Magic Lantern Enables Continous Sharp 1080p 24fps 14-Bit RAW DNG Video from Full Frame Canon 5D Mark III. EPIC! - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 66 Old 05-12-2013, 06:25 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Canon 5D Mark III RAW video will now have much better dynamic range, sharpness, be much better for grading, even better low light thanks to the extra dynamic range and ability to life shadows, etc. Canon crippled it to hell and Magic Lantern has unleashed pretty close to the holy grail; A Full Frame RAW cinema camera that also shoots high MP stills, has much better low light performance than even a Red Epic, all the magic lantern professional shooting hacks, HDR mode for video, etc. biggrin.gif

http://nofilmschool.com/2013/05/1080p-raw-video-canon-5d-mark-iii-anamorphic/?utm_campaign=twitter&utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitter
MTyson is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 12:29 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
WOW Absolutely Stunningly gorgeous new RAW 5D Mark III footage that is simply in Alexa/Red Epic territory and FULL FRAME! WOW. Be sure to enable HD mode. If this build becomes stable and doesn't hurt the sensor or anything we have something TRULY revolutionary in the works here. eek.gif

I have come across people canceling their Alexa, Red Epic and BlackMagic Orders after viewing this video. That's pretty crazy I think. Crossing my fingers hoping it ends up stable and usable in the field, because it will be one hell of an all in one camera.


http://vimeo.com/66033769#
MTyson is offline  
post #3 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 02:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
brunerww's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 31
MT - I am excited about it too (so excited I did a blog post on it) but I haven't cancelled my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Cam order. $3400+ for a 5D Mark III is still a lot of money for the "full frame look".

Also, a few caveats that I have parsed out after a couple of days of looking at this:

1) The ML firmware modification kills the camera's internal audio recording capability. So you'll have to go back to dual system.

2) According to 5D MkIII RAW tester lourenco121, the ML firmware mod only works with Canon firmware version 1.1.3 - and not the later 1.2.1

3) According to Freya Black at RedShark News, the ML firmware crops the sensor - so you lose some of the vaunted "full frame" advantage

With all of this said, it is still an amazing accomplishment, and I will continue to follow it closely.

Great times to be a filmmaker!

Bill
Hybrid Camera Revolution
brunerww is offline  
post #4 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 08:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 71
This is great for 5D MKIII shooters but the Sony FS700 shoots 4K raw @60fps with 15 stops of DR.


http://www.eoshd.com/content/10110/odyssey7q-turns-wimpy-sony-fs700-into-monstrous-4k-raw-crunching-beast-with-15-stops-dr
jogiba is online now  
post #5 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 12:05 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

This is great for 5D MKIII shooters but the Sony FS700 shoots 4K raw @60fps with 15 stops of DR.


http://www.eoshd.com/content/10110/odyssey7q-turns-wimpy-sony-fs700-into-monstrous-4k-raw-crunching-beast-with-15-stops-dr

Yeah, but the FS700 is nearly $8,000 for the body alone (more than twice the price), is going to require an expensive (possibly a couple grand I've heard) hardware update + an expensive recorder that's a minimum of $2,500. You may be looking at $13,000+ for the body only. Massive difference in price, hence far less interesting, imo. Nice camera though. Also, I don't know if I trust the "15 stops" DR rating. He rated the FS700 without RAW at 14 stops while other testers had it at around 11.5 max. So, I do have my doubts about that until I see other claims backing it up.

BTW, new RAW video comparing against the BMCC biggrin.gif:

http://vimeo.com/66170436
MTyson is offline  
post #6 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 12:34 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

MT - I am excited about it too (so excited I did a blog post on it) but I haven't cancelled my Blackmagic Pocket Cinema Cam order. $3400+ for a 5D Mark III is still a lot of money for the "full frame look".

Also, a few caveats that I have parsed out after a couple of days of looking at this:

1) The ML firmware modification kills the camera's internal audio recording capability. So you'll have to go back to dual system.
Hopefully they'll figure this out, but I'm willing to do it. Zoom H4N. biggrin.gif
Quote:
2) According to 5D MkIII RAW tester lourenco121, the ML firmware mod only works with Canon firmware version 1.1.3 - and not the later 1.2.1
Guess a lot of people won't be "upgrading" their firmware then. lol.
Quote:
3) According to Freya Black at RedShark News, the ML firmware crops the sensor - so you lose some of the vaunted "full frame" advantage
I'm assuming it must not be much of a loss since most videos are advertising the "full frame" advantage and the new one I just saw I can clearly see that "full frame" look. Either way as long as it's APS-C or less crop I'm happy. lol.

Apparently the T3i may be getting RAW as well but at lower resolutions. Who knows....maybe 480p RAW will be sharper than their 1080p H.264 video. haha. tongue.gif
Quote:
With all of this said, it is still an amazing accomplishment, and I will continue to follow it closely.

Great times to be a filmmaker
Hybrid Camera Revolution

It really is! This could be huge on the industry. It may force Canon to make some big video upgrades in the near future. A Canon guy on Twitter is already either doing damage control trying to spread fear about the hack or maybe it really is dangerous (we'll find out soon enough) to the sensor. He claims RAW video is coming, but of course neglected to say how soon or for how much.
MTyson is offline  
post #7 of 66 Old 05-14-2013, 01:36 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Looks like the T3i may get RAW too, albeit at lower resolutions. I just saw a video at 1280x540p RAW and it already looks much sharper & better than the H.264 codec. lol. Would be nice to have a $500-$600 near Super 35mm camera capable of cinematic dynamic range.

