Canon 5Dm2 "RAW" files... FAIL

[Tom Lowe]

I was suspicious when Canon uploaded a 1/4 resolution copy of that Vincent guy's short film. Why not offer it 1080p? You know damn well that professionals are going to want to see for themselves if the files will hold up pixel for pixel at 1080p.

I'm sad to report that the answer seems to be NO.

Here are two 100% crops of the "RAW" MOV files that came "straight out of the camera" according to Canon. (I cropped and saved with 100% quality JPEG settings... essentially visibly lossless in terms of what I am seeing in After Effects, Premiere, and various media players).

IMHO, this is unacceptable.

Here is a link to the full, downloadable clips...

http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=GetArticleAct&articleID=2127

I would still like to see if a cleaner 1080p 10bit 4:2:2 could be recorded off the HDMI port, but barring that, the 5Dm2's internal compression is a failure, IMO.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

That's quite funny...

 

[kidrobot]

Looks horrible. I hope they start shipping soon.

 

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Looks horrible. I hope they start shipping soon.

Hahah.

 

[NateWeaver]

Tom, please don't take this the wrong way, but...

It's a failure if they were going after pro shooters in the first place. They were not.

This was a "bonus feature" from the get-go.

 

[Gunleik Groven]

But the cam is discussed as a 35mm adapter, Scarlet and RED killer on several boards. In that discussion, this is quite relevant.

It's a very nice still cam, though...

 

[Tom Lowe]

Nate, I realize it's not competition for serious digital cinema cameras, but I was hoping for something very light and compact (and with good available glass) I could backpack way up into the mountains just to shoot landscapes, for example. Even for that purpose, I don't think this compression scheme on the 5Dm2 will be usable. DSMC will probably be WAAAY better for that type of shooting.

 

[Emanuel A.]

But the cam is discussed as a 35mm adapter, Scarlet and RED killer on several boards. In that discussion, this is quite relevant.

I fully agree.

Compliments Gunleik.

BTW, great stuff that teaser. Glad on your behalf!

E.

 

[Daniel Browning]

The noise reduction in those clips is terrible. Looks like digicam-style smear-and-sharpen (yuck!).

For me, the worst problems are control, jello, noise reduction, ergonomics, video features, and compression. And the aqueduct.

 

[Sanjin Jukic]

Guys,

sorry but for DSLR HD acquisition looks pretty good at 1008p.

Just downloaded the first file that shot on a helicopter...

more comment to come later...

 

[reality]

Oh my god, the raw clips are horrible!

What were they thinking?

 

[Roberto B]

did you see them all as it seems sj is doing?.. or are you just following the anti-propaganda?.. :watsup:

 

[Gordon Prince]

Yes. Let Sanjin tell us his findings.

 

[reality]

Looking at the original clips that Tom posted, the footage is painfully mushy and over processed.

Not anti-propaganda... look at them for your self. No professional would accept a still from any of the raw footage as acceptable. I've seen better from a 200$ P&S.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Looking at the original clips that Tom posted, the footage is painfully mushy and over processed.

Not anti-propaganda... look at them for your self. No professional would accept a still from any of the raw footage as acceptable. I've seen better from a 200$ P&S.

Sheesh.... I could probably find a P&S at walmart for $60 that could blow away those frames if viewed as stills.

 

[Joel Kaye]

What lens is the bridge shot?

Seems like it might be a tilt shift... it's got very weird in and out of focus points that might be contributing to how badly it's being perceived. Also - these are ISO 1600 and 2000 shots. RED doesn't look too hot at ISO 2000 to me.

edit - OK, it actually is a tilt shift. It's identified on the web page. So just toss that shot out altogether. If you look at the face in the water shot at ISO 1600 & f2 it looks pretty damn good really. I'd need to see a lot more footage personally, but this thing still could be an adapter killer. But the noise at ISO 1600 on these is really good to my eye.

also - chopper shot, ISO 1600 - it's not bad. It's h.264 so there is some compression noise but I've seen worse Blu-Rays.

I dunno... I think it might be better than you guys are making it out right now. I'm with Sanjin. Show me more.

 

[Graeme Nattress]

Anyone see the ginormous macroblocks in the water? Or the blocks in the shadows? Lovely... Has anyone plopped them on the FCP timeline, and even on a 8 core, how sluggish it is - no RT - render everything. Tried correcting out the tungsten balance?

Graeme

 

[snipe]

I went through and extracted some still images, cropped the same as the original post to 100%.

Working with shallow depth of field and dealing with slow shutter speeds, manual focus, and vibrations from both the focusing/fiilming and the environment, I think you need to be a little more selective with which stills really represent the capabilities of the camera.

I'm sure people can find plenty to fault with these frame grabs as well, but to me they are a better representation.

 

[Joel Kaye]

Anyone see the ginormous macroblocks in the water? Or the blocks in the shadows? Lovely... Has anyone plopped them on the FCP timeline, and even on a 8 core, how sluggish it is - no RT - render everything. Tried correcting out the tungsten balance?

My guess is the RED codec is the cleanest compressed codec out there. I know I've never seen anything, anywhere that's bothered me about RedCode Raw. So you guys do have a complete winner there IMHO.

Give me real time Redcode Raw on any timeline and I'll be really happy. But editing proxies on my 8 core "for real" isn't even doable. Both cameras need to be converted to something else to have a real workflow for complicated editing.

The h.264 capture for the Canon is a downer when it comes to compression artifacts but capturing right to h.264 is perfect for a Web Video show that needs immediate turnaround.

If I was waiting for Scarlet but wanted to create stuff right now I'd be testing this Canon. I'd convert to ProRes and run it through noise reduction software on the way out and see what I had. At 720P and under I'm guessing you'd have great stuff. CMOS skewing on action might be a deal killer, but I'm not seeing skewing in these clips. I see a tilt shift lens.

 

[Pawel Achtel]

Tom, please don't take this the wrong way, but...

It's a failure if they were going after pro shooters in the first place. They were not.

This was a "bonus feature" from the get-go.

On the other hand, Red One shoots stills just as good and just as sharp as Canon's flagship EOS 1D MK III, except it does it at 30fps. It is a "bonus feature"

As Jim said, these fields (stills and movie) are converging. DSLRs are used for shooting time lapse, movie cameras are used to shoot stills. In the past, this was only limited by technology, but the customer needs are certainly overlaping. Why would you have two sets of incompatible, yet expensive, lenses? One for stills and one for motion picture; two sets of filters; two sets of recording media, etc...what a waste!