OT: Hands on experience with Canon D5 Mark II

Patryk Rebisz wrote on 9/23/2009, 1:13 AM
http://patrykrebisz.wordpress.com/2009/09/23/hands-on-experience-with-canon-d5-mark-ii/

(the link above has all the pics)

I got my hands on the new Canon D5 Mark II that came equipped with every pro Canon lens you can imagine, plenty of batteries and cards and a photographer (my friend, the owner) eager to help out and learn a bit about filmmaking.

I really wanted to see how this camera would perform under the stress of on-location shooting rather than on a simple test shoot, so I decided to ask my actress friend to come over and do a short film.

The set-up was pretty basic. The camera on top of Bogen HDV501 head. The camera was mounted to some basic rails to support an HD monitor (with HDMI connection) – in this case Ikan V5600 5.6″. From my experience of working with HD I knew that 5.6″will be too small for really exact focus but it should be “good enough” for the purpose of this test.

After a few initial mess-ups (we had to run and purchase HDMI to Mini HDMI adapter at the local electronics stor as the Canon has Mini HDMI out) we were up and running. I had Zoom H4 recorder installed on top of the camera to record the audio with a simple hand clap used as the sync slate.

Working with the camera was wonderful as right away we were seeing a great image. Then… When I pressed the record button I was surprised as the HDMI output started outputting an SD signal rather than HD that it was while in the stand-by mode. In other words no “run and gun” abilities with this rig as there is simply no way of focusing by looking at the image (ANYBODY that tells you that you “kinda can” with the SD signal doesn’t have enough on-set real-life experience). SUCKS!

We kept the focus on the shots where the actress was moving back and forth by marking the lens and pulling the focus the traditional way rather than by looking at the monitor.

Here another thing became very apparent. The camera is so lightweight that if not properly stabilized while pulling focus you run into a possibility of taping the body thus shaking the image. I would say this minus can be a real plus too as the rig is very portable.

Watching the images on a large flat screen TV I noticed another major issue, the image compression. The camera uses H264 compression which in my view is heavier than your standard fare HDV compression. The circuitry the camera uses has to very “simple” as the image does look compressed (at times very heavily). So if you are thinking of doing a heavy color grading in the post you might not have enough information before it becomes noticeable. In other words get the image to be as close to what you want in camera otherwise the compression will eat you alive.

Another thing to consider is that the H264 compression is very dependent on the amount of movement and details in the shot so if your ISO is too high (even at ISO800 I started noticing some nasty artifacts) the image will degrade even more as high ISO produces lots of moving noise (or tiny details as the compression circuitry sees it as). I probably wouldn’t recommend shooting with anything above ISO 400 if you want to get a clean image.

Another image quality issue I noticed is a significant amount of sharpening (though it tends to be more apparent in some images rather than the other).

After the shoot I rolled a quick clip in the most extreme situation using ISO of 6400. Well, it did produce some kind of image but for sure it wasn’t pretty.

As you might know the camera records 30p (NOT 29.97) which is an issue if you are used to shoot at 24p (the new Canon D7 is coming out with abilities to shoot with variety of different frame rates). The 30p is not a huge deal for me as most of the projects I do get delivered at 29.97 or simply posted to the web, however if you ever wanted to print to film you would run into some issues.

The above is just a list of complains but there are some superb qualities about this camera’s video mode:

– despite the compression and the sharpening the images are beautiful!

– with high latitude in the highlights you really don’t have to worry too much about over exposing your images as you did with regular video

– the camera is tiny and very light so you can move very freely and stuck the body in any place you can image

– the ease of use allows for the shutter, ISO, F stop, white balance adjustment in seconds

Final verdict, when they get the HDMI to output HD signal during recording, I’m getting this baby.

Comments

logiquem wrote on 9/23/2009, 5:10 AM
Very pertinent/interesting review Patryk.

The lack of real time HD output on HDMI is the reason why i decided to pass on the Panasonic GH1. This really limit the flexibility of these cameras in a production situation.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/23/2009, 7:20 AM
The Canon 7D has proper frame rates (23.98, 29.97, a higher data rate on the H.264, and it costs $1,000 less, but the video preview is still 480p and it has an APS-C sensor (about the size of a 35mm motion picture film frame, vs. the "football field" inside the 5D that also requires better focus pullers).

If you hop on the first plane to L.A. this morning, you should still be able to make it to the DV Expo. Not for the show, but for the Digital Cinema Society meeting at 5 pm, where the main subject is professional DSLR HD shooting. Hollywood DPs will present their findings and share their experience.

