5D mark II vs Sony EX3 - 100% RAW footage no color grading

indiefilmnz

New member
We shot a little short filme using Sony Ex3 (default picture profile) and Canon 5DII(default picture profile). There are some major differences in color. I personally think the Canon deliveries way better color than the EX3.

All footage are 100% RAW, no color treatment, no grading.

Canon lens used:
70-200mm f2.8 IS L
50mm f1.4
24-70mm f2.8 L
16-35mm f2.8 L

See it yourself here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTpqYa-5YRM

The opening sequence was shot on 5D II.

Ex3 footage - The intro of Sidney (01:08 - 01:44)
Ex3 Wood chopping scene(2:01-2:03) vs 5D (2:10)

You can easily spot the colour differences...

IMPORTANT NOTICE: No media files are hosted on these forums. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website. We can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. If the video does not play, wait a minute or try again later.
I AGREE
 
There is no argument, the 5Dmk2 produces better image quality. Hence, the 7D even the rebel t2i delivers similar image to the 5D blowing the ex3 away. But again, both have their cons and pros and there is a whole lot more than just image quality that needs to be taken into consideration, but those comparisons and opinions are shared across the whole web, so no need to comment. But regarding image quality, yes 5D all the way. After all, the season finale of "House" was entirely shot on 5dmk2's and I doubt the ex3 nor anything similar would even be considered for the job ;)
 
RE: 5dmkii and "House" Finale

RE: 5dmkii and "House" Finale

There is no argument, the 5Dmk2 produces better image quality. Hence, the 7D even the rebel t2i delivers similar image to the 5D blowing the ex3 away. But again, both have their cons and pros and there is a whole lot more than just image quality that needs to be taken into consideration, but those comparisons and opinions are shared across the whole web, so no need to comment. But regarding image quality, yes 5D all the way. After all, the season finale of "House" was entirely shot on 5dmk2's and I doubt the ex3 nor anything similar would even be considered for the job ;)

I listened to the interview with the "House" exec producer and Phillip Bloom, and it was very enlightening - as was the video interview on Cinema5d with Rick McCallum at Lucasfilm on their use of 5dmkii.

One thing that confused me was there was a comment (can't remember which interview), that said "Yes, and when we get RAW off the 5d, things will REALLY change".

Does that mean there's no way to get uncompressed data off the 5dmkii ? I'm not a 5d owner, but I thought most cameras had some type of HDMI out or equivalent way to get raw data out of the camera. (?)

Thanks!
Randy
 
not possible without line skipping on this sensor.I dont think its possible for canon to use different compression because their cams have probably hardware h.264 decoder built in and they cant just use other codec,maybe they could change bitrate and bump it to higher values but its still far away from raw.
 
I listened to the interview with the "House" exec producer and Phillip Bloom, and it was very enlightening - as was the video interview on Cinema5d with Rick McCallum at Lucasfilm on their use of 5dmkii.

One thing that confused me was there was a comment (can't remember which interview), that said "Yes, and when we get RAW off the 5d, things will REALLY change".

Does that mean there's no way to get uncompressed data off the 5dmkii ? I'm not a 5d owner, but I thought most cameras had some type of HDMI out or equivalent way to get raw data out of the camera. (?)

Thanks!
Randy

RAW refers to raw data off the sensor which is then interpreted by software. This bypasses all internal color profiles, codec, white balance, etc, and gives you much more latitude and room to tweak things. Even pro cameras that output uncompressed HD don't usually output RAW.
 
RAW refers to raw data off the sensor which is then interpreted by software. This bypasses all internal color profiles, codec, white balance, etc, and gives you much more latitude and room to tweak things. Even pro cameras that output uncompressed HD don't usually output RAW.

So uncompressed is not the same as "RAW" ?

I just checked the Canon website and there appears to be a mini-HDMI out connection on this camera. I'm assuming this is just "uncompressed" and not "RAW".

If this data is uncompressed, is there some workflow (FCP, Adobe, Avid) that supports this uncompressed 5dmkii data?

Randy
 
So uncompressed is not the same as "RAW" ?

I just checked the Canon website and there appears to be a mini-HDMI out connection on this camera. I'm assuming this is just "uncompressed" and not "RAW".

If this data is uncompressed, is there some workflow (FCP, Adobe, Avid) that supports this uncompressed 5dmkii data?

Randy

Adobe's new release of premiere cs5 supports this. You can basically edit the footage straight from the camera if you have a supported video card and obviously a decent computer. search for "adobe mercury playback engine" for more info regarding this

as far as "RAW" goes, that is a term used in video (unlike photo where it's actually a real format) that simply means it's the most original unaltered data coming from the camera and it's just for post processing meaning you won't just a burn a DVD from it and enjoy it, you will have to color correct, etc... RAW is great because you get more data to play around with and have a variety of options to notch.

this is obviously the most basic explanation as it gets, but hope it helps!
 
So uncompressed is not the same as "RAW" ?

I just checked the Canon website and there appears to be a mini-HDMI out connection on this camera. I'm assuming this is just "uncompressed" and not "RAW".

If this data is uncompressed, is there some workflow (FCP, Adobe, Avid) that supports this uncompressed 5dmkii data?

Randy

The HDMI is useless for recording off the Canons because there is on-screen stuff you can't get rid of.

Anyway, even if you could it doesn't solve the aliasing or moiré problems...the only reason to do it is to bypass the codec, which, thanks to the bitrate that's been thrown at the problem, is actually relatively robust.
 
