Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: MPEG 422 XF variant from XF305 in 5D2 replacement  (Read 988 times)
harlemshooter
Guest
« on: August 11, 2011, 01:10:45 PM »
ReplyReply

I disliked the XF305's flat-looking color space so I bought several 5D2s - which I am quite happy with for video production. While it is perhaps too early to weigh the pros and cons of the pairing of the XF305s 4:2:2 codec with the 5D2's replacement, I feel rather skeptical based on my negative experience with the XF305. Maybe pairing this codec with a full frame sensor will negate the issues I had.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/577/rumor-canon-5d-mark-iii-to-feature-new-mpeg-variant-422-xf-codec-at-50mbit
« Last Edit: August 11, 2011, 01:25:10 PM by harlemshooter » Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 533


WWW
« Reply #1 on: August 12, 2011, 11:02:26 PM »
ReplyReply

The codec has nothing to do with color space, but it might change the color of the footage if used against its strengths. If you know how to use it correctly, you should get roughly the same output from both cameras in terms of color on a professionally calibrated display.
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Nigel Johnson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 121


« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2011, 03:27:58 PM »
ReplyReply

I believe that as XF305 cannot shoot raw video (only a few high end cameras such as the RED can do so) a flatter picture may have intentionally been chosen as this will allow more adjustment in post processing and grading. However, this means that the footage straight out of the camera may not be suitable for final use. Indeed there are presets available for the 5DII that aim to have lower contrast and saturation to allow for grading.

I believe that the XF305 allows for 26 different Picture Options that can be adjusted and would expect that changing to a different option, possibly with an adjustment, would provide a less flat (but less gradable) video.

Nigel
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #3 on: August 15, 2011, 11:32:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Saturday Night Live uses Canon DSLRs and the XF305 for many of the out of studio skits. Those cameras all work for broadcast. If it's good enough for them, I think it's good enough for most other users with either systems.


I think a lot of this depends on what is a raw file?

Will a flat motion jpeg color grade and crush and color as well as a raw file from a RED even if the Canon goes from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2?

And the biggest question is why can't Canon, or anyone other than Arri, Phantom and RED make a raw file in video/cinema cameras?

Don't get me wrong, I think the 5d2 is pretty amazing, when the light gets low, I find it less intriguing as a main A camera good light quantity scene.

Two weeks ago we had two scenes that just could not be shot with our REDs and even the Sony FS100.  The RED's were just too obvious noisy at the iso needed and the FS100 with the DB bumped to it's limit blows the highlights.

The 5d2 remarkably held the highlights and got the shot, actually two very low light shots, that in review would have taken hours to craft the light for the same effect, but instead just took a laptop screen for a key, small turned down lcds for fill and accents.  It's still kind of mind blowing when I look at those images and think how good they look.

I look forward to the 5d3, will obviously buy one or two, but would be much more impressed if it shot raw and had better sound controls.

Speaking of the FS100 to me it's almost the perfect form function and weight, and has a series of user defined presets, some which mimic the technicolor cinetone, though don't really add that much once we start grading as you have to decide which way you want to go, holding highlights, crushing blacks, but not open shadows and highlight recovery.

Also as much as I like the idea of presets you always know it's cooked into the file.  Under the pressure of production where time is limited, light is changing, color and tone is very scene dependent, it kind of puts some sweat in the palms knowing that once shot, the image is cooked.

Regardless of the form factor and sound issues of the 5d2, it's still an amazing camera given the fact it never was designed for high quality video.   

Anyway  I find it a little strange that Canon came out with the first full frame still camera that shot raw and jpeg and dominated the still market, but in video just stumbled on a camera with the live view of the 5d2 that could be the same dominate motion camera given just a few additions.

Nikon is even more puzzling as they just seem to do the head in the sand thing, thinking video might not be that important.

IMO

BC
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad