6D not usable for shooting video?

[paul13walnut5]

Read back in the thread, in my first answer I detail how to combat moire.

I'm sure the 5D3 is great, haven't had hands on yet, and of the DSLR's I'll take you at your informed word that it's one of the best. (haven't shot on the GH2 either to be fair, as a system it's just not on my map, wrong mount, would have to hire one to shoot on, nobody's renting, I'm confident in what I've already invested in, so I'm not going to buy another system)

My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.

Again I'll refer you back to my first answer.

Thanks for the heads up on the c100's hdmi, that is worth knowing, seems the HDCAM will still be getting a dusting down now and then when 10bit is demanded, still the c100's are probably going to be the workhorses for the next couple of years, unless the blackmagic guys go to s35 sometime very soon. Doubtful.

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[paul13walnut5]

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.

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

My core point is that all cameras have issues, the op picked up moire, the 5d3 will moire, as has any ccd or cmos camera I've used in the right (wrong) situation.

And The reason I never bought a 5d2 is exactly ad you've described,
ML had the hack as I was buying, but the wide angles were better (effective focal length for focal length) the jellio far less and the depth of field more managable, out the box pal, full hd video preview, better stills performance for my shooting etc etc.

If the answer is to buy a new camera then the question is all wrong.

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

In the middle of making the business case for a pair of c100's and I'm considering one for my personal freelance kit.

Not the best codec, but for the occasions something above 8bit is required I'll hire a samuri.

For this specific shot, of those tiles eith that lens at that setting, a 5d3 MAY have been better.

But that really is missing the point.

I somewhat agree with the superiority complex, because the 5D mark III really is that good. =P But seeing as how the 6D is priced much closer to the level of the 5D mark II. It all comes down to you get what you pay for. I own both, and I'm very much aware of their value. If you're doing pro video then you're most likely not using DSLRs, at least not as a main cam. I can understand using DSLRs for the cinema look, because it does look great to the general public and the 5D mark II proved that years ago. But you have to think really hard about where the 6D is priced and positioned. Only someone without common sense would think that the 6D should have the same amount of advantages as a 5D mark III. We have to accept it for what it is, and it's still great for the price point and not everyone cares about moire, mostly just us in this thread. Moire is more of a technical disadvantage than a creative one. If you've seen great videos by the 5D mark II and almost all the cameras that came after it, it's silly to make moire such a big deal, even now. There's obviously a price premium to avoid it, as long as you're still dedicated to using a Canon system. If you're good at what you do then you have to be ready to accept what limits you will have in the equipment you buy. Moire is not that big of a deal if you're not ready to make the bigger investment.

 

[NormanBates]

For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

Can't fix moire on a 6d not going to be able to fix it on s 5d3, when it inevitably will occur.

Moire rears up a LOT less on the 5D3 than on the 5D2 or even more so 6D.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

My point is that buying a new camera to fix moire isn't really a fix. Or the OP really is better just buying an Alexa.

Really? So one must either live with 5D2/6D/D800/etc. moire/aliasing or buy an Alexa?
Alexa is a bit pricey and bulky and you still needs a still body and lenses too if you also do that making it all even yet more bulky and expensive.

Sure the 5D3 is a bit soft and only 8 bit and this and that and is no match for an Alexa by any means but....

I've certainly found it to be a nice fix.
And the stills performance with the improved AF and fps and all are quite nice too compared to the 5D2/6D.

 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

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.

+1

And what about stuff like small lights moving in the wind that flicker on and off as they hit parts of the sensor not sampled, no blur filter will ever bring them back on the frames where they blinked out and even something as simple as ripples on a lake at sunset can turn into an aliased/moire mess that would require blurring the water to like no texture at all. And no amount of blur will change small spots that should be white or a certain color that have turned all sorts of random colors back to what they should be unless you go in and paint them back frame by frame or write a complex automate tool.

Again you can do lots of great stuff with a 5D2 and probably even a 6D, but the 5D3 is a noticeable improvement for lots of stuff all the same.

 

[paul13walnut5]

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'.

 

[Policar]

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.

 

[Chosenbydestiny]

For video, the 6D brings basically no advantage over a 5D2. And those can be found, used, for a lot less than you'd pay for a 6D. That would be my advice for anyone going for a full frame video DSLR and no budget for a 5D3 or D800.

More video modes like 60 frames with options for ALL-i, cleaner image at high ISO, better screen for those who use zacuto z-finders and such, longer clip recording, lighter body for support systems, manual audio straight out of the box, lens correction, faster processing chip for less lag with startup and recording, easier download of footage straight to laptops for onsite (SDE) event type editing via SD card which are also cheaper than CF, and oh wait... It's in production now whereas the 5D mark II is now phased out which means more support and availability for accessories like grips and such. Sure sounds like no advantage to me ^^

At least here where I live, a used 5D mark II out of warranty from a non dealer but in acceptable condition is only 100$ less than a brand new 6D body, obviously with a warranty. Of course, even if it was an official dealer, you also run the risk of buying into a high shutter count. Even if you're a photographer, there is no reason to buy the 5D mark II now unless you need better build quality (not as big of a difference as you may think), 1/8000th sec shutter or 1/200 flash sync which not many will need. There are ways around the shutter speed differences like ND filters and stopped down apertures, not everyone shoots in the frikkin snow, and if you're shooting with a flash onboard you can always do HSS. Event shooters usually shoot around 1/50th sec indoors anyway.