Now this is only test footage at the moment, so it has some magenta macroblocking issues due to using a slow card, but already the potential I can see. smile.gif

T3i RAW vs H.264
https://vimeo.com/66127807
MTyson is offline  
post #8 of 66 Old 05-16-2013, 07:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Magic Lantern - Raw Video Workflow Tutorial



jogiba is online now  
post #9 of 66 Old 05-16-2013, 12:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Andrew Reid says the Mark III now beats the Canon C300 in low light. That's incredible. Great videos, btw. I saw the Smith Rock one the other day. The workflow is very helpful. They've really increased the value of these cameras tremendously. I hope they get it up and running on the T3i. I'd be he plenty happy with that 1280x540p video I saw above if they can get it recording stable. It's still far more detailed and sharp than their 1080p H.264 files. Would be a great cheap way to get into cheap RAW cinema recording.

What's funny is some Canon guy on Twitter was warning people about overheating and frying your sensor saying that the heat warning didn't work for RAW, blah blah blah, and it turns out this hack doesn't effect your sensor heat at all. It's just the live view that's always there. lol. It's just what I thought when I read his tweets....DAMAGE CONTROL.

I understand crippling your cameras to some degree to protect higher end lines, but Canon and some others go way too far with crippling of their cameras and lack of innovation. They milk these long drawn out gradual upgrades through several long years...sometimes releasing upgrades that upgrades everything except the image quality.

BlackMagic had to come out of the woodwork and show everyone how its done. Then the hackers at Magic Lantern had to show Canon how it's done yet again. Only this time it could have a real effect on their future product lines.
MTyson is offline  
post #10 of 66 Old 05-17-2013, 03:08 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Look like they have got audio working. It's getting more and more exciting! biggrin.gif From their Facebook page:

"There has been a lot of progress over the past few days - the devs are working hard to refine things to be more user friendly. Here's a list of new developments from the past couple days:
- All tearing / stuttering issues have been resolved, video is smooth now.
- Raw burst looks possible for 500d and 550d.
- Raw playback in camera is working (will play back at normal speed eventually)
- Audio recording to separate .WAV file works while recording raw video.
- Updated list of cameras supporting RAW video now: 5D2, 5D3, 6D, 600D, 650D (brand new)

We believe raw video will be possible on all cameras, but it is still very early in development. Cameras with CF cards work best - SD cards will only work at lower resolutions. Older DIGIC 4 cameras will work at very low resolution.

Raw playback first implementation by Alex:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RQ56Qc-jlk

5D3 vs Blackmagic high-iso:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10351/new-5d-raw-developments-plus-my-low-light-comparison-with-blackmagic-cinema-camera

Workflow sample video with Mac OS X:
http://www.cinema5d.com/?p=18065

5D3 Samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm8A7FH2Qg4
http://vimeo.com/66296381

5D2 Samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW5QqQUC8jM


Right now breakthroughs are happening daily, follow us on twitter to stay updated: @autoexec_bin

If you're interested in testing, head over to our forum:
www.magiclantern.fm/forum"
MTyson is offline  
post #11 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 01:10 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Mm i guess i am missing something,but the only film of the various posts i found fair quality was the last film despite poor filming,anyway if i am missing something what is the cheapest and easiest to use software for me a getting past my best intellectual years guy that will edit raw.
flintyplus is offline  
post #12 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 03:21 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Mm i guess i am missing something,but the only film of the various posts i found fair quality was the last film despite poor filming,anyway if i am missing something what is the cheapest and easiest to use software for me a getting past my best intellectual years guy that will edit raw.

Are you missing something? Vision perhaps? JK. smile.gif Please make sure to click and enable HD, btw. Maybe that's why? I must say I am truly flabbergasted at your perception if that's not the reason. eek.gif lol. Almost speechless really. I'm not so sure the great Arri Alexa or Red Epic would be good enough for you, man. lol. tongue.gif

Can you please show us what you think looks good for reference? I'm truly intrigued based on your responses to see what you find to be good video in a decent price range? That first video I posted looks absolutely phenomenal and right up there with to be Alexa/Red Epic quality, yet it's not even fair quality in your eyes? Hence, my desire to see some camcorder footage you find good or great. You certainly cannot get that level of quality/dynamic range out of ANY prosumer camcorder. It's a dream come true! Start grading RAWs and you'll see how much power they have. It can be addictive. A/B videos have already been posted against the Epic and the Mark III RAW was neck and neck with it.

Adobe After Effects CS5, CS5.5 or CS6 is your best bet for grading editing Canon RAW. There's a RAW workflow video just above.

