Magic Lantern enables 14-bit RAW CinemaDNG on 5D

Let's not take anything away from the ML team and what the 5Dmk3 can do now. Once the workflow gets ironed out, and they seem to be getting there, mk3 raw will be a beautiful addition to the 5D.

The real benefit as I see it, is an instant "for free" upgrade to those who already have mk3s. It also lowers the entry level for good 1080p and will be especially useful for hybrid photographers.

But if you look at the video above and then think that it is representative of how those cameras perform... The image treatment is totally different with the mk3 image sharpened a lot and the RED not at all(?). The only segment you need to look at in the video is from 2:25-2:35. That's the difference between resolution and sharpening made obvious.

I think with this new capability the mk3 stands on its own and it's not necessary to call it a "baby-anything".
 
villean said:
I have a hard time believing the RED is shot at 4K. Ia have seen way sharper images of the RED. Even sharper than the 5D3 in this vid.
Click to expand...

The RED should out-resolve my 1Dc. You can scale this 4k frame grab down to 1080p for a better feel for its HD performance.

Bern-train_SH.jpg
 
I did some timed post workflow tests on my 2.5Ghz quad core Macbook Pro 16Gb 480Gb SSD 1Gb Radeon 6770M. A 1Gb raw file (17seconds @ 1920x720) takes 10 sec to convert to DNG and 2:22 to transcode to ProRes 4444 in After Effects. A 17 sec H.264 file takes 30 sec to transcode to Prores 4444 in compressor. That's 5x longer for raw but I imagine it would be significantly faster with a CUDA GPU and slower with a spinning disk drive. Adding a film convert grade to the ProRes transcode took an extra 10 sec. Transcoding to ProRes proxy was 10 sec faster than 4444.
 
Completely agree ML work on the 5D3 is excellent! You are quite right about the 2:25-2:35 part.

As I hybrid shooter ML work really let's me keep the 5D3 and not invest in a other cam system like the BMCC
 
dustylense said:
Looking forward to testing footage other than my yard and a 1 year olds birthday. Why do 1 year olds have birthdays? They have ZERO clue of whats going on. NONE.
Click to expand...

The party isn't for the kid, it's the parents celebrating living through a year of hell.

I shot in a hot humid indoor pool for a couple of hours, no issues.
 
AndreeOnline said:
The RED should out-resolve my 1Dc. You can scale this 4k frame grab down to 1080p for a better feel for its HD performance.

Click to expand...

Really love the detail in that image. Realy shows the potentional of the 1DC. Can't image what a camera like that would do with ML. 4K@50fps ;) or something like that
 
villean said:
Really love the detail in that image.
Click to expand...

I actually didn't get the 1Dc for 4k per se, but I really love it too.

But the thing is, for 1080p delivery, a camera like the C100 is really solid: good sensor, no debayering, easy workflow on SD cards and 12 stops with NDs included. And now that raw for the 5Dmk3 brings back the sharpness to that camera (in really rich files) it has become an even cheaper 1080p alternative, even if you pay a bit more (figuratively speaking) on the workflow side.

I also think that if your highest resolution monitor is 1920x1200 it will be even harder to spot a difference once at 1080p between HD native cameras and the 4k+ competition.

Now, to me, I've found that the 4k files have a quality about them that I've come to appreciate only after I've looked at lots of footage on a high res screen (2800x1800 retina): the true resolving power and the detail that is actually in there. It's then up to you, the photographer, to decide if you want to sharpen or stay more natural. And you can actually do it: not sharpen and still have nice detail.

But since I still have my mk3 I'd like to see where this leads and I'm genuinely happy for that crowd.
 
* 5D3-RAW vs BMC: I think the 5D3 would be the winner for everything except maximum DR, where the BMC has at least one stop more. But I would call the 5D3 the winner in DR too, unless you're willing to go oldschool and use a light meter: the lack of exposure aids in the BMC (they have white zebras, but not histogram, waveform, or even spot meter) makes it very difficult to efficiently use all that DR. In my only BMC shoot so far, I ended up wasting most of it in A LOT of shots; my fault, yes, but it wouldn't have happened with a 5D3-RAW (thanks for the waveform, ML team!)

