SXSW 2012 Panel talking trash on the 5D (in terms of color latitude)

X

xzoticskillz

Member
Attended a south by southwest panel today consisting of professional colorists who share their thoughts on how they think you must really "hate" your film if you shot it on the 5D. Of course, they were talking in terms of color latitude the 5D offers. But what I don't get is why they believe its that terrible. They talked about the technicolor picture profile but how bad the 5D renders the profile when it introduces too much noise when correcting luma in post. They didn't really have a solution to this problem other than choosing a better camera to shoot short/feature films on, and to only use DSLR cams if its your last option in terms of budget. These guys seemed really biased in choosing RED or the Alexa camera, but it raises a question.....is the 5D really that bad when it comes to dynamic range? What are some solutions besides choosing a flat color profile such as cinestyle?
 
Expensive cameras are expensive for a reason...a lot of the sub $25K cameras produce what old-timers might call 'a thin neg.' That being said, I don't think it's the end of the world to shoot a film with one. Your finished product might not have the same level of filmcraft as a big-budget release, but c'mon, everybody -- it's about the story, not the camera you use.
 
just tell them to quit complaining and go out and shoot something. damn haters.
 
xzoticskillz said:
Attended a south by southwest panel today consisting of professional colorists who share their thoughts on how they think you must really "hate" your film if you shot it on the 5D. Of course, they were talking in terms of color latitude the 5D offers. But what I don't get is why they believe its that terrible. They talked about the technicolor picture profile but how bad the 5D renders the profile when it introduces too much noise when correcting luma in post. They didn't really have a solution to this problem other than choosing a better camera to shoot short/feature films on, and to only use DSLR cams if its your last option in terms of budget.
Click to expand...

They are right.

Since the sweeping of HD productions, you don't hear it much, but people complain about film stocks, and film cameras too. Anyone obsessed with getting a good image, is going to complain about the current technology at some point. Just as long as you are speaking the truth, and not becoming obsessed with finding faults, than it is all informative and constructive. You have to know your limits too.


xzoticskillz said:
These guys seemed really biased in choosing RED or the Alexa camera, but it raises a question.....is the 5D really that bad when it comes to dynamic range? What are some solutions besides choosing a flat color profile such as cinestyle?
Click to expand...
I rarely use a flat picture style. I'll use a more image ready picture style and tweak in camera according to the composition. Most often, I use my own custom picture styles.

It is common practice to shoot a sterile image that can be manipulated easier in post, but the codec on these cameras is so brittle, it is not a requirement. I've always enjoyed shooting in camera and doing zero or little grading later on. It definitely won't have that 'sizzle', but it is my personal work process. I have even done some whacky white balances such as daylight WB under 60Watt incandescent bulbs, but I brought the saturation way down too(-3?), so it had a monochromatic warm feel.
 
Last edited:
I love working with my 5D and I also love grading. I work in Resolve, Color and about 3 other grading suites. I also understand what they are talking about in terms of their art. When grading, working with at least a 422 image sure is great. You have more lattitude to push the values around. It's that simple. Add 10 bit or 444, or RAW and it is just heaven. However, all that said, if you expose properly, with or without Cinestyle I have found that there is more than enough space to do incredible things. Sure I feel Canon has shortchanged a lot of people in making their $16K camera a mere 8 bit 422, but it is still a great camera. I think the real issue is that it leaves very little room for their less expensive cameras to have the kind of latitude that these colorists and us need to take things to another level.
 
It depends on what you compare to. The 5d is absolutely great if you compare to videocameras. If you compare to digital cinema cams like RED and Alexa, offcourse it will suck compared.

But if you compare it even to the Sony EX1, the EX1 will lose on dynamic range, codec and highlight roll-off. It will win in aliasing though. We shot a documentary on the 7d/ex1 combo and regularly used more of the 7d than the EX1.

