October 01, 2014, 09:04:10 AM

Author Topic: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study  (Read 12809 times)

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2013, 07:35:45 AM »
If you prefer sticking with in-camera H264, by all means, enjoy your time-tested workflow. For me however, Raw will give me a competitive advantage  and will help me gain access to a more lucrative market segment.
It could have to do with me coming from stills photography and thus being used to dealing with raw, but personally, I find it MUCH less time consuming to grade Raw rather than the stock H264. I don't really care about the time spend on converting files as I just work on something else meanwhile (eg. titles, sound etc.)
Either way, being skeptic at this point of development seems just outright silly... Great attention is currently being devoted to multiple different developments (in-camera bit shifting to 12/10bit, easy generation of proxy clips, automated/scripted workflows etc. etc)
As to canons design choices, besides from their corporate structure, could have to do with memory card speeds as well?
Anyways, I am stoked but I guess YMMV and so on...
5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #30 on: May 31, 2013, 07:35:45 AM »

hutjeflut

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #31 on: May 31, 2013, 08:07:53 AM »
magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.


the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #32 on: May 31, 2013, 10:43:05 AM »
Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.

Give it a real try and you will NOT say that.

It depends what you mean by a real try... On a typical day I might shoot 150 clips. Processing each one of those using the current methods for getting raw video out the 5dm3 would be 1) a massive pain in the ass 2) so time consuming that it isn't worthwhile for anyone actually making professional work.

At the moment it's amazing for hobbyists (or other people for whom time doesn't equal money) - but unusable for anyone who makes videos for a living.
There are professionals who shoot RAW and make a living doing so. Whats the difference between the other cameras RAW and the 5d3's?

The ONE step of dragging your RAW clips to raw2dng???
ok.

One can only assume that you've never shot anything using a RAW camcorder or don't understand the ML workflow...

Nothing else requires you to 1st compile a dng sequence into a clip (as you point out) and then compile the DNG files into a sequence (using something like AEX) - a process which is massively computationally intensive (and yes i do have an unlocked and overclocked i7 workstation with 32gb of RAM and a CUDA graphics card) and enormously time consuming.

Using a BMC you can go straight to Resolve, perform a quick grade and render your footage as something edit friendly (dnxhd or similar). No processing RAW to DNG. No turning stills into a sequence. And BM are learning from their mistake with their 1st gen camera that uncompressed RAW is a massive resource hog that no-one wants to deal with.

 


How much time do you currently spend, on footage from you shoots in post? I'm talking total time from editing, to color correction to color grading....sound...etc?

Just curious, I mean, for most people it isnt' like they shoot, and BAM, have a finished product out the door in 1-2 hours later.

I usually take a good bit of time auditioning takes, sync'ing or dubbing sound, layering on effects, titles...hell, just figuring out the music for things takes time, etc.


As an editor the vast majority of my time is spent... Editing (shock horror). Color correction and grading are the same thing and actually take very little time (even using something like resolve to make a load of secondary corrections - which is more work than a lot of work actually needs). Titles likewise (unless you're talking about some fiendishly complex motion graphics).

When clients pay for my time as an editor they want to have stories told in a compelling way. They're happy to get some work done on grading, motion graphics etc, but that isn't where the majority of an editor's time should be spent, and adding a few days to a project to manually compile the RAW stills into the 600 clips that become a 30 minute documentary is a waste of time.

If you need RAW for your high-budget work rent a Red camera for your shoot. If you want RAW but cant cough up the cash for a Red for your indie work buy a BMC (amazingly cheap for what it does, but has some big limitations outside of fiction work imo). If you're a hobbyist with loads of free time (or just someone who doesn't shoot very much) use the ML RAW.

Phillip Bloom has quite a good post about why the vast majority of people don't need RAW or 4K at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/05/28/4kraw/ he's pretty much spot on.

magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.


the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso

You cant output RAW video... Anything you see online will be graded and exported before being compressed for streaming on Vimeo/Youtube


InterMurph

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #33 on: May 31, 2013, 11:12:55 AM »
Had Canon of brought this out in the mainstream model, it is highly likely that they would have received a large number of complaints/returns because people would expect it to work with all CF cards.
Canon will not add a raw-video-to-CF-card feature to the 5D Mark III because it is unreliable.

