Hitler's Rant about the Canon 5DMK4 Video Features

[Brian Drysdale]

Equally important is the point that the number of camera people involved in making productions for 70 ft wide cinema screen is a lot smaller than those making them for large screen TVs. Use the camera for the job you're doing. Single system sound is used for more than run and gun productions, it's not unusual on a wide range of broadcast productions.

[Tyler Purcell]

Equally important is the point that the number of camera people involved in making productions for 70 ft wide cinema screen is a lot smaller than those making them for large screen TVs. Use the camera for the job you're doing. Single system sound is used for more than run and gun productions, it's not unusual on a wide range of broadcast productions.

More and more, people are reverting back to separate system sound, thanks to the advent of lower-cost external recorders. In fact, every single show I've been on this year has been double system sound, first time in my entire career. I'm a huge advocate of single system sound, but it appears the market is changing again.

 

When I refer to "run and gun" I'm using using it as a general term that refers to a single camera unit, which is easy for one person to use. I also like to use the term "ENG" because originally the "all in one" camera was designed for that purpose and to this day, the external basic design hasn't varied much. Yes, manufacturers put their own personal touches on the cameras, but anyone who picks up a different brand's camera, should be able to make it work quick, unlike today's cinema cameras, which are so heavily menu driven.

 

I also do think, if you're spending money on a real production, you'd better make it for a 70ft screen because that's where things are headed, that's what netflix delivery is already requesting. They already have higher standards then our cinemas!

[Robin R Probyn]

Fs7 can shoot 4K XAVC.. not just Mpeg XDCAM.. I keep on saying this.. my fingers are bleeding on the key board !.. totally fine for netflix.. I have shot for netflix on my F5 in the exact same codec.. the lens on the front is making more difference.. I wouldn't pick the Fs7 necessarily for a big feature film..of course RAW would be better.. but if you needed to use it it would be fine.. Slog3/4K XAVC .. ProRes is a very old codec.. XAVC quality wise is just as good but better algorithms have been able to compress more thats all..

 

Also I would say Netflix is killing the 70ft screen.. look at the lack of audience in this year .. alot of people are staying at home watching far better product on.70 inch TV,s .. for good to for bad.

[Tyler Purcell]

XAVC IS MPEG!!!!!

[Robin R Probyn]

Yes I said XDCAM Mpeg.. which is LONG GOP.. XAVC I is intra frame.. and very different from the XDCAM setting in the Fs7.. dont tell me you thought they were the same thing.. ?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

I said iFrame many times.

[Robin R Probyn]

XDCAM in the FS7/F5/F55 is long GOP..

[Tyler Purcell]

Right, but that is a worthless codec that doesn't work for anyone but 1080p customers watching on a small television.

 

I ignore it's existence because it's not 2005 anymore. That codec should have died off when the XDCAM optical format died in 2010 ish.

[Robin R Probyn]

Your avoiding the point of the discussion .. XAVC is not long GOP.. its intra and very new and good codec universally adopted by all grading and NLE software .. even FCP6 !! it seems you were un aware that is was in the camera.. you could have shot true 17-9 (unlike an Alexa :) 4K to XAVC in Slog3.cine and had an image right up good enough for theatrical release..and you would have to know how LOG works.. next time you use a Sony camera please read up about it bit .. or your not serving your dir very well..

 

BTW..Pro res is also a very old codec..

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

I never said XAVC is longGOP.

 

I'd be glad to show you samples of how poor the XAVC codec is when you push it.

 

I just can't do that right now... too busy editing.

[Robin R Probyn]

As I just said in another thread.. how is it there are thousands of other DP,s getting great results from XAVC.. check on line.. doc,s music video,s TV drama.. features.. but somehow you and for some unfathomable reason.. very DP,s footage you receive .. is totally crap and un useable.. sort of a common thread here.. either everyone else is lucky or you and the people you work with have not very high skill levels with these particular camera,s..

 

BTW XAVC was not around in the optical XDCAM.s.. XDCAM is not a codec.. Im not you got that..

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

Robin, please back off. You need to stop being so close and tight to your Sony cameras. I have my reasons for not liking Sony cameras, especially the current fleet. You don't have to constantly defend your purchase decision with me. I don't own one, but then again I would never recommend one to anyone, ever. I have enough 4k proof right here for those people to see and understand. It's hard to transmit 10 bit 444 4k over the internet and for you to see it on a calibrated monitor on your side. So lets just say, since my job is to make what you shoot look good, that perhaps I have more insight to what each of these cameras does. Again, in perfect lighting, without any true dynamics, what you shoot with is down to glass more then anything else. When you get out of that world, when you truly run and gun, that's when these cameras show their true colors.