Here is an EXTREME harsh contrast stress test of back lit tress while the sun is setting to show the power of RAW vs typical 8-bit compressed video and its far superior grading ability & dynamic range. If this doesn't make you a believer nothing will. lol. biggrin.gif This test show's the Mark III's H.264 compression vs RAW. The Mark III has higher dynamic range already than average consumer or prosumer camcorders, so the H.264 sample in this dynamic range stress test you see wouldn't be produced any better with another prosumer camcorder in regards do light to dark detail. See he miracle of RAW and be sure to click to "View on YouTube", click "1080p" and view full screen if you want to see the full quality.
MTyson is offline  
post #13 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 11:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jogiba's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,879
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 80 Post(s)
Liked: 71
The impact of 5D Mark III raw video and what does Vincent Laforet think? :
Quote:
Vincent Laforet’s thoughts on 5D Mark III raw

Vincent Laforet is a photographer and filmmaker with a high profile track record in using DSLRs at the high end of video and movie production.

I asked his thoughts about the recent developments -

Vincent: Too little too late in my opinion. C Series and other cameras are what people should be focusing on… but I am looking into it to be honest… the RAW (sic) is cool – just the HDSLR limitations are still pretty severe relative to other cameras and production needs.

EOSHD: What do you think the biggest hindrance is – Hack reliability? File sizes?

Vincent: Hack reliability – and can the body TRULY survive doing this over time (heat/damage?)
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10407/the-impact-of-5d-mark-iii-raw-video-and-what-does-vincent-laforet-think-of-it
jogiba is online now  
post #14 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 11:51 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by jogiba View Post

The impact of 5D Mark III raw video and what does Vincent Laforet think? :
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10407/the-impact-of-5d-mark-iii-raw-video-and-what-does-vincent-laforet-think-of-it

I personally find his opinion irrelevant. He probably has a Canon C300 & is happy to have paid $16,000 for 8-bit compressed video because it has built in ND filters....albeit capable/good 8-bit video, but still very limited in post by comparison to RAW. It's already been said that the hack has no real effect on heat of the sensor, because it's only taking from the Live View buffer, which is always running when live view is on. I think the main hurdle is removing the 4GB file size limit.

I wish he'd go into detail about how/why it's supposedly "Too little too late", because I'm wondering what he's smoking considering there is NO full frame RAW camera on the market. If Canon released this camera they'd charge at least $20,000-$30,000 for it.. Canon hasn't released anything else near that price capable of 14-bit RAW. Only BlackMagic has released such a thing in the price range, but it's 2.3x crop for the original (and 3x for the pocket) and low light is pretty decent, but not as great as the mark III, which is said to be better than the C300 with this hack. Also the the Mark III doesn't suffer from moire/aliasing of the BMCC (though an OLPF will released for it soon I hear). The BMCC with speedbooster will be the closest thing, becoming super 35mm 1-stop faster for low light, but that's still far away from full frame.

It's kind of hard to focus on the "C" line when Canon is too busy ********ting us all releasing 8-bit video for small fortunes, the cheapest one still costing $5,500. Most of us don't want to pay a fortune for 8-bit video with built-in ND filters, especially not narrative filmmakers where post grading matters a lot. Corporate work/Wedding Videography is a different story. The C100 is a nice camera, but the price is laughable. The Mark III is now also the only RAW camera capable of 60p under $13,000.

The Hitler videos are always great. lol. biggrin.gif
MTyson is offline  
post #15 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 01:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
brunerww's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 1,013
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 23 Post(s)
Liked: 31
The skepticism of the former leaders of the revolution is a little disappointing. Bloom, Laforet and Nate Weber at wideopencamera are all "less than enthusiastic". At least Blackmagic has had the good sense to keep quiet (so far).

I respect these guys, but don't think they realize how elitest they sound to people who would never have had the freedom to experiment with RAW video without this gift from Magic Lantern.
brunerww is offline  
post #16 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 01:50 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by brunerww View Post

The skepticism of the former leaders of the revolution is a little disappointing. Bloom, Laforet and Nate Weber at wideopencamera are all "less than enthusiastic". At least Blackmagic has had the good sense to keep quiet (so far).

I respect these guys, but don't think they realize how elitest they sound to people who would never have had the freedom to experiment with RAW video without this gift from Magic Lantern.
I like Bloom. He's a cool guy, and while he does think the hack is "brilliant" (his words), he doesn't seem to care much for shooting RAW too much. I believe he shoots most of his BMCC tests with ProRes.

I think I found my perfect combo. 5D Mark III and BlackMagic Pocket Cinema Camera. I was heavy on the fence about which cameras to get because nearly every one of them were missing something important that another one had, and the ones that had it all cost too darn much. I was even considering the expensive Sony F3. My main things I wanted were; 1: Great dynamic range. 2: Great low light. 3: Low or no compress 4: Ability to have low or no crop ratio on lenses. 5: RAW and/or S-LOG recording. Now, for $4,500 I can have A full frame RAW cinema camera that shoots very sharp high dynamic range full frame video with fantastic low light ability and even 60p as well as shoot high MP stills as well as a very high dynamic range pocket cinema camera that can record ProRes HQ or RAW, has decent low light and can be upgraded to 1 stop faster and around MFT crop with speedbooster. For both of those and speedbooster that's still less than one Canon C100 8-bit video camcorder. biggrin.gif
MTyson is offline  
post #17 of 66 Old 05-19-2013, 11:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

Are you missing something? Vision perhaps? JK. smile.gif Please make sure to click and enable HD, btw. Maybe that's why? I must say I am truly flabbergasted at your perception if that's not the reason. eek.gif lol. Almost speechless really. I'm not so sure the great Arri Alexa or Red Epic would be good enough for you, man. lol. tongue.gif

Can you please show us what you think looks good for reference? I'm truly intrigued based on your responses to see what you find to be good video in a decent price range? That first video I posted looks absolutely phenomenal and right up there with to be Alexa/Red Epic quality, yet it's not even fair quality in your eyes? Hence, my desire to see some camcorder footage you find good or great. You certainly cannot get that level of quality/dynamic range out of ANY prosumer camcorder. It's a dream come true! Start grading RAWs and you'll see how much power they have. It can be addictive. A/B videos have already been posted against the Epic and the Mark III RAW was neck and neck with it.