The Magic Lantern folks have done remarkable work, but they have discovered that 1) most CF cards can't handle the throughput, and 2) even the CF cards that can handle it cannot do so reliably.

If Canon ever releases a DSLR with raw-video-to-CF-card support, it will likely be with lossless video compression.  The CPU in these cameras is not up to that task, so it would have to be added in hardware (to the DIGIC chip).

Compressed raw video could then be written to CF cards reliably.  And then Adobe et al can write code that imports this compressed raw video.

And then we will all be happy.  In three years.  After we buy another camera...

Jent

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #34 on: May 31, 2013, 02:17:19 PM »
I agree with Syder.

This looks like a MASSIVE P.I.T.A. just to get a few minutes of footage at enormous file sizes.  YES it looks great. And YES it will look greater if your film makes it to blow up on a big theater screen.  However, with people compiling 40-50GB of memory for only 8min (many only achieve 10 or so seconds in the rez they want) of footage all the while converting, color grading, uprezzing, break dancing and dosey doeing to do it, I'll pass or wait until ML works out the kinks. I own a 5D Mark II and have seen people going through HELL to get this thing to work right.  I've seen the MkII shoot RAW at 1880X860.  And while it's beautiful to look at, it's eating up memory, and there is no 1920X1080 (1:85) resolution which is what I want.  It's good to know it's possible, but it's not worth the hassle yet.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 02:31:13 PM by Jent »

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #35 on: May 31, 2013, 04:23:09 PM »
Yes, of course it is extra work over H.264, Blackmagic Prores, Canon Cinema, etc. But consider a few things...

Blackmagic is the only direct competitor. Let's stay away from apples-to-oranges debates. It's just an option. There are pluses and minuses to everything. If you are comparing the 5D3 to Red or Canon Cinema... you are comparing a Camry to a Porsche. Apples to oranges.

ML RAW is brand new. We just had a breakthrough and the situation is in flux. We won't know the final details of the RAW workflow until the dust settles and the development dominoes have all toppled. Who knows?... maybe there will be a plugin for Adobe or official support in CS7. Again, this is all completely new.

The Workflow. Will there be improvements to converting bundled DNGs to single files? Currently, the weakest link in the chain is the conversion of files in ACR/LR. A batch process here would save a lot of time (especially if it exported to single files, instead of bundles of files). It would be great to bypass ACR/LR altogether. The question is whether the resulting loss of quality would negate the benefits of conversion.

Hardware Requirements. Clearly this will require more than simply having a 5D3. It requires a very fast computer, lots of big drives, fast CF cards, etc. These are similar requirements to the BMCC (again, the only direct competitor).

The Editing Process. I agree that it would be unfair to dump thousands of DNGs on a full-time editor (who was previously receiving single files). Magic Lantern is camera firmware and, as such, I would see it as the responsibility of the shooter to supply the required format to the editor. In this regard, I think pushback from editors is good, because it will provide an impetus to improve the file conversion process.

Good times.
« Last Edit: May 31, 2013, 08:52:13 PM by dirtcastle »

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1212
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2013, 04:32:00 PM »
I agree with Syder.

This looks like a MASSIVE P.I.T.A. just to get a few minutes of footage at enormous file sizes.  YES it looks great. And YES it will look greater if your film makes it to blow up on a big theater screen.  However, with people compiling 40-50GB of memory for only 8min (many only achieve 10 or so seconds in the rez they want) of footage all the while converting, color grading, uprezzing, break dancing and dosey doeing to do it, I'll pass or wait until ML works out the kinks. I own a 5D Mark II and have seen people going through HELL to get this thing to work right.  I've seen the MkII shoot RAW at 1880X860.  And while it's beautiful to look at, it's eating up memory, and there is no 1920X1080 (1:85) resolution which is what I want.  It's good to know it's possible, but it's not worth the hassle yet.

Again a few things.

This stuff isn't even released as Alpha for the public...still under heavy first stages of development.

