# 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study



## Canon Rumors Guy (May 30, 2013)

```
<div name="googleone_share_1" style="position:relative;z-index:5;float: right; /*margin: 70px 0 0 0;*/ top:70px; right:120px; width:0;"><g:plusone size="tall" count="1" href="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/05/5d-mark-iii-raw-video-a-case-study/"></g:plusone></div><div style="float: right; margin:0 0 70px 70px;"><a href="https://twitter.com/share" class="twitter-share-button" data-count="vertical" data-url="http://www.canonrumors.com/2013/05/5d-mark-iii-raw-video-a-case-study/">Tweet</a></div>
<p><strong>Magic Lantern is onto something…

</strong>There have been a lot of posts lately about Magic Lantern’s breakthrough enabling RAW video recording on the Canon EOS 5D Mark III.</p>
<p>Below is an ISO test of the standard H.264 of the 5D3, and what the RAW video from <a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/vkm" target="_blank">Magic Lantern</a> looks like. This was done by <a href="http://www.dustintolman.com/" target="_blank">Dustin J Tolman</a>.</p>
<p>The results are pretty remarkable and easy to see, this software is still in its early stages and will probably get a lot better over the next few months.</p>
<p><iframe src="http://player.vimeo.com/video/67175997" width="500" height="281" frameborder="0" webkitAllowFullScreen mozallowfullscreen allowFullScreen></iframe></p>
<p><strong>Workflow</strong>

An ISO test comparing Canons H264 compression vs Magic Lantern’s 14 Bit RAW hack.</p>
<p>• First I converted the RAW files with ML’s raw2dng.

• Next I dragged the files into Photoshop which opened up Adobe Camera Raw.

• I selected the first image and used the auto white balance setting which got rid of the heavy magenta tone.

• Then I synchronized the additional files, and exported them as 16bit tiff files.

• First I tried to use QuickTime 7 to create an image sequence, but it render the video with incorrect color.

• So instead of QT I ended up using Final Cut Pro X to create an image sequence to a ProRes 422 HQ output.</p>
<p>Canon 5dmk3 @ F8

Canon 70-200 2.8L IS II @ 200mm

Technicolor Cinestyle</p>
<p>Music – Soundgiant</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://blog.planet5d.com/2013/05/magic-lantern-raw-video-kills-h-264-for-high-iso-video-are-multiples-of-iso-160-still-right/" target="_blank">Read more about this test at Planet5D.com</a> | <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/847545-REG/Canon_5260A002_EOS_5D_Mark_III.html/bi/2466/kbid/3296" target="_blank">EOS 5D Mark III at B&H Photo</a><a href="http://www.dustintolman.com/" target="_blank">

</a></strong></p>
<p><strong><span style="color: #ff0000;">c</span>r</strong></p>
<p> </p>
```


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

I noticed some distracting jagged edges of the magenta plant to the left of the flame on the ML video. They were not visible on the Canon version, likely because of the compression.
I wonder if they were artifacts of the raw processing or if they are there on the Raw images.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

I did a test of my fiance sitting on our balcony. She has red hair and was wearing a royal blue sweater. The difference in color and detail was amazing. It really is incredible what ML have unlocked. If you have After Effects, the workflow isn't even difficult. Once you have converted the .RAW file to DNG files using the raw2dng, AE can import the DNG files easily. It then opens Adobe Camera RAW for you to tweak the first frame which it then applies to the rest.


----------



## Fr3lncr (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.


----------



## cayenne (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



bchernicoff said:


> I did a test of my fiance sitting on our balcony. She has red hair and was wearing a royal blue sweater. The difference in color and detail was amazing. It really is incredible what ML have unlocked. If you have After Effects, the workflow isn't even difficult. Once you have converted the .RAW file to DNG files using the raw2dng, AE can import the DNG files easily. It then opens Adobe Camera RAW for you to tweak the first frame which it then applies to the rest.



I hope that at some point, they can figure how to convert the DNG raw out of the camera, into a DNG format that be piped straight into Davinci Resolve, so you can use that to do the color correction/grading right out of the camera....Resolve is such a powerful tool, it would amazing to be able to come out of camera into Resolve to grade it, output to ProRes and then into any editor of your choice....


