BMCC vs canon 5dmarkiii

Canon just announced a new firmware update allowing the 5d markiii to provide uncompressed HDMI out ....thus enabling the use of external recorders and states to now provide uncompressed 8bit 4:2:2 ....my question is how much of a diffrence is this to the BMCC? Is it something that's hands down better in BMCC ?or something the human eye cannot distinguish?

I can't imagine it to look as good as BMCC content. It would still be 8-bit, whereas the BMCC records 12-bit RAW.

See:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=2015

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1945

Is it something that's hands down better in BMCC ?or something the human eye cannot distinguish?

You won't get the cinema look under normal conditions, at least the way I interpret it. To me its about capturing similar dynamic range as film, which the BMCC does. This comparison test largely still applies:


The upgrade means grading will be a lot easier as its RAW.

Jules

It means the 5d will have a shot at knocking the BMCC and others off their rockers

No way that comparison test will still apply.

For anybody thinking sensor size wont make a difference now.. well..we will soon be seeing

(edited to be technically correct)

It means the 5d will have a shot at knocking the BMCC and others off their rockers

No way that comparison test will still apply.

For anybody thinking sensor size wont make a difference now.. well..we will soon be seeing what RAW8 @ 4808x2704 vs RAW12 @ 2432x1366 looks like

What do you mean by raw8 vs raw 12? I'm guessing bits but can you break that down a little more!

5d3 sensor is 5760 pixels wide..my bad.

It means the 5d will have a shot at knocking the BMCC and others off their rockers

No way that comparison test will still apply.

For anybody thinking sensor size wont make a difference now.. well..we will soon be seeing what RAW8 @ 4808x2704 vs RAW12 @ 2432x1366 looks like

uncompressed is not the same as RAW, the 5D Mkii will output uncompressed HD (not 4808) video in 8 Bit with 4:2:2 Chroma-Subsampling.

So the real comparison is:

8 bit HD with Chroma-Subsampling vs 12 Bit RAW 2.5k without any Chroma-Subsampling.

Canon firmware is vaporware now and slated for April 2013. This PR is Canon response to Nikon's REAL HDMI out capability on the D800 and D4. They are taking the same approach Microsoft takes every time Apple launches a new OS. Frankly embarrassing, Canon has fallen behind on video this year, unless you have $15K or more to spend.

Note: I am not a canon "hater" rather I have been a Canon photographer all my adult life and have been using the 1DMIV and 5DM3 for video. After the disappointment, I know eagerly wait for my back-order BMCC

uncompressed is not the same as RAW,

True, but it is derived from raw data

It means the 5d will have a shot at knocking the BMCC and others off their rockers

No way that comparison test will still apply.

For anybody thinking sensor size wont make a difference now.. well..we will soon be seeing what RAW8 @ 4808x2704 vs RAW12 @ 2432x1366 looks like

uncompressed is not the same as RAW, the 5D Mkii will output uncompressed HD (not 4808) video in 8 Bit with 4:2:2 Chroma-Subsampling.

So the real comparison is:

8 bit HD with Chroma-Subsampling vs 12 Bit RAW 2.5k without any Chroma-Subsampling.

Is it a huge diffrence that is eye popping or is it something only pro's would pickup on?

In my opinion (and only time will tell) The uncompressed video from the 5d3 will give the 10 bit prores footage from the bmc a run for its money depending on the capture codec. CinemaDNG from bmcc will likely still reign supreme here.

My earlier post had my wires still crossed from the "c100 vs" discussion in another thread, i fell off my rocker for a second there sorry to confuse

Everyone is assuming that the Canon won't cripple the sharpness of the image before sending it through HDMI. I already know for a fact (owning and shooting with one) that it does NOT resolve more than 720p worth of detail in the final 1080p video, despite the very high resolution of the sensor (and raw stills).

If Canon stop softening the image for uncompressed HDMI, then yes, it will make it far better for video.

So, none of you people do post production? None of you have done hard core color grading work with 8bit 4:2:2 from a DSLR sensor before? Ever tried green screen work with 8bit footage? It doesn't matter how you slice it, 5D footage will not hold up to the BMCC unless you can somehow tap the cr2 capability from the sensor, which you can, at about 6fps.