I got to the same end conclusion you did, that the 5D is a bit too painful to work with for my tastes.

Seeing what Philip Bloom did with the 7D though, it's getting warmer.

This is a new aestethic. The end result doesn't look like either 35mm film or like any level of HD video cameras. It's just different, and I particularly like the tonal rendition that is beyond even 10-bit video on a smaller sensor.

Many people think that going to a larger frame size with a higher [pre-image processing] resolution primarily leads to "higher sharpness."

Go look at some Ansel Adams photos and tell me if those could have been shot with even a 50 megapixel Hasselblad (6x6 cm digital sensor). It's getting closer every year in the quality department, but I think a very large sensor or film frame even helps get the most out of a given lens. [A feature film DP friend of mine has recently bought up, for peanuts, a bunch of institutional 30x40cm (11"x14") sheet film cameras and enlargers, they were just glad to avoid the hauling-away cost, and he's ecstatic about the tonal quality he's getting :O).]

For the ultimate comparison in that department, just look at newspaper photos shot on a large format camera vs. a 35mm ditto. Even with a one-column wide 2" high photo printed in low-res newspaper offset printing, it is often possible to see the difference. Almost funny, but absolutely true.

Perhaps the DSLR "revolution" will lead to a better understanding of tonal rendition.

Mmmmm.

We will also soon see a broader switch to 10-bit 4:2:2 recording even at the $5K-$10K level of cameras.
I'm not that fond of Panny's breathless hype, but they seem to be the first out of the starting gate with this in the HPX300 (about $8K bare). There will be more though.

And as Patryk found out, a 5D/7D works as good as, "Wanna see my etchings?" [ca. 1890-1990 :O)]

(Sorry, Patryk. Really. :O) :O).

farss wrote on 9/23/2009, 7:57 AM
"Perhaps the DSLR "revolution" will lead to a better understanding of tonal rendition."

I suspect to some extent it might have a lot to do with optics. Some of the most pleasing images I've seen were from 35mm neg I'd scanned. They were taken with an old range finder camera from the middle of last century.

On the other hand I'm reluctant to be too opinionated on this topic. I'm pretty sure a lot of what appeals is based on past experience. I wonder how those who spend most of their time watching video games at 100fps in 2K + will feel about the images that I find so appealing. Let's not also forget 3D seems to be gaining a lot of traction and that could render a century of work of only historical interest.

Bob.

PS. There's a great video about something similar regarding audio from this years Integrate. The speaker makes the point that almost none of the younger generation today know what music really sounds like because all they hear is mp3.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/23/2009, 9:12 AM
Good points, Bob.

1. Different lenses certainly have a different look, and companies like Cooke etc. spend a lot of money on getting that part consistent across each range of lenses.

There is also an interaction between the MTF of the lens and the MTF of the film (or sensor) that creates a certain look.

The greatest difference in tonality comes from having a large format sensor though.


2. How would having two cameras hooked up side by side for 3D invalidate any work of the past?


3. To me, NTSC DV is unnecessarily ugly, barely suitable for news footage. It was of course the best that was affordable for many years, so we accepted it the same way that we accepted MP3 (blech, or at least AAC and WMA).

It's funny also to see how much work has been put into speaker cabinet simulation in DAW software.

What does an electric guitar sound like live? Like the speaker cabinet the sound comes out of...

It seems humans want "real instruments" (even if they're just speaker cabinets :O).
rs170a wrote on 9/23/2009, 11:04 AM
I just watched the Michelle Lewis: Breakfast at Tiffany's music video (also shot on a Canon 5D Mark II) the other day so I found Patryk's comments very interesting.
The one thing that kept going though my mind as I was watching this video was "I guess no one believes in using a tripod any more".
:-(

Mike
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 9/23/2009, 11:08 AM
To some extend i agree that something doesn't have to be perfect to look great. It's almost interesting how the engineers are coming up with ways to improve things while artist take those "things" and fuck them up (think of Kaminski using WWII uncoated lenses on "Saving Private Ryan" so the light would scatter around).

At the same time it's hard to get something that's not perfect to look good in digital domain because there is no tangibility to any of it, thus there is no humanity.

And when you think that ultimately shooting film is so cheap... For $50g you can shoot 1 hour a day for 24 days on S16mm stock, then get that developed and telecined to HD. WOW!
Coursedesign wrote on 9/23/2009, 11:13 AM
BBC refuses to accept S16 on the grounds that the grain makes it not compress well for HD broadcast.