Adobe After Effects CS5, CS5.5 or CS6 is your best bet for grading editing Canon RAW. There's a RAW workflow video just above.

Here is an EXTREME harsh contrast stress test of back lit tress while the sun is setting to show the power of RAW vs typical 8-bit compressed video and its far superior grading ability & dynamic range. If this doesn't make you a believer nothing will. lol. biggrin.gif This test show's the Mark III's H.264 compression vs RAW. The Mark III has higher dynamic range already than average consumer or prosumer camcorders, so the H.264 sample in this dynamic range stress test you see wouldn't be produced any better with another prosumer camcorder in regards do light to dark detail. See he miracle of RAW and be sure to click to "View on YouTube", click "1080p" and view full screen if you want to see the full quality.

Well i expected my hand to be bitten off,i have never used a black magic camera so cant comment on personal use,but i have owned and used canon DSLRs and far prefer the video from my camcorder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7gOOZLObXKM the lower resolution plus m & A are downers for me,i have seen videos comparing the GH3 and 5Dmk iii the GH3 won but you will never see it that way,at least we agree to differ.My eyes can see the difference in your raw v H264 it does clearly show.
https://vimeo.com/59100833 A GH3 5D mk iii test,i have no GH3 bias i have sold my GH2.
flintyplus is offline  
post #18 of 66 Old 05-20-2013, 05:34 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Well i expected my hand to be bitten off,i have never used a black magic camera so cant comment on personal use,but i have owned and used canon DSLRs and far prefer the video from my camcorder
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7gOOZLObXKM the lower resolution plus m & A are downers for me,
Could be the YouTube compression, but I thought both looked pretty underwhelming in that 60D/XA10 comparison video, and that's coming from a Canon T2i owner. The problem is you're thinking of the Canon DSLR recording H.264 that you have used and a Canon DSLR recording RAW video as the same camera and ability. A Canon DSLR shooting H.264 internally is not even remotely close to the same as the same Canon DSLR shooting RAW video. Shooting RAW is on an entirely different level. Canon DSLRs are known for soft HD video (Canon crippled them that way) and I even find they need Cinestyle to give me close the dynamic range I want....standard and neutral do not cut it for me a lot of the time. Canon RAW video is far more detailed and much sharper than the H.264 video it normally records. Not only that, but it has much better color depth and dynamic range. Heck, it's even sharper and more detailed recording 1280x540p RAW than the 1920x1080p it normally records.

You can even see the difference in this 720p video showing the Mark III H.264 vs RAW on a beach. The difference in clarity even at the lower resolution is obvious and in 1080p it's only more apparent. The difference in dynamic range and ability to grade is in another realm. You can get so many looks with raw.

Beach H.264 vs RAW
http://vimeo.com/66459419

Another example of new found Canon sharpness/clarity:
http://vimeo.com/channels/529954/66468924

And another:

http://vimeo.com/channels/529954/66522040

One last one shows some beautiful shots of the ocean and some good landscape stuff. It's far sharper even at Vimeo 720p than the 1080p you get from it normally.

http://vimeo.com/channels/529954/66450322

Quote:
i have seen videos comparing the GH3 and 5Dmk iii the GH3 won but you will never see it that way,at least we agree to differ.
My eyes can see the difference in your raw v H264 it does clearly show.
https://vimeo.com/59100833 A GH3 5D mk iii test,i have no GH3 bias i have sold my GH2.

Actually, I never said the GH3 didn't beat the Mark III under normal H.264 recording, it's very possible that it does in the eyes of many, but the MarK III easily beats the GH3 when its recording RAW video, unless someone screws up the post grade. It's just as sharp if not sharper, retains much more highlight and dark detail and has much better color depth. You're still thinking of the Mark III as the same H.264 recording camera as before when it's recording RAW sensor data. When recording RAW it's basically an entirely new camera with a new sensor, workflow, etc.
MTyson is offline  
post #19 of 66 Old 05-20-2013, 08:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Dear oh dear the XA10 blew the 60D away,The GH3 can shoot raw as well and it won against the 5Diii,not that i will be using either .
flintyplus is offline  
post #20 of 66 Old 05-20-2013, 12:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Dear oh dear the XA10 blew the 60D away,

1: Blew it away still isn't saying much, because neither one looked particularly good in that test. It could partly be down to YouTube's crappy compression. The 60D looked fairly poor in the video and while the XA10 had some advantages its contrast and tones were very videoy and harsh. And anyone who is not using Canon DSLRs with Cinestyle is missing out on even its H.264 capabilities, which are still absolutely nowhere near the RAW capabilities. I don't know what the 60D vs the XA10 proves or how it shows absolutely anything regarding the Mark III shooting RAW video. It's like comparing Apples to Fried Eggs. Both are far away from RAW video and aren't even worth mentioning in the same sentence, to be honest. Shooting RAW sensor data retains all the data the sensor is actually capable of showing and can be manipulated in nearly anyway one sees fit in post.

