Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

EPIC being challenged by the 5D people...

Status
Not open for further replies.
To everyone cruising through, just wondering if they should use a 5D over a Red for their next night exterior:

The MX sensor has pleasing grain, good color reproduction and low light performance similar to an unadjusted human eye. No blocking. Noise reduction and a subtle colorist can pull incredible information from shadows, truly way more than any realistic scene needs. Work in RedLogFilm and RedColor2.

The 5D and other DSLRs excel in low light stills. Their image processors and codecs are terrible. If you have an exposure at a sub-800 ISO, they can look good--in the right light, without too much motion, where the color cast and softness work for the scene. A Nikon in the right hands is better.

Tungsten light produces more noise on both systems. Sodium vapor and metal hallide (street) lights wreck havoc on 5D codecs, ridiculous shutter speed sometimes fixes this but often not. Supplementing these lights with homemade fixtures, creative DC solutions, or just a little eyelight will work wonders for any guerilla scene.

Stills pulled from motion reveal little about moving grain and compression. Test your location and have a look on your final screen--laptop, TV or projection.
 
jorge krausch said:
Im tired of all those people saying their Canon 5D cameras can do better low light than any RED epic/red... then making those vimeos and youtubes to prove it..
Seriously.. is it true? Or are the epic videos they use to compare with just not post-produced?
Is the 5D really better at low light?
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Low light is all about noise floor, and what you can pull in post. Add an external recorder to an Epic and you are blowing away the 5D right there (because you are compressing AFTER gain, like most cameras). Or, use the RAW file off the SSD and add noise reduction in post, on a 5K image and you are killing 5D by a long shot. Otherwise (without these techniques) a 5D and Epic are about equal in terms of low light usage. I'm only talking about low light here, there are obviously many other advantages to an Epic and its image quality than just that., that's assuming the 5D footage does not crap out with hot pixels and other issues. I've had very good experiences with 2o00iso Epic and Red One Mx footage - it was totally fine. The 5D stuff had tons of artifacts of various natures, including weird macrblocking, moire, bad dynamic range... You name it.

All this to say the only advantage the 5D has is... Its' dirt cheap.
 
Last edited:
Gunleik Groven said:
Guys... These questions are getting me real curious as they pop up...

How many of you are shooting dramaticals without lights?
How's the distribution model and box-ofice results for these non-lit features?

No spite intended, but just really, really curious.

Repeating myself here, but what I find relaving with the Epic, is that you can really light for it, NOT that it doesn't ned light...

Cheers!
Click to expand...

I have exactly the same question as Gunleik.
 
Gunleik Groven said:
No. Disagree! :)

Lighting (in a dramatical/feature/fiction production) is about storytelling, moods and giving focus to what you want your audience to see and interpret.

It is not about "being able to see what was in front of the lens" but about telling a story, giving a mood and support the actors, the plot and the story.

Sometimes that is done in available light. Sure.
But even then you choose a solution that fits the story....
Click to expand...

Exactly and- well, if all you do is frame you're a camera op, not a DP - not that there is anything wrong with being a camera op - but be honest about what career you want. Being a DP is mainly about lighting, more than any other one thing.
 
jorge krausch said:
I totally agree Gunleik.. but thats what i meant by artistic expression or storytelling.. mood giving etc.. giving focus or molding the truth.. But it all started in my opinion because the first film stocks needed lots and lots and lots of light to get anything.
I always found make-up and lamps-free filmmaking more fascinating. Lamps will remain but for exactly that.. mood giving and focusing us on certain things.. but real life doesnt do that.. its fiction. Which is ok if thats what you want the audience to sense.
I dont know.. make-up and certain lights always made me conscious i was watching a film.. but thats me of course. I mean.. like those women who wake up with make-up on..
Click to expand...

Sitting in a theater and watching a 2D image, watching characters who cannot see you, is not "reality". You watch a good Hollywood film and it feels like reality, even though its not. Distracting pimples from no makeup do not help your story, in fact makeup often helps actors look more normal, so you focus on their acting, not their blemishes.

There has never been a single successful film, that reached an audience of any real size, that is like what you describe. The brief forray of mumble-core now looks hopelessly dated and was never very successful even when it was a trend for cafe-society types. You are headed for certain failure, by giving audiences what they clearly do not want, never wanted.
 
Chris Sharman said:
I don't think Jorge is crazy and I've had the same fears for a while myself. It's a natural extrapolation of the pace of current camera development, and the reasoning behind current trends like 3D and 48fps. A future of 'naturalistic' cinema is certainly possible, but it won't be DOPs driving it. At the point where camera sensors are able to react to light in the same way as the human eye, I can see why many directors will want to shoot that way for reasons of authenticity and placing the audience in what feels like a very real scenario.

I hope not though because at that point most of us will be out of a job.
Click to expand...

that's just nonsense, because study after studio-sponsored study shows that audiences prefer a slick, romanticized image, they simply do not like the doco look - and for a slick pretty look you need lighting.

As it is, even at night, we often have to use ND on our Epic, because say a Kino at the right distance, and the right size, is just too bright for the f stop we like. This even on small sets with plug-in, no tie-in. This is also a function of fighting city lights - at ISO 800, they are already leaking into your scene quite a bit, so you fight them with brighter lights, and then on goes the ND.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
All this to say the only advantage the 5D has is... Its' dirt cheap.
Click to expand...
Well, I'd also say if I had to strap a camera to a skydiver's helmet and send him out a plane, I'd rather it be a 5D than an Epic. Especially if the chute doesn't open.
 
Marc Wielage said:
Well, I'd also say if I had to strap a camera to a skydiver's helmet and send him out a plane, I'd rather it be a 5D than an Epic. Especially if the chute doesn't open.
Click to expand...

Well there you go cheap, and a lighter in way that in this particular circumstance is useful (it isn't when it's on a dolly, on your shoulder or on a Steadicam - then the 5D is much too light, and teh Epic is just fine). And how often do you do that? I suppose for some types of pros, this is a frequent situation, but we've never actually done that.
 
Timothy Carr said:
Youtube seems to kill the light on this, but trust me the original file has about 1-1.5 more stops of light, and still basically grainless (no removal, but a small curve seems to hide it). Amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n8zq_SX1FQ
Click to expand...

in all fairness that is a very crushy grade that might not even pass QC. There is way too much contrast, even just aesthetically. Noise happens most in the near-darks, which you have completely crushed away.
 
Timothy Carr said:
Youtube seems to kill the light on this, but trust me the original file has about 1-1.5 more stops of light, and still basically grainless (no removal, but a small curve seems to hide it). Amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0n8zq_SX1FQ
Click to expand...
this can't be ISO4000, ISO4000 from Scarlet looks like an image taken with an iPhone in the dark, and why r3d shows ISO 320?
 
Wow, zombie thread...
 
No question the Canon DSLRs are not in the same league as Red cameras in almost every way. BUT...

No one is making the distinction between Mark II and Mark III and there is a big difference. I've shot a lot on both and have had NO moire problems with the Mark III where the Mark II was nothing BUT problems. A little soft yes, but some sharpening in post goes a long way. And both 5Ds can be pretty/sensual, a look people seem to respond to. Instead of bashing the camera one might want to look at what it is that has made the Canons such a success.
 
Robert Ruffo New said:
The brief forray of mumble-core now looks hopelessly dated and was never very successful even when it was a trend for cafe-society types.
Click to expand...

Hahahahahahaha post of the year. Watching any of those horrid DV movies from the '90s is PAINFUL. What was everyone thinking????
"Now we can REALLY make the film we always wanted to make, without any crew or lights!" Or something.
OY.
Cheers,
Harry
 
Yeah I don't get Daniel. Came in and posted a bunch of one word responses to a bunch of old threads. Just waiting for him to start selling something so his thread count looks like he's been around.
 
I have both Scarlet & 5d Mark III.
You can't compare them both, I use the 5d on mounts etc.
Red is superior in every whey except light sensevity i can shoot my 5d at iso 1600 easy, Do I ever do no.
We always Light that makes the image much better and Red shines over 5d at that point.
Daytime footage red vs 5d red has a great texture,organic feel to it, 5d has only depth of field.
Just ask yourself a question, why was social netwok pirates of carr, spiderman, hobbit was shot on red not on 5d?
 
Wil Wong said:
Yeah I don't get Daniel. Came in and posted a bunch of one word responses to a bunch of old threads. Just waiting for him to start selling something so his thread count looks like he's been around.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking the same thing. Just waiting on that for sale post.
 
5D is far beyond EPICs...in budget.
I made 2 short movies by 5D2, it's easy and convenient, low light is OK with big lens(1.4 maybe), but saying it's better than EPIC(I have 2) on low light? It's just because 5D2 has internal NR, while Epic needs post NR. I can make very clear shot in low light with EPIC by Resolve's NR for output in HD with T2.8 lens, and the final quality can easily beat 5D2 with T1.4 lens. While when 5D2 got noise, it can not be recovered as much as EPIC since the final true resolution will be a disaster. I do not have a 5D3, hope it can be better.
 
The problem is that Epic pulls away so far ahead of the 5D that no matter how sensitive they can't be cut without it feeling like a flashback or some other disconnect

you are downgrading to the world of dirty 1080p, bless its heart

we all eagerly await Dragon samples, and at high ISO too! but apples and oranges amigo mio
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top