* BMC vs Scarlet: interesting comparison, Postmaster, but I hadn't realized your test was with same focal length on both cameras! Since I'm not designing sensors or OLPFs, that's not very useful to me. I would never work like that, the only comparison I would be interested in is one with great lenses in both cameras, but matched FoV. Could you post a side-by-side comparison of BMC-with-18mm vs Scarlet-with-25mm? Those should match FoV pretty well.

* RED vs 5D3-RAW: yes, that's the video that was posted yesterday, if they have changed something, I haven't noticed
 
Samuel H said:
* 5D3-RAW vs BMC: I think the 5D3 would be the winner for everything except maximum DR, where the BMC has at least one stop more. But I would call the 5D3 the winner in DR too, unless you're willing to go oldschool and use a light meter: the lack of exposure aids in the BMC (they have white zebras, but not histogram, waveform, or even spot meter) makes it very difficult to efficiently use all that DR. In my only BMC shoot so far, I ended up wasting most of it in A LOT of shots; my fault, yes, but it wouldn't have happened with a 5D3-RAW (thanks for the waveform, ML team!)
Click to expand...

Why do you need a waveform when shooting RAW? What's the point in having one? I still don't get the request.

The easiest thing to grasp with the camera's exposing with the zebras. There's no guessing game, you know where you're actually clipping every single time.
 
Kholi said:
Why do you need a waveform when shooting RAW? What's the point in having one? I still don't get the request.

The easiest thing to grasp with the camera's exposing with the zebras. There's no guessing game, you know where you're actually clipping every single time.
Click to expand...

Waveforms are very useful in quickly telling you what your contrast ratio is between areas of the frame. Sure, you can do the same with a light meter, but a waveform is quicker and more convenient. After having them built in to the XF and C series cameras, and also my external monitor, I've really come to appreciate them. I'd request a waveform no matter what format I was shooting, compressed or raw.
 
cowpunk52 said:
Waveforms are very useful in quickly telling you what your contrast ratio is between areas of the frame. Sure, you can do the same with a light meter, but a waveform is quicker and more convenient. After having them built in to the XF and C series cameras, and also my external monitor, I've really come to appreciate them. I'd request a waveform no matter what format I was shooting, compressed or raw.
Click to expand...

SOrry, I meant with Blackmagic. Personally, I don't see the benefit of having it when working with Linear RAW data. If I were shooting RED, yeah, they claim linear but it surely does not behave like it in any way. If the 5Ds RAW datastream's linear, I'd personally only want to know where the sensor's clipping, everything else I can see with a LUT applied to an external, onboard source.

Agreed, a meter would take more time, although I'm personally more inclined to use one now-a-days even if it is kind of extraneous as well.

I would definitely have a wave on a compressed, log camera like one of the C series, just doesn't seem to make sense on Blackmagic and 5DRAW if it's linear, which by all reports it seems to be.

How are you guys exposing the 5D RAW data? What's the waveform reporting back from? What about the Spot Meter? Is that sensor or profile? The profile's don't carry into the RAW, so if it were profile then that's useless, no?
 
cowpunk52 said:
Waveforms are very useful in quickly telling you what your contrast ratio is between areas of the frame. Sure, you can do the same with a light meter, but a waveform is quicker and more convenient. After having them built in to the XF and C series cameras, and also my external monitor, I've really come to appreciate them. I'd request a waveform no matter what format I was shooting, compressed or raw.
Click to expand...
+1. It's a valuable tool outside of just setting your exposure. On the BMC, waveforms would work a treat with Prores shooting.
 
AndreeOnline said:
Can you give an example of a camera that shows raw clipping in the zebras?
Click to expand...

Blackmagic does. 100 percent Zebras = Sensor level clipping. Literally, anything that's not hitting one-hundred isn't clipped, even if it looks like it's blown to all heck and back.

Or did you mean another one aside from Blackmagic? That I don't know.
 
In the shoot I did with the BMC, we had several shots that had to be somewhat underexposed (talent in a dark room, I wanted to bring more lights, then push it down in post, but the director didn't want that, he said it would kill the mood). In this situation, the zebras were useless. We ended up underexposing by a lot more than we intended. With a waveform, that wouldn't have happened. Yes, a light meter would have worked the same in this situation, but I don't own one (I never felt I needed one until shooting with the BMC!).
So, luckily, it has a lot of DR, otherwise we'd be screwed. But, seeing the results, I would have traded at least one stop of DR for a better way of gauging on set what I was doing (yes, I know: fixing my incompetence would be another solution :) )
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top