Quote:
The GH3 can shoot raw as well and it won against the 5Diii,not that i will be using either
2: LOL. No, sorry, but the GH3 absolutely does not shoot RAW video. Very very few video cameras under $15,000 shoot RAW video. The only ones that do are: BlackMagic Cinema Camera, Ikonoscope, KineRAW, Red Scarlet, Red One. The Gh3 does not. So, using that as an example of the GH3 beating the Mark III shooting H.264 as the reason it also beats a Mark III shooting RAW video is not only a bad example, but is poor logic based on lack of understanding of RAW video and that the Mark III shooting RAW is an entirely different camera when shooting RAW vs. H.264. The GH3 can beat the Mark III all day shooting regular compressed or uncompressed video, but when the Mark III starts shooting RAW video the Gh3 is no longer in the same league. Your error in comparing the GH3 beating the Mark III shooting 8-bit soft video with probably 9 stops of usable dynamic range is thinking that the outcome has any relevance to how the Gh3 would perform against the Mark III shooting uncrippled sharp RAW 14-Bit video with 12-13 stops of usable dynamic range. It has no relevance. smile.gif
MTyson is offline  
post #21 of 66 Old 05-20-2013, 11:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

1: Blew it away still isn't saying much, because neither one looked particularly good in that test. It could partly be down to YouTube's crappy compression. The 60D looked fairly poor in the video and while the XA10 had some advantages its contrast and tones were very videoy and harsh. And anyone who is not using Canon DSLRs with Cinestyle is missing out on even its H.264 capabilities, which are still absolutely nowhere near the RAW capabilities. I don't know what the 60D vs the XA10 proves or how it shows absolutely anything regarding the Mark III shooting RAW video. It's like comparing Apples to Fried Eggs. Both are far away from RAW video and aren't even worth mentioning in the same sentence, to be honest. Shooting RAW sensor data retains all the data the sensor is actually capable of showing and can be manipulated in nearly anyway one sees fit in post.
2: LOL. No, sorry, but the GH3 absolutely does not shoot RAW video. Very very few video cameras under $15,000 shoot RAW video. The only ones that do are: BlackMagic Cinema Camera, Ikonoscope, KineRAW, Red Scarlet, Red One. The Gh3 does not. So, using that as an example of the GH3 beating the Mark III shooting H.264 as the reason it also beats a Mark III shooting RAW video is not only a bad example, but is poor logic based on lack of understanding of RAW video and that the Mark III shooting RAW is an entirely different camera when shooting RAW vs. H.264. The GH3 can beat the Mark III all day shooting regular compressed or uncompressed video, but when the Mark III starts shooting RAW video the Gh3 is no longer in the same league. Your error in comparing the GH3 beating the Mark III shooting 8-bit soft video with probably 9 stops of usable dynamic range is thinking that the outcome has any relevance to how the Gh3 would perform against the Mark III shooting uncrippled sharp RAW 14-Bit video with 12-13 stops of usable dynamic range. It has no relevance. smile.gif


My mistake regarding raw video and the GH3,All i know is my XA10 can take vastly superior footage to the soft low resolution film with M & A i used to get on my 550D,also as sharp as my now sold GH2 with less M & A as well and far easier to film video with,the XA 20 could tempt though.As others have said regardless of whether you film raw or whatever if the film looks like some examples shown,[they could have filmed by a headless chicken]it does not matter as a mixture of content and look has to be there.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDaXiszl358 this looks vg i have to say but a lot of work to achieve it as it shows.
Regarding this https://vimeo.com/59100833#comment_9315311 i asked why he did not use raw on the 5D mk3 his comments are there.
flintyplus is offline  
post #22 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 02:59 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

My mistake regarding raw video and the GH3
It happens. lol.
Quote:
All i know is my XA10 can take vastly superior footage to the soft low resolution film with M & A i used to get on my 550D,also as sharp as my now sold GH2 with less M & A as well and far easier to film video with
Yeah the 550D is soft and the XA10 films sharper video footage with less moire and aliasing than the 550D/T2i (though they do have anti moire/aliasing filter available for the 550D). That is well know, but that does not make it vastly superior for all types of filming. The XA10 is fit for certain types of filming as is the 550D. No narrative filmmaker professional or amateur I know of would ever choose the XA10 to shoot his movie on over a T2i/550D even if the XA10 is sharper or even if it was 8k resolution, because it simply lacks certain cinematic features that narrative filmmakers want and usually need.

Why? Because the T2i still has interchangeable lenses, can be fitted with an anti moire/aliasing filter if needed, can use the custom Cinestyle picture setting for added dynamic range to look more cinematic, works better in low light using a fast lens and one major factor is depth of field. You can get creative filmmaking looks with the T2i/550D that you simply cannot achieve on nearly the same level with the XA10. Sharper video does not equate to "more cinematic". The looks you can achieve on the T2i using a fast lens people used to pay $1000-$8,000 for to add a light-losing 35mm lens adapter to their small chip camcorder to get that shallow DOF that comes natively with a T2i at know extra cost other than the lens.