 

I wrote a diatribe on the other thread, maybe you'll understand more where I come from.

 

I also never said the material I work with is unusable. I said it requires a lot of re-working and the net result is noisy/grainy all the time.

 

I think it's unfathomable that all the cinematographers, guys who have shot for 30+ years, don't know what they're doing. This is why I tend to blame the camera, especially since it's almost ALWAYS Sony cameras that are the problem. Since I'm an editor and colorist for hire, I've worked with a lot of cameras.

[Landon D. Parks]

Part of the problem is people arguing over which camera is best - arguing against cameras because of minor things such as codec. No camera is perfect, not even the Alexa. Each camera has it's trade-off's for its pluses. The reality is, you're not getting Alexa quality in any camera under the Alexa price point.

 

So, I like Panasonic... Tyler likes Black Magic... Robin likes Sony... I can tell you right now, that if you put these cameras side-by-side with the same lenses and with the same material in a delivery format, very few people, if any, could name which camera was which. Maybe you can, or maybe even I could... But 99% of your audience cannot tell, nor do they care rather you shot it at 4:4:4 12-bit vs 4:2:2 10-bit or 4:2:0 8-bit. I don't recall mass hysteria when Star Wars Ep 3 was released about the low quality codec. I also don't recall any rave reviews about a movie because it was shot raw.

 

By the time that image reaches the cinema screen (which it won't in 98% of cases), and especially by the time it reaches the highly compressed DVD, Bluray or streaming markets - no one will be able to tell what codec you shot it on. Viewing 4:4:4 12-bit through a 4:2:0 8-bit codec will look no better than something originated at that codec.

 

So, don't make the mistake many people who are 'techies' make - go and buy the most feature-rich camera your budget can afford and shoot your movie. Waiting for the next big codec, or putting off purchasing something because the specs are less than you might want is just a waste of time.

Edited September 1, 2016 by Landon D. Parks

[Robin R Probyn]

Im not so tight with Sony.. Ive had parsonic camera too.. in fact I thought they looked better in the pre LOG days..

 

Im just saying that there is a ton of very good XAVC footage out there.. XDCAM too for that matter.. and that it seem apparent that Tyler is not getting the best from the camera due to lack of knowledge of LOG gamma.. and that Tyler just rights them off hands down is just bad advise to others on the forum who are asking about them/Sony codec,s.

 

Thats all..

 

Statement like this.. is sorry but total hog wash.. maybe its you Tyler who doesnt know what they are doing.. always an outside chance no..?

 

"I think it's unfathomable that all the cinematographers, guys who have shot for 30+ years, don't know what they're doing. This is why I tend to blame the camera, especially since it's almost ALWAYS Sony cameras that are the problem. Since I'm an editor and colorist for hire, I've worked with a lot of cameras."

 

​If everything you have worked on has crap DP,s.. I think it talks of the productions you work on.. not that 90% of DP,s are crap and that Sony camera,s are too.. maybe if you worked on Cafe Society you could give Vittorio a telling off for crap rushes.. :)

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Robin R Probyn]

Im not defending my purchase..its the cheapest camera Ive ever bought.. Im far more worried about my lens.. if Canon had made the C300 II actually look a camera.. I would be probably bought it..

 

Im saying if people are coming to this forum for advise.. which seems to be the main purpose.. they are being very short changed by Tylers pontifications on all sorts of things.. its a dis service to people genuinely seeking advise.. thats why I feel I have to make a call on it.. this could effect peoples productions and projects.. thats a serious business for them..

 

I,ll leave it at that..

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Brian Drysdale]

This C series may match Tyler's needs: http://www.dvinfo.net/news/eos-c700-tops-cinema-eos-from-canon-usa.html

[Sebastien Scandiuzzi]

This C series may match Tyler's needs: http://www.dvinfo.net/news/eos-c700-tops-cinema-eos-from-canon-usa.html

 

 

In the article: "gives users the ability to convert between EF to PL mounts**"

 

I thought, FINALLY!!! YES! This was a big factor for me, there isn't an EF to PL adapter because of the flange depth- not mentioning anything people on this thread probably weren't aware of, I just mention because its a pain in the ass if you want to use PL glass and I wouldn't buy the PL version since 80% of work is EF lenses. Hence my interest in Sony's FS7/FS5.

 

I was pretty happy until I read the asterisk "**conversions to EF to PL at official Canon facilities". UGH! Of-**(obscenity removed)**-course Canon. And since Canon doesn't do anything quickly, and beyond the annoyance of not having the option to buy a PL mount, changing between EF to PL will mean I'll have to rent a camera for any jobs while its being converted.

