything under it only looks green or blue-green, or a street light in which everything only looks orange. The same applies to many household or office fluoros (and CFLs) that seem to muddy the colors, even to the naked eye. This was my caution against common household CFLs, especially warm ones. My experience is that they make getting appealing color out of your recordings fairly difficult, even if you have white-balanced and temperature-matched the lighting sources. My concern is especially keen here since you are shooting food, in which color perception affects people's perception of how well it is prepared or how fresh it is.

I've seen some suggest that you can get away with having the high CRI source as primary source of light, and the CRI of fill and accent lights is not as critical. I'm personally skeptical of that.

I'm with Paul. There is a science here (not that I fully understand it).

I try to follow the advice that we spend a lot of money on cameras and lenses, and we should spend what is needed in time and money on lighting to get the most out of the camera and lenses.

30

Lighting / Re: Advice on lighting set up in kitchen for video with 5D3

« on: February 01, 2013, 06:29:30 PM »

I used a lot of CFL's in my light kit. I love them because of how cool (meaning, not hot) they are. I even bought several boxes at different color temps to help me match to the practicals when shooting in various locations. For example, my daughter's school has fluoros that are around 3500k, so I can use my 3500k's to match there. In my house, I have some household "warm" CFL's that are around 2700k and come in handy rather than trying to gel or switch out the bulbs in the practicals.

Having said that, there is cost in terms of color that you will pay when using CFLs. In my experience, that cost in terms of color rendering gets higher, the lower (warmer) the temp of the CFL due to them having a lower CRI. Most "photo" and "full spectrum" CFL's are 5000k or 5500k (or higher). So, I've now bought a set of gets, rather than having the different temp CFL's. The only high CRI CFL's that I have found in a "tungsten" temp are those by KinoFlo (at $25 per 26 watt CFL ~ 100 watt incadescent equivalent). I haven't bought them yet, but they will be the next bulbs I buy.

Since you are shooting food (I assume, since its a cooking show), I think you'll really want to capture as full a color spectrum as possible. Therefore, gelling the CFL's you have, as suggested by Dantana, is probably preferred to getting warmer CFL's that are likely to have a lower CRI. Of course, if you bought your current CFL's at home improvement store, they may or may not have a high CRI.

B&H has a lot of gels. You want to look for CTO gels. Each 12"x20" sheet cost about $6, plus shipping.

Also, a handy web reference that I have found for calculating the gels you need is this:
http://www.leefilters.com/lighting/mired-shift-calculator.html