If you're filming landscapes, birthdays, documentaries or corporate events the XA10 may be a better choice, yes, but if you're a narrative filmmaker telling a story the XA10 would not be considered by most. I'm not saying that as a bad thing. Different tools are required for different needs is all I am saying. Here's just one example I dug up of a look that the XA10 CANNOT achieve, which is used often in narrative filmmaking to keep focus on the subject.

BTW, out of curiosity, what lenses did you use with your 550D when you were using it? I hope it wasn't just the kit lens. tongue.gif

Quote:
,the XA 20 could tempt though.As others have said regardless of whether you film raw or whatever if the film looks like some examples shown,[they could have filmed by a headless chicken]it does not matter as a mixture of content and look has to be there.
The first video I posted of the Mark III RAW video shot by Andrew Reid looks better than any video I've seen come from any consumer/prosumer camcorder by far in any type of harsh outdoor natural lighting.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to a headless chicken could have filmed the videos as if the XA10 vs 60D video you posted were shot by James Cameron or something. I kid! lol. wink.gif These RAW shots are test shots to show the added dynamic range, sharpness and color depth, not full on professional movie set production set ups with dollies or three point lighting, and it's clear to nearly everyone the superiority over traditional compressed video. I can clearly see the improvement from the standard Mark III recording and also the potential of what I and other people can do with such a powerful tool not as limited as the rest.

RAW gives you more freedom with lighting ratios and can deal with harsh brutal lighting scenarios much easier without killing as much highlight and/or dark detail. The first video I posted from Andrew Reid shows a massive improvement in detail/sharpness, dynamic range in harsh bright sunlight, improved tonal range, superior colors, etc compared to the normal Mark III recording.

The whole point of RAW is to have much more range in the highlights and shadows and to be able to adjust just about anything in post and not throw away image data. You can adjust the exposure in post, the white balance, colors, shadow detail, highlight detail and so much more with much more freedom.
Quote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDaXiszl358 this looks vg i have to say but a lot of work to achieve it as it shows.

Yes, that looks nice and it takes a bit of work, because that's narrative filmmaking in general. However, some of that extra work is partly due to the more limited dynamic range of non RAW 8-bit compressed footage. RAW can handle back lit subjects and harsh contrast lighting ratios far better than compressed 8-bit intentionally crippled video that throws away precious image data. You saw the video above with the sun setting with the back lit forest and how much dark detail and range the RAW was able to pull up from the dead and show vs typical recording. RAW can handles natural lighting and harsh lighting far better than 8-bit compressed video, hence 8-bit compressed video will take more on set work to get better results. The more limited the dynamic range the more extra lighting you need for fill light and such to compensate for what the camera is lacking.
MTyson is offline  
post #23 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 03:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post


Regarding this https://vimeo.com/59100833#comment_9315311 i asked why he did not use raw on the 5D mk3 his comments are there.

Probably because his video was added three months ago and three months ago RAW video on the Mark III not only did not exist, but was thought to be impossible. cool.gifsmile.gif

Also, a lot of people are out of there element when it comes to RAW. You should gain experience editing RAW photos first at the very least, before diving into editing RAW video.

Just read his response. "What's the point?" Yeah gee, what's the point in getting far a sharper image without post sharpening for fake detail, superior color that you can push much further in post with far less banding, gaining superior low light ability, and being able to bring back clipped highlights and shadow details that would be lost on the GH3 and normal Mark III recording. Who wants that? rolleyes.gif

It seems as if he's saying what's the point in shooting RAW when you can merely sharpen the Mark III footage in post to get Gh3 like sharpness and that's missing the whole point of RAW, which primarily has nothing to do with sharpness (not that the improvement isn't nice, because it is). This shows a clear lack of understanding the power of RAW completely. Yes, the RAW footage is much sharper than the regular Mark III footage and also more detailed. Sharpening Mark III normal video in post doesn't add detail...it just makes it appear sharper generally by enhancing contrast around edges. Sharpness isn't the only advantage of RAW as he seems to think (or so it appears). The best advantage is the added dynamic range to retain more highlight/dark detail simultaneously and color depth along with the ability to adjust white balance, exposure, etc in post, which no amount of post sharpening on the Mark III will make up for. biggrin.gif

After rereading his post when he said "What's the point?" after saying the results were predictable. It's possible he meant it's obvious that RAW is in another league than 8-bit video so what's the point in comparing.
MTyson is offline  
post #24 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 04:01 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Wow. That shot of the moon is amazing. Holds all of the moon's highlight details. With my T2i the moon always ends up blown out. lol. BTW, they have beaten the 4GB limit.

http://vimeo.com/66604210
MTyson is offline  
post #25 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

It happens. lol.
Yeah the 550D is soft and the XA10 films sharper video footage with less moire and aliasing than the 550D/T2i (though they do have anti moire/aliasing filter available for the 550D). That is well know, but that does not make it vastly superior for all types of filming. The XA10 is fit for certain types of filming as is the 550D. No narrative filmmaker professional or amateur I know of would ever choose the XA10 to shoot his movie on over a T2i/550D even if the XA10 is sharper or even if it was 8k resolution, because it simply lacks certain cinematic features that narrative filmmakers want and usually need.

