5d Mk. III for Broadcast - Yes or No?

A

Airwolf

New member
Okay, so I've been reading up and down this forum, and up and down the internet through various blogs, nofilmschool, PBS POV, and tons others that have articles mentioning the 5D Mark III for broadcast.

If I'm producing an entire documentary for broadcast on a national HD network, in this case PBS, can I use the 5D Mark III? I've looked at the PBS Redbook and it does not meet the requirements for color space, however I know for a fact that many PBS national docs have been shot on DSLR's, many of these using 7D's and Mark II's - some of which include SD footage, which don't meet the specs. I've talked with some people at local PBS affiliates and they guess that as long as you avoid mosquito noise you should be fine, but I need to be sold 100% before I make an investment.

So with the Mark III's fixing the aliasing and moire issue, and the high bit-rate ALL-I codec, I am thinking the color space shouldn't be a problem to up-convert to HDCAM specs?

I hear people telling me how "you will have to send your production to a post house and have it graded to PBS specs for $20k" - Unless someone explains the specifics of this I think this is a bunch of BS. I realize that House was an established show and they pushed for the 5D's to be used, I know these were used for minor shots on 24, and minor shots in Black Swan, and many shots in Act of Valor, all of which have or will be broadcasted.

I can't see a reason to buy a C300 at $15k for documentary work when I feel the 5D III will work fine. I also don't particularly want to use an XF300 or XF100 and loose that nice film look that the 5D provides for my interviews.

Would appreciate your thoughts.

Thank you
 
My friend made this last year: http://coastmodernfilm.com/
It was shot with a Mark II and its set for national broadcast and a lot of theatres around the world. The mark III is a huge step forward.

but then I've shot a doc for national TV on a FX1?
I would think you'll be fine. Its all about the story!


oh, but post production will cost..... it always does!
 
A lot of cameras do not meet the requirements for broadcast use, but they get used though. I think you will be fine with a 5d3, although you could go with a just coming C100, just because of the form factor i would suggest it for documentary. We will know more in one or two weeks... but the form factor and sensor of a C300 sounds pretty nice...
 
The C100 only shoots 24mbps however, the 5d3 and other DSLR's either are very close to or exceed 50mbps.

I'm all about the story, and I agree it's not about the camera. I'm just concerned that my doc will be rejected because of their technical requirements.
 
If you're concerned about that (and I would be too, very much so) then why risk it? Why not just shoot on a camera that meets their specifications, and remove that worry entirely?
 
Well, because it becomes a price issue at that point. I'm already equipped to shoot DSLR's with my 7D and 60D, if I get a 5D3, all I need is the body and some lenses, so I'm looking at spending around $4,500 vs roughly $16,000.
I'd very much like to not spend that kind of money if I can avoid it, especially for hardware that's not future proof. I've looked at the new Sonys as well, but the FS series are not to broadcast specs either.
 
I'm no expert but I have like what I have seen with the 5d that I'm going to use it for an up coming shoot in New Zealand. I have the Mkiii and slowly learning about the camera. This is how I look at it; The camera shoot great footage and the lens that I'm getting for the camera are costly but can be used with other cameras in the future. If I decide to jump to the C300 I have lens that will carry over and I still have a great still camera on hand. Also my rig setup looks pretty good to those that are standing around watching the filming take place. In the final note on my last film shoot I carried four bags two were large suitcases (with gear) over 9k miles making it 18k miles around trip. I have been doing this for a number of years and I spend a lot of time at the ticket counter moving gear from one suit case to another as it sits on their scale making sure they don't go over the handling limit.

This next 18k round trip if all goes well all I will have with me is one average size suit case for check in and one carry on bag. Now this is what you call nice traveling without all the luggage to drag around (I have two tripods one I keep in New Zealand the other I keep in the USA) :)

IMG_0572.jpg
 
For documentary work, don't be afraid of using a good documentary camera. Something like the HPX250 is 1) similar price point, all things considered, 2) more versatile for documentary situations, 3) is capable of 100Mbit codec. I use it as B Cam for a show I DP on Discovery, and it meets the Gold Tier requirements. I've not done anything for PBS yet, but acquisition standards are requirements are a huge consideration from negotiation to delivery.

