5D iii: Converting to Prores

D

DDirector

Veteran
I like the Raw feature, but I dont like how it takes up SO much memory space.
I have a few jobs where I don't do the editing or grading myself. After I shoot, I ship out the footage on a large memory stick usb to the company and they do the post work. That's how Ive done it with my dslr before.
But I don't want to have terabytes of footage when shooting Raw.

If I were shoot raw on the 5D iii and then convert the footage to ProRes 422 and left it at that, meaning if I only sent or used the ProRes 422 footage, would I still have a better quality video then if I shot it (at H.462) without ML Raw?
So there would be no linking the clips back to the DNG files after grading.

Some work I do, shooting raw would be great.
But I also have jobs where I cant have all these large files.


*This is why Ive also considered purchasing the C100 for the smaller files sizes, and similar results to the 5D iii Raw. But being only 8-bit and having no slow motion, it may suffer some grading.
 
Last edited:
Yes, you would get much better quality by shooting RAW and converting to ProRes, even more so if you set a relatively flat profile and take a few minutes to adjust WB and exposure before you convert the clips.

The C100 is a great camera, its H.264 implementation is a lot better than the 5D3 one, and it does have slightly better DR than the 5D3+RAW. But it's much more expensive.
 
The other option if you don't have color correction and conversion time built into the budget is to use something like a Ninja 2
 
I say the decision to shoot in RAW really depends on the scene itself and what is expected out of the final product. Say for example you are shooting a pretty flat scene, or you will be controlling the lighting, then do you really still need to worry about RAW? I don't think so, and there's a ton of non-RAW 8-bit footage all over Vimeo to back me up on this.

Don't get hung up on RAW, and only save it for when its really needed.
 
If the 5D's ML had ProRes, Id jump on that. But in this case I am going with the C100.
I dont need Raw a lot. Barely would I need it. But maybe this summer Ill be doing more projects myself where I would? Who knows.

Anyways, since its still raw only, and the standard h.264 isnt as good, then its not what I want.
Thanks.

*Unless if they happen to get ProRes up within the next month or two. hahah
 
I can confirm that a proper converison from 5D3 ML raw to a good codec like DNxHD or ProRes is almost indistinguishable from the original raw.

I do my post on a Windows 7 x64 workstation so I don't have access to a proper version of ProRes. There are open source converters (based on ffmbc) to make ProRes on a PC but the open source version of ProRes is not good.

So I did my conversion from raw dng to the new mxf based version of DNxHD 175X (10-bit 4:2:2) using After Effects and Media Encoder CC. Then I loaded the original DNG and the DNxHD into After Effects and zoomed into 400% view of the pixels. Yeah I can see a difference, but barely at 400% view. The new DNxHD mxf in Adobe kicks the s*#^ out of the old Avid QT codec version, and every other codec short of 4:4:4 uncompressed. So much better that it is like a new codec now that it is properly implemented on Windows and not using Quicktime (QT is horrible on the Windows, avoid at all cost).

In fact I also compared mxf DNxHD 175X to V210 avi (uncompressed YUV 10-bit 4:2:2), literally I cannot see a difference even at 400% view. That's how good the new DNxHD really is.
 
Last edited:
I never liked DNxHD because of the quicktime issues. I will definitely look into this new implementation if I ever get CC.
 
Celluloid Dream said:
So I did my conversion from raw dng to the new mxf based version of DNxHD 175X (10-bit 4:2:2) using After Effects and Media Encoder CC.
Click to expand...

Did you have "Trillions of colors" set in the AE export settings?

I find it funny how so many 8-bit haters are actually still outputting 8-bit (which they love) from the RAW files through AE by forgetting to set the little toggle to Trillions of colors. It's so easy to miss.

And what is this new dnxhd implementation? I don't see any new .mxf DNxHD settings, only the basic AVC-Intras and stuff. DNxHD is only on the quicktime output.
 
Last edited:
DDirector said:
If the 5D's ML had ProRes, Id jump on that. But in this case I am going with the C100.
I dont need Raw a lot. Barely would I need it. But maybe this summer Ill be doing more projects myself where I would? Who knows.

Anyways, since its still raw only, and the standard h.264 isnt as good, then its not what I want.
Thanks.

*Unless if they happen to get ProRes up within the next month or two. hahah
Click to expand...


With either camera, both the 5DmkIII and the C100, you will need an external recording device if you want to record ProRes.

Also depends on the look you are going for during the shoot, as the C100 is a S35mm size and the 5DmkIII is a full frame size. Apples to oranges.
 
mxf DNxHD is the new codec implemented in Premiere Pro and Media encoder CC. It is now built-in to those Adobe applications. It is not available in the After Effects CC exporter.

On Trillions of Colors: Yes and no, how is that for an answer maarek? :)

Ok, let me explain.

When I made the v210 video in After Effects, yes I used a 16-bit comp and Trillions of colors in export settings.

You cannot export mxf DNxHD directly from After Effects. You have to load the AE comp in Media Encoder to render. So the 16-bit AE comp was opened in Media Encoder to render the 10-bit DNxHD. I surely hope that gets you a real 10-bit file, because if not, Adobe have screwed up again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top