Why? Because the T2i still has interchangeable lenses, can be fitted with an anti moire/aliasing filter if needed, can use the custom Cinestyle picture setting for added dynamic range to look more cinematic, works better in low light using a fast lens and one major factor is depth of field. You can get creative filmmaking looks with the T2i/550D that you simply cannot achieve on nearly the same level with the XA10. Sharper video does not equate to "more cinematic". The looks you can achieve on the T2i using a fast lens people used to pay $1000-$8,000 for to add a light-losing 35mm lens adapter to their small chip camcorder to get that shallow DOF that comes natively with a T2i at know extra cost other than the lens.

If you're filming landscapes, birthdays, documentaries or corporate events the XA10 may be a better choice, yes, but if you're a narrative filmmaker telling a story the XA10 would not be considered by most. I'm not saying that as a bad thing. Different tools are required for different needs is all I am saying. Here's just one example I dug up of a look that the XA10 CANNOT achieve, which is used often in narrative filmmaking to keep focus on the subject.

BTW, out of curiosity, what lenses did you use with your 550D when you were using it? I hope it wasn't just the kit lens. tongue.gif

The first video I posted of the Mark III RAW video shot by Andrew Reid looks better than any video I've seen come from any consumer/prosumer camcorder by far in any type of harsh outdoor natural lighting.

I'm not sure what you're referring to in regards to a headless chicken could have filmed the videos as if the XA10 vs 60D video you posted were shot by James Cameron or something. I kid! lol. wink.gif These RAW shots are test shots to show the added dynamic range, sharpness and color depth, not full on professional movie set production set ups with dollies or three point lighting, and it's clear to nearly everyone the superiority over traditional compressed video. I can clearly see the improvement from the standard Mark III recording and also the potential of what I and other people can do with such a powerful tool not as limited as the rest.

RAW gives you more freedom with lighting ratios and can deal with harsh brutal lighting scenarios much easier without killing as much highlight and/or dark detail. The first video I posted from Andrew Reid shows a massive improvement in detail/sharpness, dynamic range in harsh bright sunlight, improved tonal range, superior colors, etc compared to the normal Mark III recording.

The whole point of RAW is to have much more range in the highlights and shadows and to be able to adjust just about anything in post and not throw away image data. You can adjust the exposure in post, the white balance, colors, shadow detail, highlight detail and so much more with much more freedom.
Yes, that looks nice and it takes a bit of work, because that's narrative filmmaking in general. However, some of that extra work is partly due to the more limited dynamic range of non RAW 8-bit compressed footage. RAW can handle back lit subjects and harsh contrast lighting ratios far better than compressed 8-bit intentionally crippled video that throws away precious image data. You saw the video above with the sun setting with the back lit forest and how much dark detail and range the RAW was able to pull up from the dead and show vs typical recording. RAW can handles natural lighting and harsh lighting far better than 8-bit compressed video, hence 8-bit compressed video will take more on set work to get better results. The more limited the dynamic range the more extra lighting you need for fill light and such to compensate for what the camera is lacking.

The headless chicken comment just meant if you want to show good quality i dont see the point of filming jerky hand held material that some do but the first film you showed was well filmed,the lenses i used on my 550 were the kit lens a canon 50mm and nikon zoom lens,they all looked similar,the only case where the dslr may have been better is for interviews but thats doubtful,i have to admit i am lazy and like everything easy nowadays.tongue.gif
flintyplus is offline  
post #26 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 12:24 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

The headless chicken comment just meant if you want to show good quality i dont see the point of filming jerky hand held material that some do but the first film you showed was well filmed,
Ah. Ok. At least the first video get some props. Andrew Reid is better than most people with a camera easily. Although, I guess a lot of people haven't hooked it up to their stabilizers or dollies yet. lol. I have a shoulder rig and mattebox setup and also use Warp Stabilizer in After Effects. I think right now people were just really excited to take there camera out and experience RAW video. I mean magic lantern essentially turned the Mark III into what would probably be at least $20,000+ body if Canon released it. I think once the hack is finalized people will start shooting some things other than tests showing is capability. A lot of the videos now are mostly showing the added detail sharpness, dynamic range, tonal range and color quality.
Quote:
the lenses i used on my 550 were the kit lens a canon 50mm and nikon zoom lens,they all looked similar,the only case where the dslr may have been better is for interviews but thats doubtful,i have to admit i am lazy and like everything easy nowadays.tongue.gif

LOL. Well, I hear ya there. I think a lot of people want it easier. Let me ask you this though. I know you like the XA10, but do you really think it looks more cinematic than the 550D when the 550D can use Cinestyle and have shallow depth of field? The latter is my biggest issue. Camcorders struggle with depth of field. Too much is in focus most of the time. Filmmakers gotta have that shallow depth a good amount of time, especially during dialogue scenes. First of all, it looks beautiful when you can easily throw the background out of focus when needed and people associate the look with being cinematic. When people see a movie and the entire background is well in focus most of the time they generally associate it with the feel of a reality tv program or something instead of a narrative film.

