Entertaining debate on BMC and 5d3 sharpness

While the BMC might very well be sharper than the 5D3, the images posted so far are full of fine noise grain making it hard to understand the resolution provided by the camera. A resolution chart will make it clear what the camera is doing. The statement that the BMC is also sharper than the C300, which has the full resolution required for 1920 (3.8K array vs. 2.5K) really needs a resolution chart to see what is going on.
 
jcs said:
While the BMC might very well be sharper than the 5D3, the images posted so far are full of fine noise grain making it hard to understand the resolution provided by the camera. A resolution chart will make it clear what the camera is doing. The statement that the BMC is also sharper than the C300, which has the full resolution required for 1920 (3.8K array vs. 2.5K) really needs a resolution chart to see what is going on.
Click to expand...

Well Andrew claimed that the HX9v was a very sharp cam. That's just so wrong on so many levels.
 
Andrew always thinks that the latest shiny new thing is the greatest thing since well... the last shiny new thing. Enthusiasm is his forte not objectivity.
 
?
thats makes no sense...
but looks like that many people dont know difference between sharpness and resolution ...
 
Last edited:
Interesting article on the BMC to start.

I loved the look of the later image (Shot 3), where she is in the "window/porch" toward dusk with the dress. That grades well too.

The interior images and the sparkler images are plain ugly. That worries me a bit. Small sensor video effect?


jcs said:
While the BMC might very well be sharper than the 5D3, the images posted so far are full of fine noise grain making it hard to understand the resolution provided by the camera.
Click to expand...

I downloaded the DNG's and had a look in Photoshop. I, too, was bothered by the noise, and the look of the noise. I think he is just plain wrong when he talks about how the noise is "different", more like "Gorilla Grain" or whatever. Not at all. It looks lik eany 2 MP P&S.


He (the admin) is **way** off track in his comments, almost to the point of being a troll. He can't reply to any specific points (sharpness, resolution) without getting defensive about other things (grading, price, etc.) Way too emotionally involved.


One thing peopel just don't understand about the Canon is the strong AA filter, and the use of DEFAULT, post capture sharpening to counteract the AA filter. This is the same thing that Nikon did in camera in the D800E. They left in the first AA filter, then immediately put in a "cross" AA filter to counteract it's effect. That is what you are doing in post. It is the first of 3 stages of sharpening (post capture; creative - portrait, landscape; and output - screen, printer)

I automatically apply USM (300, .9, 0) in Premiere Pro on an adjustment Layer to counteract the AA filter. I have been doing this since 2004 with the 1DsII 16 MP sensor.

Each camera has it's own, unique AA filter, and it's own requirements for sharpening to REVERSE the effects of the filter. Canon has always used a strong filter.


I think we are in the realm of "all around cameras" and "niche cameras" again. The BMC looks like it will be great for certain tasks and certain looks.


The bigger question, I think, is when we get "trickle down" of Canon Log, S Log, RAW, 4:4:2. 4:4:4, 12 bit, etc to the $3,000 price point in a full frame sensor, all around camera.

I have been trying to calculate/estimate that based on still camera evolution: From the $12K, 16 MP Kodak DCS Pro Back in 2002, to the $8K 1DsII 16 MP sensor of 2004, along with $30,000 22 MP "Medium Format" digital, to the $800 18 MP T3i from 2010, to the T4i now, with better autoficus, etc. C

Comparing that to the C300 and C500 at $15,000 to $25,000, with HDMI RAW Uncompressed, in camera compressed RAW, etc. I haven't come to a conclusion yet. But I think the formula is there, I just have to put it in a spreadsheet and do the math.

The BMC reminds me very much of the Kodak 14n in 2002, which I had on pre-order in 3 places. And then cancelled when teh first tests started coming out.

On paper it looked like a great camera. But in the real world it had a lot of limitations, with no AA filter, good files at only 25 ASA for architecture, aliasing, moire, etc. It took Kodak about 2 years to tune the firmware to make the camera usable for landscape use.

It was not an all around camera which the 1DsII was about 8 months later.

Sorry, meandering a bit. Interesting times, but after a while you just need top go pick up a camera, forget about engineering, and make some images with what you have.

Cheers!
Michael
 
To me, cameras are like computers. Once you buy one you stop looking at them completely for about 3 years and figure out how to get the most out of the one you have.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
To me, cameras are like computers. Once you buy one you stop looking at them completely for about 3 years and figure out how to get the most out of the one you have.
Click to expand...

Exactly!

Too much engineering and reading about chips, etc. is somewhat antithetical to creativity and vision.

Pick up a tool, find out what you like about it, build on that.

I need to phase out of looking at cameras as soon as Canon announces the next full frame this year fall.

I just bought a T4i and a 5D3. I only need to know if I should swap the 5D3 out if the next camera is more video centric rather than photo centric (hoping.)

Michael
 
With the risk of stirring a hornet's Canon 5D forum here, do any of you really - hand on heart - believe the 5D Mark III is anywhere near the Blackmagic Cinema Camera for resolution, dynamic range, film grain and gradability?

If so why?
 
Andrew Reid said:
With the risk of stirring a hornet's Canon 5D forum here, do any of you really - hand on heart - believe the 5D Mark III is anywhere near the Blackmagic Cinema Camera for resolution, dynamic range, film grain and gradability?

If so why?
Click to expand...

I'll answer your question Andrew. I've seen lot's of your shorts. To me, the best stuff I've seen of late out of you was your stuff you shot with the 5Dmk3. Ya know, the London shoot and the cows shoot. But that's just my opinion. There are people that will use the Mk3 better than people that will use the BMDC or an Epic. I graded the BMDC files Brawley uploaded for the BMDC and they look nice. Perfect? Absolutely not. More latitude than the Mk3? Of course. It's what it's designed for. The Mk3 is still a TOP QUALITY STILLS CAMERA, and just happens to have video. And it's video functions and images are far better than the MK2's.
So whats the difference? Well, for 2 minute beauty shots the BMDC will be great for you. Try and do a 45 minute video that is destined for the web with the RAW workflow and quick turnaround. Shoot an event with the BMDC. Have fun with that workflow and huge amounts of data for it. My point. Cameras are made for different reasons. It's not Canons fault that Hollywood adapted the Mk2. We all know they images the Mk2 and Mk3 puts out. If it happens to work in your project, great. If not, why even compare the Mk3 and the BMDC? Why even worry about it?
I, myself see working in situations where the Mk3 is the camera of choice and others where I would use the BMDC. Then others that I might use my AF100, or XF105. Maybe a situation where my Gh2 is the camera that will get the shot. Each one does something the other can't or lacks at.
Then lets talk about the cons of the BMDC. Power, monitoring, build (not many of us have felt one), service ability, lens mount options, etc. Will the camera run all day without hiccups? Stuck pixels? All sorts of things. But so far it looks "good". Great? We don't really know yet now do we?

I bet if I go to your blog right now all the rage is the BMDC. A week ago it would be the Gh2. Then the Nex5n. Then the FS100. Then the pocket sony. You f all people should know that there is a camera for anything, but not for everything.
 
Andrew Reid said:
With the risk of stirring a hornet's Canon 5D forum here, do any of you really - hand on heart - believe the 5D Mark III is anywhere near the Blackmagic Cinema Camera for resolution, dynamic range, film grain and gradability?

If so why?
Click to expand...

Andrew, I think you just need to slow down a bit, and unwind what people are saying, at each point, in each post on your site.

I'll preface this by saying that **I LIKE YOU** I have listened to the podcasts you are in (sorry, can't remember the name), and I enjoy the discussion, and widerange and drift of the conversations, your humor, ideas, etc.

But on the BMC thread, you come off as a bit of an "enthustaist", or "fan boy", rather than a professional running down a list, and envisioning pros & cons of each point of a product. It starts with emotion, then carries into the argument,, where something has to be crap, so that the other thing is perfect.

In this case I think, you don't reply clearly to a specific point. Someone says "resolution" or "sharpness". Instead of trying to define/refine that discussion, you jump immediately to price, etc., and a long laundry lists of why one is better than another.


I try very, very hard not to be a fan boy myself, and to be professional. I can't say I am always successful. I think I am a lot better now than a few years ago. I have a degree in Fine Art Photography, and 33 years experience as a professional and semi-professional (I am disabled now, not working much.)


I very much want higher resolution, a better codec, RAW or Canon Log or S Log workflow, 12 bit, 4:4:4 or 4:4:2, etc. I don't care that much about 4K yet, it is way ahead of where I am working right now.

But as Dustylense says, or to quote the Brits, "horses for courses." There are camcorders, ENG cameras, DSLRs, sports DSLR's, cinema cams, etc. etc.

The BMC brings some great features to the market, a little sooner than some others, and at a decent price point. But is the overall image there? Under what conditions? What is the characteristic "look" of the camera? All we have seen is some very limited test footage. And as you may have noticed, people are struggling a bit with the workflow.

I had the Nikon D800E on pre-order this spring. I fully intended to go that route, and I must say they got many things right. And people trashed the Canon 5D3 for not being a lot of things.

But i cancelled the D800 pre-order, and I eventually bought a 5D3 a few weeks ago, still convinced that it was the best fit for me at the present time.

Cheers! Part 2 next

Michael
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top