And the codec is really not bad! Old HDV codecs are really bad compared and even AVCHD that is used in consumers cams suck compared to the 5d/7d codec. The Sony nex-5n AVCHD breaks up completely in grading, way earlier than the Canon codec.
 
maarek said:
It depends on what you compare to. The 5d is absolutely great if you compare to videocameras. If you compare to digital cinema cams like RED and Alexa, offcourse it will suck compared.

But if you compare it even to the Sony EX1, the EX1 will lose on dynamic range, codec and highlight roll-off. It will win in aliasing though. We shot a documentary on the 7d/ex1 combo and regularly used more of the 7d than the EX1.

And the codec is really not bad! Old HDV codecs are really bad compared and even AVCHD that is used in consumers cams suck compared to the 5d/7d codec. The Sony nex-5n AVCHD breaks up completely in grading, way earlier than the Canon codec.
Click to expand...

That's interesting because I thought the Ex-1 was one of the few inexpensive camcorders that actually offered 10 bit 422 (through hdmi out I believe), so I would have thought that it would actually hold up quite well...
 
maarek said:
But if you compare it even to the Sony EX1, the EX1 will lose on dynamic range, codec and highlight roll-off. It will win in aliasing though.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be surprised if this was mostly due to the DOF issue than dynamic range and codec.

And the codec is really not bad! Old HDV codecs are really bad compared and even AVCHD that is used in consumers cams suck compared to the 5d/7d codec. The Sony nex-5n AVCHD breaks up completely in grading, way earlier than the Canon codec.
Click to expand...

The Canon DSLR codec is a very crippled version of H.264 and not nearly as good as AVCHD. This is FUD.
 
Last edited:
Well.... I mean.... yeah.
Any time one of them wants to cough up the several thousand bucks a day to rent an Alexa I'll be glad to send them my address.
 
(of course I know Flaat is not going to magically make them think a 5D2 is like a mini-Alexa - I'd just want to hear how much of an improvement -if any- they think it is)
 
I wonder whether the people seeing noise in cinestyle are grading correctly exposed images or footage where cinestyle was used as a "cheat" to underexpose.
 
The SXSW panel is right. No matter what picture profile you have loaded to the camera an 8-bit, 4:2:0, h.264 codec can't beat 10-bit, 4:4:4 Log RAW from an Alexa or Red cine camera that is 20+ times the price. But in a camera's weakness you can find the cinematographer's strengths. The limitations of DSLR's like the 5D force a shooter to lock the image at capture, to nail the exposure perfectly and control the softness, intensity and contrast of lighting in a scene to produce a decent composition, among a score of other factors when shooting on this particular format.

Also bear in mind that panel was made up of colourist's; of course they're going to want the best 'negative' possible. For DP's like Vincent Laforet, Gale Tattersall, ASC and Matthew Libatique, ASC when they have shot on DSLR's their concern isn't so much the post pipeline more than it is simply capturing the image with a camera that has a small form factor, a massive sensor and small price compared to pro cine cameras. There are other reasons to shoot on such cameras beyond what I've mentioned, but these are the major ones.

Horses for courses.
 
The axiom I preach to people is that while a DSLR allows less volume of light (because of the ridiculous ISO you can shoot at compared to film), it actually makes "lighting" much much harder. Your ability to "fix it in post" is very limited and the dynamic range is very narrow.
 
Christopher Daniel Walker said:
The SXSW panel is right. No matter what picture profile you have loaded to the camera an 8-bit, 4:2:0, h.264 codec can't beat 10-bit, 4:4:4 Log RAW from an Alexa or Red cine camera that is 20+ times the price. But in a camera's weakness you can find the cinematographer's strengths. The limitations of DSLR's like the 5D force a shooter to lock the image at capture, to nail the exposure perfectly and control the softness, intensity and contrast of lighting in a scene to produce a decent composition, among a score of other factors when shooting on this particular format.