So, none of you people do post production? None of you have done hard core color grading work with 8bit 4:2:2 from a DSLR sensor before? Ever tried green screen work with 8bit footage? It doesn't matter how you slice it, 5D footage will not hold up to the BMCC unless you can somehow tap the cr2 capability from the sensor, which you can, at about 6fps.

I do. Maybe not hardcore, but I colour grade every image I take. Soft 8-bit with limited DR sucks.

I wouldn't be shocked if canon came out with cinema cr2 on some new hybrid camera...

I wouldn't be shocked if canon came out with cinema cr2 on some new hybrid camera...

Yeah, they can't seem to get enough of releasing products this year (some unexpected, some underwhelming).

I already know for a fact (owning and shooting with one) that it does NOT resolve more than 720p worth of detail in the final 1080p video, despite the very high resolution of the sensor (and raw stills).

a true recordable 1080 hd signal over hdmi does not, and has not existed on canon the 5d (hence the pending firmware release)

Canon's answer enabling 8bit, 422 out on the 5D3 is still quite poor (insignificant!) in comparison to the BMCC's RAW capabilities. How ever, 8bit 422 is far better than H.264.
5D3 + Atomos Ninja recorder = $5000 or more once you get all the accessories you need to really make it work. Is it worth it? I think its great to have the option, but honestly, I dont think its worth it.
I love how Canon did change our world when they came out with video on their gig sensor cameras, but at this point in time, they are laughing in our faces with their poor business skills ans quite honestly, I am getting quite tired of it.
BM and RED on the other hand, have a much more fresh, innovative and honest approach and I like that. Let's just hope that soon enough we have what we have been craving for so long:
Big sensors (like Canon) + Proress 444 or better (like BMCC) + recorded in Camera with out a stupid external recorder (like BMCC)!
Yes, I know: the answer is RED, but you get the point.

Laughing in your face with poor business skills?

Canon is a hell of a company selling all kinds of cameras and lenses to professionals around the world.
Cameras which are in use for broadcast, and other professional level outlets.

The uncompressed output of the 5d will be perfect for many shooters who are already accustomed to the form factor and are invested in the camera. (not to mention also already owning an external recorder or dont mind purchasing one)

Stupid external recorder..? w0w

Canon's answer enabling 8bit, 422 out on the 5D3 is still quite poor (insignificant!) in comparison to the BMCC's RAW capabilities. How ever, 8bit 422 is far better than H.264.
5D3 + Atomos Ninja recorder = $5000 or more once you get all the accessories you need to really make it work. Is it worth it? I think its great to have the option, but honestly, I dont think its worth it.
I love how Canon did change our world when they came out with video on their gig sensor cameras, but at this point in time, they are laughing in our faces with their poor business skills ans quite honestly, I am getting quite tired of it.
BM and RED on the other hand, have a much more fresh, innovative and honest approach and I like that. Let's just hope that soon enough we have what we have been craving for so long:
Big sensors (like Canon) + Proress 444 or better (like BMCC) + recorded in Camera with out a stupid external recorder (like BMCC)!
Yes, I know: the answer is RED, but you get the point.

To my understanding BM could not use a bigger sensor for the cinema camera for the reason that cheap pricing was just not gonna happen ,so in a way BMD did in fact come up with a wonderful product but at a cost to us by using the smaller sensor....although the smaller the sensor the better DR correct? So the fact that canon does use these large sensor is a plus being that its still at a good price point correct?...at the end of the day most of us will be using both so who cares!

Laughing in your face with poor business skills?

Canon is a hell of a company selling all kinds of cameras and lenses to professionals around the world.
Cameras which are in use for broadcast, and other professional level outlets.

The uncompressed output of the 5d will be perfect for many shooters who are already accustomed to the form factor and are invested in the camera. (not to mention also already owning an external recorder or dont mind purchasing one)

Stupid external recorder..? w0w

Could the hyper deck shuttle 2 be used with the 5d3???

Laughing in your face with poor business skills?

Canon is a hell of a company selling all kinds of cameras and lenses to professionals around the world.
Cameras which are in use for broadcast, and other professional level outlets.