----------



## Niki (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Is this working on the 5d mll yet??? If so is it working as well?


----------



## bereninga (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

The raw looks too warm. But I didn't like the halo around the fire of the candle of the H.264 at 200%. Interesting stuff and I can't wait for ML to get to the 6D, if it ever does.


----------



## Nishi Drew (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



bereninga said:


> The raw looks too warm. But I didn't like the halo around the fire of the candle of the H.264 at 200%. Interesting stuff and I can't wait for ML to get to the 6D, if it ever does.



Well guess what, it's RAW and a simple adjustment in white balance and your gold! (or silver, for the cooler color??)
And I recall some early attempts/tests proving the 6D is capable as well, but alas, extreme card speeds are required and both the current limitations of SD card speeds and the major issue, the uber slow transfer from buffer to card in the 6D kills it. You might be able to run lower res sequences around 720P but still doesn't look great. Now the 50D looks to be capable of RAW video as well, and that camera has fast transfer speeds so with the fastes SD cards (95mb/s) one can achieve desirable results.


----------



## bluegreenturtle (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



bereninga said:


> The raw looks too warm. But I didn't like the halo around the fire of the candle of the H.264 at 200%. Interesting stuff and I can't wait for ML to get to the 6D, if it ever does.




Remember in looking at all these raw samples that much of it is entirely the decisions that the person who took it made in color correction in post - 90% of which I've found to be questionable. Usually they are either garish colors or not correcting the magenta slant that comes straight out of the camera.


----------



## Tom W (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

The difference is amazing, especially at high ISO.

What is the H.264 doing to the image to destroy the contrast and brilliance of the color?


----------



## bchernicoff (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Tom W said:


> The difference is amazing, especially at high ISO.
> 
> What is the H.264 doing to the image to destroy the contrast and brilliance of the color?



It's not necessarily the compression. Most Canon DSLR sites recommend you turn the in-camera saturation, contrast, and sharpening down all or most of the way then add those grading steps later in your editor. This gives you the ability to tune it to the scene. When you import the DNG video frames using Adobe Camera RAW using the defaults, a contrast curve, and sharpening are applied. When I did the comparison of my fiance, I used something like -51 contrast, -20 saturation, and no sharpening in ACR to try to have a fair comparison. 

I would suspect that what we are looking at here is just that...the H.264 was shot with in-camera processing turned down, but the ACR defaults. 

I believe when the ML guys were posting their early success of getting RAW frames they mentioned that internally Canon is down-rezing the video to something like 720p before upscaling it to 1080p and converting to H.264. This would explain the lack of detail in Canon's H.264 output. They had to work around this to get real 1080p output. In other words, H.264 itself isn't the problem...the Vimeo video above is likely H.264 compressed. Also so are Bluray movies.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



bchernicoff said:


> Tom W said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is amazing, especially at high ISO.
> ...



They're down-rezzing to 720p before upscaling to 1080p for output? Really? Wow.

I'm thinking I might put this on once it's more of a beta/official release. I have a few video friends, and I want to record a bit of something, hand them the file and ask them to see what they think


----------



## bchernicoff (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Drizzt321 said:


> They're down-rezzing to 720p before upscaling to 1080p for output? Really? Wow.
> 
> I'm thinking I might put this on once it's more of a beta/official release. I have a few video friends, and I want to record a bit of something, hand them the file and ask them to see what they think



I'm trying to find a more concrete source for my assertion than my memory ;-)

So far, I find this article which I think is the original one I read and then followed the link to their facebook page. Facebook is blocked at my work, so that is as far as I can go to track it down right now: http://www.eoshd.com/content/10221/magic-lantern-discover-2k-raw-dng-function-on-5d-mark-ii-and-iii


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



bchernicoff said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > They're down-rezzing to 720p before upscaling to 1080p for output? Really? Wow.
> ...



Hmm...don't see anything on that article or the front of the FB page. Ah well, I'll take it with a grain of salt then.