 

This is a great example of how Canon gets it right while getting it wrong. And I'm saying this as a Canon user.

[Tyler Purcell]

Im just saying that there is a ton of very good XAVC footage out there.. XDCAM too for that matter.. and that it seem apparent that Tyler is not getting the best from the camera due to lack of knowledge of LOG gamma..

My job is to make what other people shoot look good. So when handed a shot, it doesn't matter what format it's in, I have to make it look good.

 

Lets say your signal to noise ratio is 50db. When you record a LOG curve, it requires translating that curve during coloring, which means raising the highlights and lowering the mids and blacks. Since you've baked in particular noise level, you're increasing the noise when you do this coloring work. I'm not talking imager noise, but "codec" noise.

 

Statement like this.. is sorry but total hog wash.. maybe its you Tyler who doesnt know what they are doing.. always an outside chance no..?

It's only hogwash because people like you, refuse to learn. I'm not making anything up, I work with top colorists all the time, on bigger jobs that I simply can't do. They always balk when I send the MPEG anything, they just don't want to deal with it because in their eyes, it's substandard.

 

Few months ago, thanks to another thread where people said MPEG worked fine... I produced a video that destroyed the XDCAM 50 codec. Now that I have access to an F5, I will gladly produce a video that destroys the XAVC codec as well. We both know that's going to be a tough endeavor, but I know it's weaknesses and I will flaunt them. Of course... my "comparison" camera like in the last video, will be a $1000 blackmagic pocket camera in Pro Res HQ. I will use the same ISO, same stop, even the same glass just to keep that out of the equation. When I have time, I will make this, just to have a laugh.

 

​If everything you have worked on has crap DP,s.. I think it talks of the productions you work on.. not that 90% of DP,s are crap and that Sony camera,s are too.. maybe if you worked on Cafe Society you could give Vittorio a telling off for crap rushes.. :)

That's not what I said, I said it's unfathomable that the myriad of cinematographers I've cut and colored, are bad cinematographers.

 

It also humors me when those same people work with a RAW or Pro Res camera it looks fine. So is it the cinematographer, or is it the camera?

 

The feature I'm currently editing has a baked in look. That's because the cinematographer did a test with log and found the signal to noise ratio on the MPEG file to be a problem.

 

Also I doubt anyone shooting with an F65 uses XAVC codec. Again, with Pro Res or RAW codec, the higher end Sony cameras look fine. Then it's down to all the other Sony bugaboo's, which the list goes on and on. Thank god the F5 and F55 have most options right on the side screen.

[Tyler Purcell]

This C series may match Tyler's needs: http://www.dvinfo.net/news/eos-c700-tops-cinema-eos-from-canon-usa.html

But look at the price! HOLY poop! Canon is trying to break into the higher end market. Problem is, that market is pretty flooded with very good cameras.

[Sebastien Scandiuzzi]

But look at the price! HOLY poop! Canon is trying to break into the higher end market. Problem is, that market is pretty flooded with very good cameras.

 

Think I caught this mid censor :)

 

Yup. $35K is just way too much. I forgot to add that. I think Canon decided rather then making the C500 mark II, to make C700.

[Tyler Purcell]

So, I like Panasonic... Tyler likes Black Magic... Robin likes Sony...

Here is the difference. You and I can't afford an Alexa, but if we had the money, we'd probably own one or at least a RED of some flavor. We're kinda stuck in a sub $5k camera world.

 

I'm not a blackmagic devotee at all. In fact, outside of the pocket and Ursa Mini 4.6k PL, I think the rest of the cameras are seriously flawed. I haven't bounced on the URSA Mini yet because I think they'll do a major update soon.

 

Still, I've never been just a shooter. If I shoot something, I'm most likely editing it. So things like codec's take a higher precedence then things like imager size, resolution or even built in audio capabilities. This is because, time is money and for me, the quicker I can edit something, the quicker the turn around, the more money I make. Most of the time I'm looking for "acceptable" rather then "perfect".

 

I also like run and gun, so having a lot of dynamic range, especially in the highlights, is important for me. Maybe not so important for a big movie shoot where you can control everything. Hence the reason people get away with using crappy cameras on bigger shows.

 

What I personally look for is camera system that fits perfectly with a native post production workflow. I'm also looking for something cinematic, something that doesn't have highlight clipping issues, that doesn't flatline in situations with too much brightness and isn't overly noisy.