The uncompressed output of the 5d will be perfect for many shooters who are already accustomed to the form factor and are invested in the camera. (not to mention also already owning an external recorder or dont mind purchasing one)

Stupid external recorder..? w0w

Could the hyper deck shuttle 2 be used with the 5d3???

I don't see why not. HDMI...should work just fine! The only thing that stinks is you'll probably be getting 1080 60i out of the 5D MK III unless they give you the option of changing what comes out of the HDMI port. AFAIK pretty much all the cameras out there kick out 60i through their HDMI port because that is what is used on monitors the most and that is what their intention is for their HDMI port.

Mr. Theodore, Canon is selling cameras way above $6k and calling them "Cinema" cameras, when they are not even broadcast quality for television: Canon C100.
Canon has not replaced H.264 on DSLR cameras, when they have had MXF + 422 @ 50Mbps for ages now on other cheap and crappy cameras.

All this marketing procedures are not even deceiving, they are just plain fraud!
They are simply laughing in our faces and making us spend more than needed so that they can buy them selves time to figure out how to release the technology with out losing money.

I think this is no respectable way to treat your clients. What is happening here is that they are playing with our loyalty, and that is THE ultimate marketing mistake. You can play with the market and with the numbers, but you can not play with your customers loyalty and that is what I call poor business skills.

When BM and others, release credible and reliable options that far surpass those options offered by Canon in quality (like BMCC), then that is when Canon's market and business strategies must change or simply become obsolete over nigh. Just like Blackberry is history now, Canon can easily follow through if they keep playing with customers loyalty while the competition is gearing up.

The fact that Canon makes usable cameras, does not mean that that is good enough and we should just shut up and follow. Did you ever hear the word sheep? Good enough is an excuse to be mediocre. So yes, I will not apologize for getting tired of Canon and openly call them a fraud.

Clean 422 output is a big deal. It makes the 5DIII usable for various production environments/workflows where it previously really wasn't. Plus, it makes them on par with Nikon. Is it going to completely change the quality of output to some new, mind blowing level? no.

I love people who think the difference between 8 bit and 12 bit isn't a big deal, it's huge.

8bit color gives you 256 output levels per pixel...10bit gives you 1024...12bit is 2048 and 16 bit is 4096.

8-bit color = 2^8 x 3 = 2^24 = 16.7 million colors
12-bit color = 2^12 x 3 = 2^36 = 68.7 billion colors

That's a LOT more information at each pixel!

So regardless of how smooth the uncompressed HDMI output is after this firmware update...which is a much needed improvement, don't get me wrong...it's still not in the same ballpark as the BMCC, even it's compressed output is 10 bit!

Hi Sean: True, but the question remains, what are the actual color capabilities of cameras such as the BMCC, C100, 5DM3, etc.

Not their specs, or descriptions of their data containers (CinemaDNG, ProRes, DNxHD, ACVHD, etc.), but what is the actual amount of color information these cameras' sensors & electronics output after debayering and before stuffing the color data into whatever storage/media bucket they use -- or even before they output signals live via HDMI or HD-SDI?

I think there's room for a reasonable debate & discussion around these issues. I admit I don't fully understand it yet, and therefore am sure I'm not asking the question quite right, but I sense there may be an important distinction that needs to be made about what these cams are actually capable of vs. the specs of their storage format or output connectors.

See:
viewtopic.php?f=14&t=1945

For sure.

The size of the sensor doesn't really matter though, it's the size of the pixels. Each photosite. The pixel pitch, microlens gap, backlit/front light CMOS, etc. There are many variables in the sensor design. Actual size of the sensor really only makes a difference in the physical rendition of the image. (DOF for example) There are other variables, but they can mostly be overcome in downstream processing.

A small sensor (in dimension) with larger photosites will (inherently) be able to gather/collect more light (energy) when compared to a larger sensor with smaller photosites, with the same sensitivity.

Larger bucket collects more water. In a rudimentary example.

However, technology improvements can/have negated this fact over time. Which is why we have DSLRs with double or triple the number of photosites (20+ megapixels) with small sized photosites, that can output cleaner data/lower noise than older cameras with larger sized photosites. The drive used to be megapixels...then it switch to better ISO performance. Now we have both.