----------



## bchernicoff (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Drizzt321 said:


> bchernicoff said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to find a more concrete source for my assertion than my memory ;-)
> ...



okay, I found the section I was recalling. It's not quite as bad as remembered. The relevant paragraph is this (2k RAW frames refers to what the camera grabs for LiveView and video out):


> The 14bit raw is turned into compressed 8bit 4:2:0 but rather than use all the native resolution of the 2K raw frames, the image processor is playing all kinds of tricks, at one point even downscaling to 1904 and then back up to 1920 again in the case of the 5D Mark III. Why does it do that?



Found on this page: http://www.eoshd.com/content/10250/canon-5d-2k-raw-feed-update-1920x720-possible-on-1000x-card


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Ah, I see, thanks for finding it 

Yea, sounds like Canon is doing some crazy tricks. It's funny, Canon engineers clearly could have made a better/simpler output pipeline I'm sure with more or less the hardware that's in there, but I'll bet much of it was marketing & feature segmentation decisions to avoid that. Yet ML still has managed to coerce the camera into giving us this crazy high quality output.


----------



## ddashti (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

The ML raw is significantly sharper! Those guys are brilliant.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Fr3lncr said:


> Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.



Give it a real try and you will NOT say that.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 30, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Tom W said:


> The difference is amazing, especially at high ISO.
> 
> What is the H.264 doing to the image to destroy the contrast and brilliance of the color?



It is not so much the h.264 they use since even going HDMI clean out to Ninja 2 it still loses a lot of micro-contrast and color. Something they do in the image processing chain after it gets fed raw to liveview and before it hits the h.264 engine is knocking it down hard.


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Tom W said:
> 
> 
> > The difference is amazing, especially at high ISO.
> ...



If you look at what bchernicoff posted on the other page, it looks like they are doing some weird stuff before the LiveView/HDMI buffer. See http://www.eoshd.com/content/10250/canon-5d-2k-raw-feed-update-1920x720-possible-on-1000x-card.


----------



## syder (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Fr3lncr said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm... I prefer the Canon one over the Magic Lantern one.
> ...



It depends what you mean by a real try... On a typical day I might shoot 150 clips. Processing each one of those using the current methods for getting raw video out the 5dm3 would be 1) a massive pain in the ass 2) so time consuming that it isn't worthwhile for anyone actually making professional work.

At the moment it's amazing for hobbyists (or other people for whom time doesn't equal money) - but unusable for anyone who makes videos for a living.


----------



## RGomezPhotos (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Yes.. I was thinking the same thing.... This is great for hobbyist... But pros really can't us it as effectively as 3rd party devices to control the camera won't work with it.


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



syder said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Fr3lncr said:
> ...



How much time do you currently spend, on footage from you shoots in post? I'm talking total time from editing, to color correction to color grading....sound...etc?

Just curious, I mean, for most people it isnt' like they shoot, and BAM, have a finished product out the door in 1-2 hours later. 

I usually take a good bit of time auditioning takes, sync'ing or dubbing sound, layering on effects, titles...hell, just figuring out the music for things takes time, etc.

I'm guessing when the ML guys get this stuff ready for the general public (remember, it ain't even release to the general public as alpha yet really), I'm guessing they'll have the tools to prep it for whatever entry into the usual workflow worked out pretty straightforward.

Sure, you're gonna need a bit of horsepower to do the early processing of that RAW footage, but you need that with any camera that is currently outputting RAW video...so, I shan't think its gonna be as much of a PITA as you seem to be describing it when this stuff from the ML boys is ready for prime time.

And for some of us, it isn't just turning and burning for the sake of getting something out the door. If it is another hour or so to get super high quality footage with an incredible amount of dynamic range allowing for major color correction/grading in post...then it is definitely worth it.

Quality over Quantity.....it strikes again what balance you are gonnna go for.

C


----------



## AAPhotog (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



syder said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Fr3lncr said:
> ...


There are professionals who shoot RAW and make a living doing so. Whats the difference between the other cameras RAW and the 5d3's?

The ONE step of dragging your RAW clips to raw2dng???
ok.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

[smell of coffee]

Pros are already using this.


