Just post a blog entry on how to get 5D footage looking good in CineForm AVI. I used NEO HD, CoreAVC and Vegas 8.0 for much of my testing.

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2009/01/full-dynamic-range-video-from-canon-5d.html

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

Dan, I went and read your blog on your expanding the whites and blacks on the 5d mii footage. Sounds like you are on to something.

I too am working on the work flow issues with the camera.

My issues are with the crushing of the shadows, the previously mentioned playback issues in Vegas and many other window programs, how to quickly join the Canon 5d mii clips that get made, and the disk space requirements for archive/storage in an intermediate form.

I'm still confounded why my my little core 2 duo macbook plays the files in real time with no issues and most pc programs struggle on my faster quad cores with much faster disk i/o. QT seems to play them fine on the Mac but struggles on the PC even with cpu at very low levels. I'm not sure what codec is being used in Vegas, but the VLC player seems much more robust on playback. However, that doesn't help the editing process and there are other issues I'm dealing with on the VLC player.

Can you give us some numbers on using your software and converting them into your yuv files in regards
1. to how many MB's per minute we'd use in storage
2. the conversion time per minute of 5d mii footage on something like a 2.4ghz quad core or some other popular cpu setup?

I'm trying to get a handle on the conversion time and space requirements and your article seems to as good an assessment as I've seen so far in regards to quality and maybe the playback/performance issues.

I have been trying to figure out a way to join the 5d mii files and convert them at the same time without taking forever.

David --

Thanks for the post. I had actually just read your excellent article before coming here (I found it linked from Stu Maschwitz' blog).

I just bought CoreAVC Pro and now I have it installed but I've got to admit I'm not sure where to go from here. Can you point me to a guide or how-to that will help me get started?

The problem causing clipped whites and blacks indeed is Quicktime. Another way to overcome this on a Windows system is using a frameserver like AvySynth with VirtualDubMod. It prevents Quicktime to use the Canon 5D files. You can use VirtualDubMod this way to export the file into a format which handles blacks and whites to way we are used to.

The process mentioned above is a free one but it isn't rather straight. Using Neo and CoreAVC seems to be the smartest way (CoreAVC is of no use if the file still are decoded by Quicktime H.264).

Marco
.

MacroB, I believe David was trying to point out that the camera, internally, is clipping the range to Bcast range before encoding. The secondary question is the camera just clipping the super blacks/whites or are they remapping them(0-255) into (16-235) correctly for "smoother" encoding.

The camera does not cause the clipping. If it would you couldn't restore the clipped information. But you can. It's definately the decoding which makes the signal clip. And this can be avoided by overriding Quicktime. I just did it. It works fine.

Almost any DV, HDV and AVCHD works the way the Canon 5D does except them usually only widens the whites, seldom the blacks. We does not care for it because the DV, HDV and AVCHD codecs usually used in Vegas take care of that. But when using the Canon 5D MOV-files Vegas has no chance - there is no way then to prevent Quicktime decoding the files. Before using them in Vegas you have to find a way to get rid of Quicktime decoding. One is using AviSynth and VirtualDubMod, another one is Neo and CoreAVC. Both methods just optimize the decoding.

Marco

Yesterday a Quicktime update was released. This version 7.6 solves the problems of clipped whites and blacks, even when the files are used in Vegas. This (updating quicktime) should be the most simple and straightest solution.

Marco

Just a note for those who are mortgaging their grandmas to buy this truly great camera for "filmmaking" purposes.

At least at this time, it doesn't shoot 24P.

I wouldn't be surprised if Canon's thinking has something to do with 24P, LLC standing at their door with outstretched palms.

But I thought the 24P patent was for pulldown to be able to show 24P on 30i TVs.

With computers, who even wants to waste bits on pulldown?

So it would seem to me that Canon could fix this with a firmware update, once they realize that they gave birth to a monster (a monster success, that is).

Good point -- although I'd much rather see some of the manual controls enabled for video, also something I think they should be able to easily accomplish in firmware.

As far as mortgaging grandma, I think for the price this camera is an outstanding value. Awesome stills with amazing low light capabilities, and video is icing on the cake!

I would be surprise if Canon can not refine this new camera with firmware updates. Of course it is limited by it's DSPs power but I would be really surprise if Canon doesn't have a 15-20% free processing overhead for a mass produced high-end camera.

No 24P, probably a decision by the DSLR people to not piss off the video division.

Back on that Quicktime thingy. Though updating to Quicktime 7.6 seems to solve the H.264 clipping problems it looks like it might be a rather "quick&dirty" process integrated into Quicktime. Mac users are likely running into a gamma problem and I'm no more convinced Quicktime decoding on Windows systems results in correct gamma. Mmh ...

Marco

Edit:
Further investigations state how rough Quicktime 7.6 works. RGB paradew show clearly how much artifacts it causes. To me the most reliable way to go still is using a frame server like AviSynth to prevent Quicktime decoding and rendering to a high quality intermediate.

I never tested latest Neo version. As frameserving isn't that much user-friendly using Neo still could be a very good choice.

Have to put in my two cents here...

(Note: just finished shooting a two day music video with two cameras - the Canon Mark II and the Sony Z1u)

The big advantage of the Mark II is NOT the increased resolution (although it's nice - it's really a "future" thingy) - so unless you're planning to release in 35mm theatrical film, don't worry about resolution!