There is no argument, the 5Dmk2 produces better image quality. Hence, the 7D even the rebel t2i delivers similar image to the 5D blowing the ex3 away. But again, both have their cons and pros and there is a whole lot more than just image quality that needs to be taken into consideration, but those comparisons and opinions are shared across the whole web, so no need to comment. But regarding image quality, yes 5D all the way. After all, the season finale of "House" was entirely shot on 5dmk2's and I doubt the ex3 nor anything similar would even be considered for the job ;)

There are also image quality issues that need to be considered. The 5D is more prone to aliasing and moiré than a dedicated video camera like an EX3. It is also resolving much less actual resolution than the EX3. However, it all comes down to how you use the cameras and it is, of course, possible to produce an amazing image with the 5D, which will in many cases look better than that of an EX3...however the "image quality" of the EX3 is superior.
 
The 5DM2 doesn't output anything from the HDMI jack while the camera is recording. Canon "may" be able to fix that with an update, but then everything everyone else has said on this thread still holds true.

Maybe someday there will be a 5DM2 with a HD-SDI output? Or maybe it will record some type of video RAW? We will all have to wait and see what the Canon 5D Mark III holds (or what ever model # they decide to give it). There's a lot of pressure from the movie industry for Canon to do something. I'm just worried they'll give us everything they want but at a price only the movie studios can afford.
 
The 5DM2 doesn't output anything from the HDMI jack while the camera is recording. Canon "may" be able to fix that with an update, but then everything everyone else has said on this thread still holds true.

This is not true. The 5D outputs 480p video over HDMI while recording...I've used a production monitor on my shoots with the 5D. There is a brief pause before the monitor kicks in.
 
Oops! My mistake. Thanks for the correction. But it still wouldn't be useful for recording the HDMI signal to an uncompressed recorder.
 
Again, there's no real reason to record uncompressed HD off these cameras even if there wasn't the crap on the screen (the 5D will output HD video just not while you're recording.) The main image problems these cameras have come from the way the sensor gets read for liveview/video, which wouldn't be solved by uncompressed out. The codec is hardly the limiting factor.
 
settings

settings

I have both cameras and this whole issue of one vs. the other without taking into consideration the Settings used on each camera is just unfair to the outcome of your test results. We cut them together all the time---if you take the time to set them up on charts to match....they match.
 
The HDMI is useless for recording off the Canons because there is on-screen stuff you can't get rid of.

Anyway, even if you could it doesn't solve the aliasing or moiré problems...the only reason to do it is to bypass the codec, which, thanks to the bitrate that's been thrown at the problem, is actually relatively robust.

Not true, you can get a clean output but you have to:

1. Have an AF lens in AF mode.
2. Have face detection in live view mode
 
The only thing this video proves is that you guys didn't do any color correction or even tried to match them together. The 5d obviously has more color saturation and contrast and there's no reason the EX3 (or almost any other prosumer camera) couldn't have done this not accounting for the dof.

Saying stuff like "they were shot on default" doesn't mean anything as the 5d shoots more pleasant - read, more contrasty and saturated - stuff on default anyway. But who uses it with default settings?
 
There are also image quality issues that need to be considered. The 5D is more prone to aliasing and moiré than a dedicated video camera like an EX3. It is also resolving much less actual resolution than the EX3. However, it all comes down to how you use the cameras and it is, of course, possible to produce an amazing image with the 5D, which will in many cases look better than that of an EX3...however the "image quality" of the EX3 is superior.

True.

For those interested heres a comparison of a T2i and an Ex1.

http://www.xdcam-user.com/?p=704


The Ex1 delivers more resolution no doubt.
 
I'd love to see the footage off of the 5D because I haven't seen any as of yet that out perfoms a dedicated video camera let alone the EX3. Very interested to see it. I have seen some nice 5D footage but nice being the optimum word. Just curious if there is something out there I haven't seen. Thanks
 
What's your definition of "out performs"? The 5D gives a more cinematic look due to the much shallower depth of field. The colors are also richer (although this greatly depends on your picture profile. On the other hand the EX3/EX1 have a variable rate zoom control and a wider depth of field so they are much easier to use when following a subject you have no control over (sports, corporate events, etc...). I shot a public skate night at the local hockey arena with the 5D Mark II a couple days ago. It was VERY difficult to follow the various skaters and keep them in focus. But when I did they looked beautiful. But I'd say over 50% of my shots were out of focus. If I would have brought the EX3 things I wouldn't have had the focusing issue and I would have gotten a lot more "good shots". The next day we shot an figure skater with the EX3. The rink was lit with only 2 spotlights. It was very dramatic and the EX3 looked beautiful. http://www.vimeo.com/20077553 (the ambient light shots were with the 5DM2 and the dark figure skater shots were with the EX3).

I'm glad we have both cameras.
 
So uncompressed is not the same as "RAW" ?

To give you uncompressed video requires that the raw data be processed (so that the color and saturation are already baked in), then send/save it 'uncompressed'.

Raw and uncompressed are not the same thing.

Using lossless algorithms you can compress raw data and not lose anything at all, so raw does not have to be uncompressed either.

Raw simply means the data that was read directly from the sensor without any processing prior to saving / transmitting. This gives the most options when processing later on a computer because this is the data that makes all the scene files possible in the first place.
 
Back
Top