----------



## Mantanuska (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

they look the same except for contrast... pretty hard to compare them that way . if they wanted to show a valid comparison they should have processed the RAW to match the h.264 in terms of contrast and saturation


----------



## dirtcastle (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



dilbert said:


> Drizzt321 said:
> 
> 
> > Yea, sounds like Canon is doing some crazy tricks. It's funny, Canon engineers clearly could have made a better/simpler output pipeline I'm sure with more or less the hardware that's in there, but I'll bet much of it was marketing & feature segmentation decisions to avoid that. Yet ML still has managed to coerce the camera into giving us this crazy high quality output.
> ...



Business is all about marginal return. The extra effort and headaches probably wouldn't have translated into proportionally larger sales for the 5D3. The 5D3 is already a winning product without RAW video. And the directly competing DSLRs (D800, for example) don't yet have it, so there was no major competitive advantage to including it.

RAW video seems revolutionary now, but in 3-4 years it will be standard for high-end DSLRs. It will be relatively easy to implement for smaller resolutions. Already, the cards are more than capable of handling the lower resolutions. And eventually 1920x1080 will be supported.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



syder said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Fr3lncr said:
> ...



Yeah but the other guy was talking about output quality not workflow.

If you are really small or hobby then it is workable or if you are really big it is workable. If you are shooting like crazy for money and just barely getting by and barely able to keep up with even current workflow to get enough money in then it's probably a pretty rough or probably impossible way to go though yeah. But if you are in quite in that situation it should be possible, especially if you get some big, fast RAID setups going and higher-end PC.

I mean it is more of a pain, especially since even quick previews are so now (but already some attempts at rawtodng that also make quick preview files are being tested at which point you'd then be able to quickly scan stuff you shoot without all that much more extra time being needed). In some ways the RAW is so good it can make color development a breeze. But with slow HDs and an old computer it would take ages and yeah be a rough go for some, too rough in many cases.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



RGomezPhotos said:


> Yes.. I was thinking the same thing.... This is great for hobbyist... But pros really can't us it as effectively as 3rd party devices to control the camera won't work with it.



Does it really prevent anything? For now it prevents full scale external monitoring until they make it work with 1.2.1, but people did have that all this time anyway.


----------



## eyeland (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

If you prefer sticking with in-camera H264, by all means, enjoy your time-tested workflow. For me however, Raw will give me a competitive advantage and will help me gain access to a more lucrative market segment.
It could have to do with me coming from stills photography and thus being used to dealing with raw, but personally, I find it MUCH less time consuming to grade Raw rather than the stock H264. I don't really care about the time spend on converting files as I just work on something else meanwhile (eg. titles, sound etc.)
Either way, being skeptic at this point of development seems just outright silly... Great attention is currently being devoted to multiple different developments (in-camera bit shifting to 12/10bit, easy generation of proxy clips, automated/scripted workflows etc. etc) 
As to canons design choices, besides from their corporate structure, could have to do with memory card speeds as well?
Anyways, I am stoked but I guess YMMV and so on...


----------



## hutjeflut (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.


the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso


----------



## syder (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



AAPhotog said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



One can only assume that you've never shot anything using a RAW camcorder or don't understand the ML workflow...

Nothing else requires you to 1st compile a dng sequence into a clip (as you point out) and then compile the DNG files into a sequence (using something like AEX) - a process which is massively computationally intensive (and yes i do have an unlocked and overclocked i7 workstation with 32gb of RAM and a CUDA graphics card) and enormously time consuming. 

Using a BMC you can go straight to Resolve, perform a quick grade and render your footage as something edit friendly (dnxhd or similar). No processing RAW to DNG. No turning stills into a sequence. And BM are learning from their mistake with their 1st gen camera that uncompressed RAW is a massive resource hog that no-one wants to deal with.



cayenne said:


> How much time do you currently spend, on footage from you shoots in post? I'm talking total time from editing, to color correction to color grading....sound...etc?
> 
> Just curious, I mean, for most people it isnt' like they shoot, and BAM, have a finished product out the door in 1-2 hours later.
> 
> I usually take a good bit of time auditioning takes, sync'ing or dubbing sound, layering on effects, titles...hell, just figuring out the music for things takes time, etc.



As an editor the vast majority of my time is spent... Editing (shock horror). Color correction and grading are the same thing and actually take very little time (even using something like resolve to make a load of secondary corrections - which is more work than a lot of work actually needs). Titles likewise (unless you're talking about some fiendishly complex motion graphics).