When it is more ready for primetime, I'm sure the output and tools for workflow will improve.

Also, the prime camera for using this in a regular fashion, for 1080p video...is the 5D3.
The older cameras will get some form of RAW, but it may or may not be useful for anything but special short footage shots, but looks like on the 5D3 you will be able to use this for real shooting (not long documentary style, but shoots where you shoot only a couple of mins at a time). I think as of now, you can get about 15 min on a 64GB card....nearly half an hour on the 128GB cards.

I figure with things I shoot..I could have one 64GB in the camera and the other unloading data in the computer...etc.

But again...this is in EARLY development stages....with a lot more work to be done and improvements along the way. It speaks loads that the ML folks have made this much progress this quickly.

Once they get the process in camera to a final stage, I expect them to then turn their attention to the external processes to get that output into a form quicker that will then fit into more normal workflows.

I forsee the end product to being something maybe where you take your Canon RAW output, run it through one app to put it into some type of commonly used RAW form, similar to what you get out of BM or Red cameras...and you use it then as you would those forms of footage.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #36 on: May 31, 2013, 04:32:00 PM »

Niki

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 120
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #37 on: May 31, 2013, 05:23:35 PM »
I have the the 5d mark III with good results...is the 5d mark II getting better or less results??

Drizzt321

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1670
    • View Profile
    • Aaron Baff Photography
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #38 on: May 31, 2013, 06:22:37 PM »
I have the the 5d mark III with good results...is the 5d mark II getting better or less results??

I think right now they're concentrating on the 5d3, getting that stable and refined, then looking at it on other cameras such as the 5D2 & 50D, and maybe the 6D.
5D mark 2, 5D mark 3, EF 17-40mm f/4L,  EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM, EF 135mm f/2L, EF 85mm f/1.8
Film Cameras: Mamiya RB67, RB-50, RB-180-C, RB-90-C, RB-50, Perkeo I folder, Mamiya Six Folder (Pre-WWII model)
http://www.aaronbaff.com

eyeland

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 143
  • Daybreak broke me loose and brought me back...
    • View Profile
    • Creative Consulting & Multimedia artistry ;)
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #39 on: June 01, 2013, 05:13:21 AM »
Haters gonna hate :)
Slightly off-topic: Even if you think raw video on 5D is a dud, you gotta admit that the prospects of turning the old 50D into a cinema camera (albeit not FHD) is wicked awesome. Granted, it does not give you the FF advantage, but apparently the 15MP sensor has its advantages too:)
Personally, I am quite exited about the prospects of doing in-camera slides and such, not just the raw capabilities.



5DIII+ML // 24-105L - 70-200 2.8L/2.8 IS II - 35/2 IS //\  AF/non-AF film bodies and lenses. (and half a darkroom in boxes:))

Jent

  • SX50 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #40 on: June 01, 2013, 02:00:37 PM »
LOL eyeland  ;D

In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW.  However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no.  Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash.  I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.

Plaid Zebra Films

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #41 on: June 01, 2013, 04:47:36 PM »
Here's my test video filmed in Big Sur on the beach. Not as scientific but beaches > than candles to look at. :)

https://vimeo.com/67422760

dirtcastle

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 391
    • View Profile
    • Eric Nord Flickr Page
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2013, 05:57:47 PM »
LOL eyeland  ;D

In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW.  However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no.  Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash.  I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.

That word "need" is a funny one. Six years ago, there was no "need" for a smartphone. Now everyone "needs" a smartphone. It might take more than six years for RAW video to be a "need". But it will probably happen.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #42 on: June 01, 2013, 05:57:47 PM »

cayenne

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1212
    • View Profile
Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2013, 11:58:37 PM »
LOL eyeland  ;D

In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW.  However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no.  Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash.  I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.

That word "need" is a funny one. Six years ago, there was no "need" for a smartphone. Now everyone "needs" a smartphone. It might take more than six years for RAW video to be a "need". But it will probably happen.

Yeah...I keep thinking that this color TV thing is still pretty much just a fad that will fade away myself....

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study
« Reply #43 on: June 01, 2013, 11:58:37 PM »