July 31, 2014, 07:12:46 PM

Author Topic: 7D vs 5Diii for video?  (Read 7256 times)

cinema-dslr

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #15 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.
Canon eos C100+ninja2 ninjablade, 7D, 40d, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2,8L, 100 f2,8L is macro , ef-s 10-22, sigma 28f1,8 macro, samyang 8 f3,5 fisheye, tamron 70-200 f2,8 macro, sigma 18-35 f1,8 Art

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #15 on: October 11, 2013, 08:07:13 PM »

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #16 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.


cinema-dslr

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #17 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
« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 07:10:24 AM by cinema-dslr »
Canon eos C100+ninja2 ninjablade, 7D, 40d, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2,8L, 100 f2,8L is macro , ef-s 10-22, sigma 28f1,8 macro, samyang 8 f3,5 fisheye, tamron 70-200 f2,8 macro, sigma 18-35 f1,8 Art

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #18 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.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3310
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #19 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).





« Last Edit: October 12, 2013, 04:19:02 PM by LetTheRightLensIn »

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #20 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.

paul13walnut5

  • Guest
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #21 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.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #21 on: October 17, 2013, 12:04:36 PM »

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3310
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #22 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.
« Last Edit: October 18, 2013, 04:46:39 AM by LetTheRightLensIn »

Janbo Makimbo

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 161
  • 6D
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2013, 02:58:20 AM »
Get a life!!

joema

  • Power Shot G16
  • **
  • Posts: 21
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #24 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

Discussion: 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.

cinema-dslr

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #25 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.
Canon eos C100+ninja2 ninjablade, 7D, 40d, 17-40 f4L, 24-70 f2,8L, 100 f2,8L is macro , ef-s 10-22, sigma 28f1,8 macro, samyang 8 f3,5 fisheye, tamron 70-200 f2,8 macro, sigma 18-35 f1,8 Art

syder

  • Rebel T5i
  • ****
  • Posts: 106
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #26 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/

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

Discussion: 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.

LetTheRightLensIn

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3310
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #27 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/


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

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #27 on: October 20, 2013, 10:24:30 PM »

Nishi Drew

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 254
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #28 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

Axilrod

  • 1D X
  • *******
  • Posts: 1372
    • View Profile
Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #29 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  ;).
5DIII/5DII/Bunch of L's and ZE's, currently rearranging.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 7D vs 5Diii for video?
« Reply #29 on: November 06, 2013, 05:42:50 PM »