 

[dmosier]

The one thing I don't fully understand, and haven't really seen addressed explicitly by people, is how the 6D compares to the "lower tier" DSLRs like the 7D and 60D.

People always compare it to the 5D MkIII and say because it is "worse" it is "unusable." Well, of course it isn't as good as the MkIII; I should hope not for the price difference. But is it as good as the 7D or 60D? I have never heard anyone say those cameras are "unusable," or certainly not when they were fresh on the market.

So if the moire on the 6D is no worse than it is on the 7D and 60D, but has much better noise levels at higher ISOs and is full frame (for those wanting that feature) I would say it is a perfectly acceptable, and possibly superior, camera for people to use.

 

[dmosier]

So... nothing? ???

Nobody has used the 6D as well as the 7D/60D and can say whether or not the moire is the same, better, or worse?

 

[paul13walnut5]

I haven't.

Can confirm that my 7D is great for certain kinds of video. In the usual way that DSLRs are all great for cetrain kind of video. And crap at others.

I can also confirm that of the dozens of video cameras I've used over the years, from BetacamSP through SX, DVCPRO, DVCAM, Digibeta, HDCAM, HDV XDCAM, DSLR I've encountered moire at some point to some degree on all of them.

A lot of folk are missing the point. No matter how resistant a camera is to moire, theres always something that will find the right pitch, usually at the worst moment. I like Canons solution: batter the phuck out of the resolving power by using tracing paper instead of an AA filter on the 5D3. Or by getting folk to buy into a system with much larger pixels like the C cameras.

 

[Policar]

The gist of the above -- virtually all cameras alias -- is true, but the letter of it isn't. The Mark III has as much if not more resolution than the Mark II and 7D, and it doesn't have an overly strong AA filter, but it does appear soft next to the C series. The C series has the same pixel pitch as the Mark II.

Furthermore, if you can get the Mark III to exhibit aliasing, it's invisible unless you really search for it and then it's just minor stair-stepping, not moire. Way less than betacam or whatever, no comparison, and way way less than other Canon dSLRs. Just because the difference between 2% offensive and 98% offensive isn't 0% to 100% objectively (it is experientially) doesn't mean it's not a huge difference. I find the leap from the t2i to the Mark III to be more dramatic in terms of consistently getting a useable image than the leap from the Mark III to the C series. Others won't (they don't need low light and moire reduction), but many will. That said, interface-wise, the C series embarrasses dSLRs and even the F3 and Epic. For documentary work it's likely a home run if you can live with AVCHD.

So... nothing? ???

Nobody has used the 6D as well as the 7D/60D and can say whether or not the moire is the same, better, or worse?

The 6D hasn't been around that long and I doubt many people have upgraded from the 7D to the 6D to shoot video... but based on the first video here I'd say it's almost certainly a bit worse as regards moire than the 7D. I'd expect low light to be better.

 

[titokane]

Hey, everybody! Time to make fun of me!

Just had to trash my first shot for moire from the 6D. I know, I know, I just got done ranting about how I'd never had to trash a shot for moire, but here I am. Had a medium shot during a controlled shoot where a polo shirt started acting funny and somehow I didn't notice during production. Luckily, I had filmed coverage from a few more angles, so I was able to use those shots in the edit. Remember, always shoot more than you think you need

I always get on my guys about not paying enough attention to focus, but if I had missed focus by just a little the moire wouldn't have shown up. Hilarious.

So I still think the 6D is a great camera, and no more prone to moire than the 5D2, but just wanted to point out that if you get on the internet and get on a high horse about your lack of moire issues you will suddenly start having moire issues.

Yep. Karma.

 

[syder]

:'( Thanks for your honesty though Tito. Glad to hear you had coverage to hide the moire mess...

Seriously though - Canon pitched the 5dm3 towards video users far more than the 6d. Deliberately. They listened to their existing DSLR users (5dm2 7d 60d) who had consistently complained that the no #1 and #2 issues with DSLR video were moire and anti-aliasing and so issued massive improvements on both fronts.

Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.

A 5dm3 wont suddenly make you a far better cinematographer than you were before (or if you have a 6d), but you sure won't have the same kind of moire issues you do with any other Canon DSLR (except a 1DX).

 

[titokane]

A 5dm3 wont suddenly make you a far better cinematographer than you were before (or if you have a 6d), but you sure won't have the same kind of moire issues you do with any other Canon DSLR (except a 1DX).

The 5D3 has a sensor purpose-built to downscale. It has a horizontal resolution of 3840, which is exactly twice the size of 1080p HD. Once the sensor is cropped for video it's essentially a QFHD sensor being downscaled to 1080p -- no problem.

The 1DX seems to downscale with its beefy processors, which could be why the video seems to look a little sharper but also has faint moire.

The 6D (and all the other Canon DSLRs right now) have neither the right sensor resolution nor a strong enough processor (apparently) to downscale well, so they just take the easy way out and line-skip, causing interference patterns. I would love for Canon (or ML) to do some firmware magic to make it downscale better, but I wouldn't count on it.

 

[paul13walnut5]

Don't listen to people posting who admit never to having used a 5dm3 but also claim it wont help with any moire issues because frankly they have no idea what they're talking about.

If this is directed at me, then it's a mis-fire. I've never doubted that the 5D3 exhibits less moire, although I can't verify this through experience, however anybody who says a 5D3 exhibits no moire and never will frankly they have no idea what they are talking about.