When clients pay for my time as an editor they want to have stories told in a compelling way. They're happy to get some work done on grading, motion graphics etc, but that isn't where the majority of an editor's time should be spent, and adding a few days to a project to manually compile the RAW stills into the 600 clips that become a 30 minute documentary is a waste of time. 

If you need RAW for your high-budget work rent a Red camera for your shoot. If you want RAW but cant cough up the cash for a Red for your indie work buy a BMC (amazingly cheap for what it does, but has some big limitations outside of fiction work imo). If you're a hobbyist with loads of free time (or just someone who doesn't shoot very much) use the ML RAW.

Phillip Bloom has quite a good post about why the vast majority of people don't need RAW or 4K at the moment http://philipbloom.net/2013/05/28/4kraw/ he's pretty much spot on. 



hutjeflut said:


> magic lantarn seems to hae a to high contrast and altered saturation kicking the red to purple in some samples and at high iso the canon clearly winst even tho its grayer its more realistic and has less distracting noise.
> 
> 
> the raw just doesnt seem t be raw but edited and if you edit the canon video it will look better at high iso



You cant output RAW video... Anything you see online will be graded and exported before being compressed for streaming on Vimeo/Youtube


----------



## InterMurph (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



dilbert said:


> Had Canon of brought this out in the mainstream model, it is highly likely that they would have received a large number of complaints/returns because people would expect it to work with all CF cards.


Canon will not add a raw-video-to-CF-card feature to the 5D Mark III because it is unreliable.

The Magic Lantern folks have done remarkable work, but they have discovered that 1) most CF cards can't handle the throughput, and 2) even the CF cards that can handle it cannot do so reliably.

If Canon ever releases a DSLR with raw-video-to-CF-card support, it will likely be with lossless video compression. The CPU in these cameras is not up to that task, so it would have to be added in hardware (to the DIGIC chip).

Compressed raw video could then be written to CF cards reliably. And then Adobe _et al_ can write code that imports this compressed raw video.

And then we will all be happy. In three years. After we buy another camera...


----------



## Jent (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

I agree with Syder.

This looks like a MASSIVE P.I.T.A. just to get a few minutes of footage at enormous file sizes. YES it looks great. And YES it will look greater if your film makes it to blow up on a big theater screen. However, with people compiling 40-50GB of memory for only 8min (many only achieve 10 or so seconds in the rez they want) of footage all the while converting, color grading, uprezzing, break dancing and dosey doeing to do it, I'll pass or wait until ML works out the kinks. I own a 5D Mark II and have seen people going through HELL to get this thing to work right. I've seen the MkII shoot RAW at 1880X860. And while it's beautiful to look at, it's eating up memory, and there is no 1920X1080 (1:85) resolution which is what I want. It's good to know it's possible, but it's not worth the hassle yet.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Yes, of course it is extra work over H.264, Blackmagic Prores, Canon Cinema, etc. But consider a few things...

*Blackmagic is the only direct competitor.* Let's stay away from apples-to-oranges debates. It's just an option. There are pluses and minuses to everything. If you are comparing the 5D3 to Red or Canon Cinema... you are comparing a Camry to a Porsche. Apples to oranges.

*ML RAW is brand new.* We just had a breakthrough and the situation is in flux. We won't know the final details of the RAW workflow until the dust settles and the development dominoes have all toppled. Who knows?... maybe there will be a plugin for Adobe or official support in CS7. Again, this is all completely new.

*The Workflow.* Will there be improvements to converting bundled DNGs to single files? Currently, the weakest link in the chain is the conversion of files in ACR/LR. A batch process here would save a lot of time (especially if it exported to single files, instead of bundles of files). It would be great to bypass ACR/LR altogether. The question is whether the resulting loss of quality would negate the benefits of conversion.

*Hardware Requirements.* Clearly this will require more than simply having a 5D3. It requires a very fast computer, lots of big drives, fast CF cards, etc. These are similar requirements to the BMCC (again, the only direct competitor). 