I think each tool is useful for different things. The XA10 would probably be what I'd use for landscape type of shots and the 550D for medium shots or closeups of the actors where I needed shallow DOF. But that's getting a bit off topic. smile.gif
MTyson is offline  
post #27 of 66 Old 05-21-2013, 11:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

Ah. Ok. At least the first video get some props. Andrew Reid is better than most people with a camera easily. Although, I guess a lot of people haven't hooked it up to their stabilizers or dollies yet. lol. I have a shoulder rig and mattebox setup and also use Warp Stabilizer in After Effects. I think right now people were just really excited to take there camera out and experience RAW video. I mean magic lantern essentially turned the Mark III into what would probably be at least $20,000+ body if Canon released it. I think once the hack is finalized people will start shooting some things other than tests showing is capability. A lot of the videos now are mostly showing the added detail sharpness, dynamic range, tonal range and color quality.
LOL. Well, I hear ya there. I think a lot of people want it easier. Let me ask you this though. I know you like the XA10, but do you really think it looks more cinematic than the 550D when the 550D can use Cinestyle and have shallow depth of field? The latter is my biggest issue. Camcorders struggle with depth of field. Too much is in focus most of the time. Filmmakers gotta have that shallow depth a good amount of time, especially during dialogue scenes. First of all, it looks beautiful when you can easily throw the background out of focus when needed and people associate the look with being cinematic. When people see a movie and the entire background is well in focus most of the time they generally associate it with the feel of a reality tv program or something instead of a narrative film.

I think each tool is useful for different things. The XA10 would probably be what I'd use for landscape type of shots and the 550D for medium shots or closeups of the actors where I needed shallow DOF. But that's getting a bit off topic. smile.gif
Mike this depth of field thing is not the most important to me,the reason i prefer use,ing the camcorder is pretty well summed up in the XA10 60D test,it may not be the best test film but showswhat i am getting at,of note how much less video would say 16gb XD card if you shot raw campared to H264.
flintyplus is offline  
post #28 of 66 Old 05-22-2013, 05:14 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

Mike this depth of field thing is not the most important to me,the reason i prefer use,ing the camcorder is pretty well summed up in the XA10 60D test,it may not be the best test film but showswhat i am getting at,of note how much less video would say 16gb XD card if you shot raw campared to H264.

Ah, what kind of filming do you do? I'm assuming not narrative filmmaking?

Well, an SD card most likely is not going to cut it with full frame RAW except at lower resolutions....even the fastest ones aren't able to handle RAW full 1080p at 24fps. With the Mark III most are using very high speed 1,066x CF cards. Frames are about 3mb a piece at 1080p I believe, so 3mb x 24fps would be about 72mb a second, about 4.22GBs a minute. So, at full 1080p a 16GB card can hold 3.79 minutes of RAW 1080p. A 64GB CF card can hold about 15 minutes of RAW at full 1080p. So yeah, the files are massive compared to H.264, to say the least. lol. The Mark III with a 16GB card recording normally will hold 22 minutes of all-I, or 64 minutes of IPB (the two options given by Canon).
MTyson is offline  
post #29 of 66 Old 05-22-2013, 09:26 AM
AVS Special Member
 
flintyplus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: yeovil somerset
Posts: 1,270
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTyson View Post

Ah, what kind of filming do you do? I'm assuming not narrative filmmaking?

Well, an SD card most likely is not going to cut it with full frame RAW except at lower resolutions....even the fastest ones aren't able to handle RAW full 1080p at 24fps. With the Mark III most are using very high speed 1,066x CF cards. Frames are about 3mb a piece at 1080p I believe, so 3mb x 24fps would be about 72mb a second, about 4.22GBs a minute. So, at full 1080p a 16GB card can hold 3.79 minutes of RAW 1080p. A 64GB CF card can hold about 15 minutes of RAW at full 1080p. So yeah, the files are massive compared to H.264, to say the least. lol. The Mark III with a 16GB card recording normally will hold 22 minutes of all-I, or 64 minutes of IPB (the two options given by Canon).
thanks for that info,regarding the recording limits :eek:so sandisk extreme 45MB/s 32gb cards like i have would not be good enough for raw at best resolution,rolleyes.gif
flintyplus is offline  
post #30 of 66 Old 05-22-2013, 12:13 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
MTyson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by flintyplus View Post

thanks for that info,regarding the recording limits :eek:so sandisk extreme 45MB/s 32gb cards like i have would not be good enough for raw at best resolution,rolleyes.gif

Nope. Not even the Sandisk Extreme Pro 95MB/s one would be (but then again I heard they barely test higher than the Sandisk Extreme in reality). It can record it, but I'm not sure for how long before frames start to drop. I'll have to look it up. Good thing though is even some of the lower resolutions are still much sharper and more detailed than the native H.264 Canon 1080p videos. I saw someone post a RAW sample of the T3i (which are recording to SDs at lower custom resolutions. Not sure how long of record times they're getting right now) and even 540p looked very noticeably more detailed and sharper in RAW than the 1080p H.264 did.

Sadly CF cards right now which are that fast are pretty darn expensive, but still beats spending $10,000 on a Red body and then like $800 on one of their CF cards. lol. Hoping they come down in time or that SD cards increase their write speed enough. Right now I'm looking at the progress of the T3i/600D shooting RAW on custom resolutions on SDs so I can try it out first. If they can get it running smooth that's an amazing deal considering what the T3i costs. I'll have no problem shooting a lower resolution RAW with the T3i at such a low price.
MTyson is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off