Well-known member
I have not seen this comparison yet so I decided to do one.

I tried to match the shots and then colors as closely as possible, setting the look with the raw footage (starting from BMD Color Space) and then trying to conform the AVCHD to it. The severity of the grade was moderate:

5D Mark III (Raw DNG)

FS100 (Frank Glencairn's G-Log Ultimate picture profile)

Here is where the codecs really show their differences:

5D Mark III


The 5D raw wins on image quality and gradability, but not by that much. I was expecting to see more of a difference. It would have been even closer if I'd had my Ninja-2 cranking out 4:2:2 on hand, which smooths out the stair-stepping in the scopes and increases gradability. Even as everyone clamors for raw, there is still a lot of life in this little camera!
Last edited:
If you are going for normal looking video with slightly desaturated to normally corrected color AVC does OK. But it is a much smaller box if you want to go for more creative results like, day for night or highly saturated rich colors. AVC can't get you there without unpleasant artifacts or loss of resolution. There is no data to work with.
Very true. It is wonderful that we have the option, since the more compressed codecs aren't going to be good for every situation (but then again, neither is the raw workflow).