*The Editing Process.* I agree that it would be unfair to dump thousands of DNGs on a full-time editor (who was previously receiving single files). Magic Lantern is camera firmware and, as such, I would see it as the responsibility of the shooter to supply the required format to the editor. In this regard, I think pushback from editors is good, because it will provide an impetus to improve the file conversion process.

Good times.


----------



## cayenne (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Jent said:


> I agree with Syder.
> 
> This looks like a MASSIVE P.I.T.A. just to get a few minutes of footage at enormous file sizes. YES it looks great. And YES it will look greater if your film makes it to blow up on a big theater screen. However, with people compiling 40-50GB of memory for only 8min (many only achieve 10 or so seconds in the rez they want) of footage all the while converting, color grading, uprezzing, break dancing and dosey doeing to do it, I'll pass or wait until ML works out the kinks. I own a 5D Mark II and have seen people going through HELL to get this thing to work right. I've seen the MkII shoot RAW at 1880X860. And while it's beautiful to look at, it's eating up memory, and there is no 1920X1080 (1:85) resolution which is what I want. It's good to know it's possible, but it's not worth the hassle yet.



Again a few things.

This stuff isn't even released as Alpha for the public...still under heavy first stages of development.

When it is more ready for primetime, I'm sure the output and tools for workflow will improve.

Also, the prime camera for using this in a regular fashion, for 1080p video...is the 5D3. 
The older cameras will get some form of RAW, but it may or may not be useful for anything but special short footage shots, but looks like on the 5D3 you will be able to use this for real shooting (not long documentary style, but shoots where you shoot only a couple of mins at a time). I think as of now, you can get about 15 min on a 64GB card....nearly half an hour on the 128GB cards.

I figure with things I shoot..I could have one 64GB in the camera and the other unloading data in the computer...etc.

But again...this is in *EARLY* development stages....with a lot more work to be done and improvements along the way. It speaks loads that the ML folks have made this much progress this quickly.

Once they get the process in camera to a final stage, I expect them to then turn their attention to the external processes to get that output into a form quicker that will then fit into more normal workflows.

I forsee the end product to being something maybe where you take your Canon RAW output, run it through one app to put it into some type of commonly used RAW form, similar to what you get out of BM or Red cameras...and you use it then as you would those forms of footage.


----------



## Niki (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

I have the the 5d mark III with good results...is the 5d mark II getting better or less results??


----------



## Drizzt321 (May 31, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Niki said:


> I have the the 5d mark III with good results...is the 5d mark II getting better or less results??



I think right now they're concentrating on the 5d3, getting that stable and refined, then looking at it on other cameras such as the 5D2 & 50D, and maybe the 6D.


----------



## eyeland (Jun 1, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Haters gonna hate 
Slightly off-topic: Even if you think raw video on 5D is a dud, you gotta admit that the prospects of turning the old 50D into a cinema camera (albeit not FHD) is wicked awesome. Granted, it does not give you the FF advantage, but apparently the 15MP sensor has its advantages too
Personally, I am quite exited about the prospects of doing in-camera slides and such, not just the raw capabilities.


----------



## Jent (Jun 1, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

LOL eyeland ;D

In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW. However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no. Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash. I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.


----------



## Plaid Zebra Films (Jun 1, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*

Here's my test video filmed in Big Sur on the beach. Not as scientific but beaches > than candles to look at. 

https://vimeo.com/67422760


----------



## dirtcastle (Jun 1, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



Jent said:


> LOL eyeland ;D
> 
> In all seriousness, as Phillip Bloom said, it is an awesome accomplishment for ML and it is phenomenal that they have allowed DSLR owners to shoot RAW. However, do most people need to shoot RAW - no. Unless you're super well off, you are going to be blowing alot of cash. I'm gonna wait to get a 5DIII after they fix the kinks.



That word "need" is a funny one. Six years ago, there was no "need" for a smartphone. Now everyone "needs" a smartphone. It might take more than six years for RAW video to be a "need". But it will probably happen.


----------



## cayenne (Jun 2, 2013)

*Re: 5D Mark III & RAW Video, A Case Study*



dirtcastle said:


> Jent said:
> 
> 
> > LOL eyeland ;D
> ...



Yeah...I keep thinking that this _*color*_ TV thing is still pretty much just a fad that will fade away myself....


----------