OTOH, the U.S. TV series Monk was shot on S16 and I don't think too many people have complained about the pq, but they have been careful with the lighting, as high ISO S16 really falls apart (think "Thirteen").
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 9/23/2009, 11:17 AM
Interestingly enough, the reason why i'm bringing up the S16mm is because of "Thirteen". Here is an example of a film where the DP made a right decision to shoot on film because ultimately it was a human story, thus it benefited of being shot on "human" medium.
Coursedesign wrote on 9/23/2009, 2:40 PM
I thought the graininess (and to some extent the shakiness) in some scenes in Thirteen was a distraction from the human element.

I have used grain creatively many times, but here I thought it took over in the dark scenes.

Better lighting could probably have given it the same dark look but without the cloud of grasshoppers getting in the way :O).

Yoyodyne wrote on 9/23/2009, 4:36 PM
I've recently played around with a D5, was pretty impressed. The work flow seems a bit clunky coming from a video background but the images looked a LOT better than I thought they would. I did a whole workflow test - from shoot to ingest to edit to render to final file - and I'm kinda' blown away by this thing.

I tried editing the native files but my old machine just wasn't making it happen. Converted the files to Cineform and things worked pretty good. I was surprised at how much I could push the images in color grading, and they seemed very clean.

I've got a short film project coming up that's going to shoot a lot in the dark. I was contemplating using a Letus or Red Rock.... but my camera barely makes it in low level room light, put one of these on and it's gonna be "gain up to 9" city.

After hearing about the 7D and checking out Phil Blooms incredible work I figured I would see what all this DSLR stuff is about. I was pretty doubtful going in but was really blown away after using it. Low light and shallow depth of field are incredible!
alltheseworlds wrote on 9/23/2009, 4:37 PM
re "Michelle Lewis: Breakfast at Tiffany's music video"

The thing that went through my mind was: can't the videographer stop fiddling with the damn controls ? I didn't have any attention-power left for the song.
winrockpost wrote on 9/23/2009, 5:34 PM
Patryk, what is it about this cam that you would purchase for video work instead of a cam in the same general price range thats made for video ?
Thanks
farss wrote on 9/23/2009, 5:41 PM
If you're not already aware of it here is the solution to the audio problems with this camera:

http://www.beachtek.com/dxa5d.html

This unit can wrangle the AGC issue by inserting a 20KHz tone onto one channel to lock the AGC. Our unit has been out a few times and by all accounts works as advertised.

Bob.
GLADDEN wrote on 9/23/2009, 7:40 PM
Camera verus video camera..?? If you want super hight quality photographs go with a camera ,,, if you want super high quality video go with a video camera... When you go to a steak house eat steak. When you go to a sea food resturant eat seafood... The focus thing... An 8x10 view camera realy has less depth of focus that a 50D Canon because of the ratio between the focus and the size of the flim plain. The reason the depth of field you see with and 8x10 view is because you set the lens to f32 and even f90 and you tilt the flim plain,,,, the back of the camera. The 50D will give you more depth of field with the 1.6 factor to 35mm that the full size chip cameras.

Film has a much better latitude to see the light from dark to highlights. Digital has a much shorter lattitude than film. This is how I do it I shot two shots and with math logs I put the two together.. I told Adobe about this and they now have this in there photoshops programs..

The big flim plains like 8x10s do not show the lens poor quality as much because the lens does not have to magnified down to such fine detail and thus it looks better.. You could take poor lens and still get good images.. The ED glass keep the light from spreading apart because the refraction is better.. The blue light does not bend as much a the redlight and so you get the red and blue edges.. ED glass keep them toghther.. People think that the sunset are so beautiful because of he clouds make it red,,, NO,,, is it because when the sun is low the red light bends more that the blue light,,,, as in a prism. I like Sony for video and CANON for photographs. The photographs I enhance them with Adobe. My old film photographs I do a lot of things to clean up the grain and optimize the color and such. On my website I have extachrome 64 done underwater and the newer stuff with the CANON..

See some of my work on my website: www.GladdenPhotographs.com .

GLADDEN
Patryk Rebisz wrote on 9/24/2009, 10:02 AM
Everyone's camera choice should come from their work requirements.

For me portability is a huge factor. Also the fact that i can easily shoot at ISO400 (even at ISO800 i i have to) and still get fantastic shot is important. Show me 35mm adapter that allows for such high sensitivity. On top of that most 35mm adapter are really not Pro. Besides Mini35 and MovieTube all the 35mm adapter are "home-built" projects with some flaws.

Whether it's a still camera or video camera, well the labels really don't matter to me. The reason why i shoot the tests is to discover if a specific piece of equipment will deliver what i need.