Also bear in mind that panel was made up of colourist's; of course they're going to want the best 'negative' possible. For DP's like Vincent Laforet, Gale Tattersall, ASC and Matthew Libatique, ASC when they have shot on DSLR's their concern isn't so much the post pipeline more than it is simply capturing the image with a camera that has a small form factor, a massive sensor and small price compared to pro cine cameras. There are other reasons to shoot on such cameras beyond what I've mentioned, but these are the major ones.

Horses for courses.
Click to expand...
Exac
These guys are pros and know what they're talking about. But I think they are just frustrated that it's harder to grade, NOT IMPOSSIBLE.
 
maarek said:
But if you compare it even to the Sony EX1, the EX1 will lose on dynamic range, codec and highlight roll-off. It will win in aliasing though. We shot a documentary on the 7d/ex1 combo and regularly used more of the 7d than the EX1.

The Sony nex-5n AVCHD breaks up completely in grading, way earlier than the Canon codec.
Click to expand...
I have to disagree. The EX1 has a lot more usable dynamic range as you can push the shadows up and pull the highlights down far more than on a Canon DSLR. With Gamma set to Cine1 or Cine3 the DR is about 10 stops. The XDCAM EX codec is vastly VASTLY superior to the brand of h264 that Canon DSLRs shoot. I am completely baffled as to how you could think the codec on the EX1 isn't any good.

Read this article for a look at how AVCHD (aka AVCCAM) is even better than XDCAM EX. http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/25 I really have to question how you evaluate what makes for a 'better' codec. As a NEX-5N owner I also have to disagree with your comments about the footage from it as I've found it can be used to a similar extent if not a little bit more than a Canon DSLR before breaking up.
 
whats unacceptable to one guy is nirvana to the next.

it all depends on who youre talking to and what youre working on. id bet that 93% of DSLR shooters never truly (for reasons other than they think theyre supposed to) "grade" their footage or see it projected in ways that much of this really matters.
 
well, let's call it a tie then: CineStyle delivers 10 stops of dynamic range, and it's what lots of people use (Flaat_2 is also 10 stops, Flaat_3 is 11 stops, Flaat_4 is 12 stops, and decidedly noisy in the shadows in anything except very well lit scenes)
 
SAIUN said:
I am completely baffled as to how you could think the codec on the EX1 isn't any good.
Click to expand...

Probably because I've used it. It breaks up when shooting trees or water. Or anything fast moving. It's still pretty ok but mpeg2 at 35mbps is just not quite good enough. You even linked an article showing that breaking up but still claim it's good?

Read this article for a look at how AVCHD (aka AVCCAM) is even better than XDCAM EX. http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/article.php/25 I really have to question how you evaluate what makes for a 'better' codec.
Click to expand...

There are different flavors of AVCHD though even at the same bitrate. The AVCHD on the FS100 completely kills the AVCHD on the Nex-5n. Especially at 1080p. Eventhough the bitrates are supposedly the same. Apparently the encoder on the Nex-5n isn't nearly as powerful as the one on the FS100. What does that tell us? It tells us that the encoder on the 5n is quite bad. It's on the same level as the encoder on the Sony HX9v. It's not good. It's not EX1 level.

Times also move forward. Sony has always had mpeg2 encoders that break up badly. For example, the old Canon XH A1. Same mpeg2 bitrate as on the Sony z7. Still the Canon codec held up better. Now canon has upped it to 50mbps 4:2:2 on the XF100/300. That also kills the XDCAM EX variants.

As a NEX-5N owner I also have to disagree with your comments about the footage from it as I've found it can be used to a similar extent if not a little bit more than a Canon DSLR before breaking up.
Click to expand...

Shoot at ISO 3200. What happens to the shadows? They turn grey. What happens to the noise? It's completely blotchy. You can still raise the shadows and clean them up on the 7d, not so on the 5n. Midtones and highlights look great though.

5n also has a pretty good image I think, in good light it is slightly sharper and less moirey than the Canon cams. But the codec ITSELF isn't as good. As someone who shoots a lot of action, a lot of movement...it really shows.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top