I love the look of large sensors and - from a purely visual perspective - prefer them over 1/3" and 2/3" cameras. But it has to make sense in the bigger picture, especially if it affects whether or not they choose to give you money.

On previous projects, we've filmed the bulk of the content on broadcast cameras and shot some B Roll on DSLRs. Perhaps you can use the mortar (pretty B Roll shot on DSLR) between the bricks (content) to establish a cinematic tone without sacrificing broadcast requirements for your project.
 
Taylor Rudd said:
For documentary work, don't be afraid of using a good documentary camera. Something like the HPX250 is 1) similar price point, all things considered, 2) more versatile for documentary situations, 3) is capable of 100Mbit codec. I use it as B Cam for a show I DP on Discovery, and it meets the Gold Tier requirements. I've not done anything for PBS yet, but acquisition standards are requirements are a huge consideration from negotiation to delivery.

I love the look of large sensors and - from a purely visual perspective - prefer them over 1/3" and 2/3" cameras. But it has to make sense in the bigger picture, especially if it affects whether or not they choose to give you money.

On previous projects, we've filmed the bulk of the content on broadcast cameras and shot some B Roll on DSLRs. Perhaps you can use the mortar (pretty B Roll shot on DSLR) between the bricks (content) to establish a cinematic tone without sacrificing broadcast requirements for your project.
Click to expand...

Good post, I agree 100%.
 
Airwolf said:
The C100 only shoots 24mbps however, the 5d3 and other DSLR's either are very close to or exceed 50mbps.

I'm all about the story, and I agree it's not about the camera. I'm just concerned that my doc will be rejected because of their technical requirements.
Click to expand...

You probably already know this but those specs dont mean
much. The 24 Mbps from the large sensor video cams
looks much better than the 50mbps from most
DSLRs.
 
When you say large sensor video cams which one are you talking about? And when you say looks much better then most DSLR are you talking about the 5d mkiii?
 
I'm going to guess he means large sensor cameras like the F3, FS100, C100, and FS700 - which all shoot less than broadcast 50mbps, how is it that these look better than the supposed 40+mbps from the 7D and the 90+mbps from the 5D MkIII in ALL-I mode?
 
So the consensus is that AVCHD is better than H264? Less compression artifacts, mosquito noise, etc, at 24mbps than a higher bitrate H.264?
 
Airwolf said:
So the consensus is that AVCHD is better than H264? Less compression artifacts, mosquito noise, etc, at 24mbps than a higher bitrate H.264?
Click to expand...

No. Some people just assume so. A higher bitrate variant is almost always better. I find the 5d mark III all-i codec to be pretty darn good. Way better than AVCHD on consumer cams.
 
maarek said:
No. Some people just assume so. A higher bitrate variant is almost always better. I find the 5d mark III all-i codec to be pretty darn good. Way better than AVCHD on consumer cams.
Click to expand...
See my previous reply. AVCHD is H.264 http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-or-No&p=1986202525&viewfull=1#post1986202525 Differences in quality are somewhat dependent on bit rate but it does depend an awful lot on how good the encoder is. By rights MPEG4 should be anything up 4x as good as MPEG2 i.e. image quality is similar at 1/4 of the bit rate but Canon MXF files (C300, XF105/305) are 50Mbps MPEG2 & vastly better quality than even 90Mbps All-I from the 5D3.
 
Nigellbb speaks the truth.

The C100 will take the 5dIII to the cleaners for video, especially docu work.

The bit-rate isn't anywhere near as important as the encoder. Look at the FS100 image for example. The fact that people are even debating a DSLR vs a dedicated large sensor camera is sheer madness when you look at todays offerings.

Not only will the C100 image be (MUCH) better, the ergonomics will be out of this world in comparison.

Broadcast standards are pointless. Re encode your 24mbps AVC from the C100 into 50mbps 422 before sending it off to post if you are that bothered, they won't have the foggiest.
 
Will, i've been told that you can just re-encode your footage as well. Frontline on PBS is shot with 7D's, so I really don't see the problem.

I have no loyalty to Canon, so with the limitations of the C100, it might be better to pony up for the FS700 then? Of course I probably won't have much use for super slow motion, but it's nice to have and I can't even shoot sports on the C100 as the frame rate is too low.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top