[Sebastien Scandiuzzi]

 

I also like run and gun, so having a lot of dynamic range, especially in the highlights, is important for me. Maybe not so important for a big movie shoot where you can control everything. Hence the reason people get away with using crappy cameras on bigger shows.

 

 

(Just want to point out, I'm not looking for a definitive answer thats up for argument from other posters, I'm just looking for his personal impression)

 

Tyler, since you've colored most of the cameras discussed within the sub $15K range, is the highlight issues with FS7/FS5 that big an issue as I've read? Is it more because the DP didn't capture a usable 'negative'? Or is there a real highlight issue in your opinion? Also, does most to all of the FS7 footage need more coloring/grading/timing in comparison to other cameras?

 

Thanks!

[Robin R Probyn]

"Lets say your signal to noise ratio is 50db. When you record a LOG curve, it requires translating that curve during coloring, which means raising the highlights and lowering the mids and blacks. Since you've baked in particular noise level, you're increasing the noise when you do this coloring work. I'm not talking imager noise, but "codec" noise."

 

Yes thats why you want to over expose your log if anything.. but you have already told us you under expose it.. and yet you also say you set your ISO to the very lowest you can every time.. this would actually mean in EI that you would be over exposing .. again I would say you dont know about LOG.. codec noise..? SN is inherent in a camera,s sensor.. refusing to learn ?

 

"It's only hogwash because people like you, refuse to learn."

 

eh ? refuse to learn what.. my rushes are fine.. please answer the question.. why is it your rushes are crap.. and that all ! the DP,s you work with.. even those with 30 years experience all don't know what they doing .. this is quite rude and frankly laughable.. as a fellow cameraman I would be very pissed off if some jack of all trades was dissing my rushes.. I would advise you to stop doing that..

 

"I said it's unfathomable that the myriad of cinematographers I've cut and colored, are bad cinematographers."

 

​Yes exactly what Im questioning you about.. why is that..either you are working on the very lowest rung on the ladder.. which is also unfathomable given your high skills in..well everything it seems .. and that you work in high end post houses and have been a major player in big studio productions.. something doesn't add up?

Edited September 1, 2016 by Robin R Probyn

[Tyler Purcell]

why is it your rushes are crap..

Again, I'm "complaining" about other people's work, using specific cameras.. not my work. I'm generally happy with my rushes and because I personally use a high dynamic range codec and under expose slightly, I have a lot of latitude to make corrections in post.

 

the DP,s you work with.. even those with 30 years experience all don't know what they doing ..

I don't judge people like that.

 

I would be very pissed off if some jack of all trades was dissing my rushes.. I would advise you to stop doing that..

Thanks for your advisement, but does the client sit with you in the coloring bay? Do they get angry at you (the cinematographer) when the look they are trying to achieve is impossible because of what you did or the limitations of the equipment?

 

Unfortunately in the real world, the client is with the editor and colorist quite a bit and when stuff looks like crap, thanks to the look the client is seeking in post which may not match what was on set, you have to determine where the problem lies.

 

This is why colorists all over the world, dislike lower-end cameras and very much like higher end RAW capture cameras. They want greater latitude for the client to make decisions in post because as you very well know, those things always happen.

 

​Yes exactly what Im questioning you about.. why is that..either you are working on the very lowest rung on the ladder.. which is also unfathomable given your high skills in..well everything it seems .. and that you work in high end post houses and have been a major player in big studio productions.. something doesn't add up?

I mean, stuff I've edited and colored has been on national and regional broadcasts over the years. At the same time, I've worked on little indy short films for a few hundred bux. I'm not doing this work to make lots of money, I do it because I enjoy it.

[Robin R Probyn]

You have complained that your own footage has been bad.. you mentioned blown out highlights because of the camera and codec..

 

You don't judge people like that.. this is a quote from you in another thread

 

"I think it's unfathomable that all the cinematographers, guys who have shot for 30+ years, don't know what they're doing."

 

Now this cant be read any other way.. ALL the cameraman.. Shot for 30 plus years.. don't know what they are doing.. YOU wrote this man.. I,d say this is sweeping and judgmental.. then you just flat out deny it..and say you wouldn't say that..??

 

And what about all the Sony camera,s accessories being priority .. you seem to have dropped that line too..

 

'the look the client is seeking in post which may not match what was on set, you have to determine where the problem lies."

 

 

.. or the colorist knows what they are doing.. and the client doesn't get pissed off with the colorist blaming all the DP,s.. camera.. codec.. level of air conditioning.. monitor.. the seats arnt comfortable.. and there,s a dog with 3 legs down the road..

Edited September 2, 2016 by Robin R Probyn