So in the end, the sensor design BM is using is important, but not necessarily as important as what they do with the output from the sensor. From the examples I've seen, they're able to output some remarkably clean files with a "tiny" sensor. Especially when compared to the 5DIII with it's giant MP count and relative photosite sizes. Really for video, you don't need a 21 megapixel sensor, do you.

So give me a full frame or s35 sensor, at 4K native resolution, with the advancements in current photosite development and I believe you would have the cleanest and purest image output at 4K you could realistically create. RED anyone?

Maybe for BMCC v2?

I love people who think the difference between 8 bit and 12 bit isn't a big deal, it's huge.

SInce I appear to be the only one affirming a belief in the uncompressed 5d hd footage giving the bmcc prores a run for its money.. I hope that statement wasnt directed at me. Nowhere did I compare the 2 (8 bit vs 12 bit).
Just clearing that up.

Its kind of a moot argument considering some of the very nice images we see coming from cameras that handle their image processing at higher bit rates before either either a) 4:2:0 8bit compression, or b) down conversion to 8 bit 4:2:2 hd out... (the FS-700 defies AVCHD )

The point Im trying to make Sean is really to just combat the 8 bit vs 10 bit hyperbole that some people immediately jump to without having an understanding of how sensor, image processing, color sampling, etc play a role in the final IMAGE QUALITY. I appreciate and respect your well formed and intelligent response!

It is not just a simple matter of "oh its 8 bit so its crap and cant compete with 10 bit blah blah blah"

Its all speculation anyhow since nobody has seen the uncompressed 5d3 footage yet, but given canons intelligent handling if image processing in other cameras, Im willing to belive the 5d3 footage will hold its own.

Science class on photosites, debayering, and pixel interpolation is no fun, I just like to shoot

but I sense there may be an important distinction that needs to be made about what these cams are actually capable of vs. the specs of their storage format or output connectors.

Hey, I wasnt ignoring you on the the off topic thing you posted (see above post aboutscience class )

To sum up your point,, why not take some of the afterglow raws and render out with a crappy 8 bit codec, then compare to some poorly shot h264 5d footage at the same screen resolution. Should make for a telling example.

what you get from 8 bit material specially with h264 is heavy banding in grading session.

not so good in final results and not so good with qualifyer for color replace in resolve

No Theodore, it wasn't directly at you specifically.

The 5D produces some great images, no doubt. I've used mine on more than 20 projects now. However, you will always be working within the confines of a compressed codec. Period. No escaping that. Now that doesn't mean you are stuck with crappy footage. Not at all. Just you are basically stuck with what you shot. It's like shooting JPEGs compared to RAW. You don't have anywhere near the latitude with still JPEGs that you have with RAW. You just don't.

So if you don't need that latitude, if your work/output doesn't require any finessing, shooting 8bit prores is probably a smart choice. It's smaller, faster to work with and that means quicker turn around.

When I first switched to digital for my photography 9 years ago...I did several projects shooting raw and several shooting jpeg. Shooting jpeg was much quicker, took far less storage (and storage WAS a problem in the beginning) and I delivered the end product quicker. However, the stuff I shot on RAW could be pushed and pulled much, much further. Jut like the darkroom days, my photography doesn't stop when I press the shutter button. Post processing is part of the process. I have been fortunate enough to have a few images win some awards/recognition from my peers and two of them would not have been even possible had I not shot them in RAW.

You are right. In the end, it's the final output that you are going to judge. However, starting with the most data possible (12bit RAW) allows YOU to decide how that output looks, whereas shooting 8bit lossy, or 8bit prores means you are giving a lot of that decisive power to the processor/codec in the camera/recorder. For many people this isn't an issue. For me, on a creative level, it's just not worth it for most of my project. I like being able to choose however

I'm happy I can tiptoe into RAW video world at $3K...because I was saving up for a Scarlet

Lastly, we have yet to see how WELL Canon actually implements this....next April. Once we have both cameras in hand, people will be able to make a much more informed decision. Once I get my BMCC, I'll be happy to do an output comparison and post the results. This is actually a very good starting point for some discussion we should have on this forum about output options/settings/styles/guide for maximizing the quality of final output! Once the camera ships in volume and we start getting ours in hand, we should start another thread!