You see, no matter what camera you shoot with, you will always be limited by the weakest link - in this case (Jan 2009) - that is the delivery system. If you are going to the web, high resolution is a TOTAL waste. To DVD - you are still quite compressed. To BluRay - currently the best of breed - you are limited by audience. Who cares how great it looks if no one can see it? Not one festival I entered last year would even accept "HiDef".

So why bother with the Mark II?
Easy - - Sensor size and lenses.
We were using my 16mm to 35mm zoom lens (I own the original 5D) and it's magnificent. Even when I was shooting "real" 35mm film, we couldn't produce comparable imagery. And we also were using a 105mm f1.8 - now as a still photographer (I did Vouge, Ingenue and Seventeen) THAT was my favorite portrait lens - still is.
And the low light sensitivity of the Mark II is simply amazing. So there it is:
Sensor size
Lens availability
Low light resources

BUT...
that Mark II ain't no video camera, by any stretch of the imagination. It works, but it's like driving a Porche in second gear. LIMITED!! Mini plugs (ugh). Unwieldy layout (hey it's a STILL camera) - couldn't even mount it on my MIller head... other stuff, as well.

Now... c'mon guys... do you really think that the amazing company that released the Canon XL series - all the way back when - hasn't considered a full frame video camera?
HUH?? Are you kidding me??

I predict (and I don't know nobody in Canon) a new full sensored video camera - to compete with the RED, the Panny Varicam or the Sony F900 coming down the pike at any minute. I'm a Sony lover kids, but you can't ignore the "game changers" and it looks to me like Canon has the lead.

So I say, save your pennies, because I predict a new Canon (and can Sony be far behind? I doubt it) full sensored video camera, with all the necessities of video; ie. XLR sound, Firewire output, LCD flipscreens, shoulder mount,TRIPOD ACCESSIBLITY (for gosh sakes)...

you can say you saw it here.
And when it does come out... well put me at the top of the list.

v

So I say, save your pennies, because I predict a new Canon (and can Sony be far behind? I doubt it) full sensored video camera, with all the necessities of video; ie. XLR sound, Firewire output,...

V:

The 5DII has a mini HDMI port on it. That thing outputs uncompressed digital right off the sensor. You don't need or want a compressed firewire output on that camera.

That's how Canon captured all their demo footage, so we know it looks great.

Jeff

When filming it DOES NOT output 1080 P. It also outputs the overlay you see on the LCD.

V -

I wouldn't bet against you here.

Can you say a few words about your workflow in creating your music video. I'm assuming you used Vegas ;-) What did you do with the camera footage to make it usable in Vegas?

Thanks!

When filming it DOES NOT output 1080 P. It also outputs the overlay you see on the LCD.

There are settings to control this. Must follow the slightly odd workflow described elsewhere to get the full output of which this camera is capable.

Vic, the first part of your post is a little misleading. Resolution DOES matter, irregardless of what the final delivery medium is. The better the resolution on acquisition, the better it will look on ANY playback source, be it web or BluRay.

"I found how to get a clear view for raw HDMI capture : in the Live View settings, choose "exposure simulation", this will give you a faithful representation of the settings you dial in.
Then, still in the Live View settings, choose "Face detect" for the AF mode. This will get rid of the magnifier rectangle as long as the lens is on AF (Canon lens mandatory).

Et voilà. A beautiful 1440 pixels wide, interlaced feed for you to crop, complete with aliasing and 30P look :)"

This is the only "workaround" i could find on Cinema5d it is not full resolution. If you have another workaround I'd be intersted.....

So that's 1440 x 1080 i 60 fps output?

So here's some more notes and thoughts as we get down to the edit...

I used the brand spanking new Canon 5d Mark II - full sensor, full high definition (1920x1080) camera - no tape - direct to flash card - STILL CAMERA!

That's right - Canon transmuted the 5d to shoot full sensor hirez VIDEO - and it looks incredible!! Nothing else compares!

Now the big thing about it is NOT the resolution (not that it's chicken liver)...
and let me clarify this statement for youse guys.
Sure resolution counts - GIGO - Garbage In = Garbage Out.
But I stand by my statements from above - the major limitations are not in the acquisition anymore (assuming you're not shooting your feature on your telephone). The limitations fall to sensor size and "glass in front". The Canon that we shot with was fronted by my own $1600 plus still photo Canon lenses. Now when a lens costs as much as a full (prosumer) camera, you've got to believe it's better. And it is! Still lenses have traditionally been sharper and of a better resolution than film and video lenses since the days of cavemen. This is because traditionally movement (as in movies) masks a WHOLE lot of abherritions (forgive spelling) - chromatic, edge sharpness, and MOTION! When you're shooting at 1/60th of a second, ain't a LOT of action that's going to be SHARP. Now Still Guys NEED to worry about a lot that film guys just ignore. The motion covers an awful lot of problems that a single still frame cannot. (Ever see a still geek get up to a 20x24 with a loop?? I have - and some were CLIENTS!) You just don't do that with video - you can't - it's MOVING!

AND, of course let's get back to my main issue of sensor size.
If you check me out, I've been bitching about sensor size for six or more YEARS on this forum. You cannot get the "film look" with a 2/3" sensor, no less a 1/2" or less. There's just too darn much depth of field to get arty. The various lens adapters by P&S and other manufacturers DEFINITELY dealt with this issue ( and sort of nicely ) but then you were losing the resolution with a spinning plate - a compromise at best.

So... now it's here - for the masses - it's the availability of exquisite Canon still lenses that have been crafted for full 35mm sized sensors and 35mm FILM resolving directly on a full sized sensor.

After ten years of waiting, video (for me) has finally arrived!
We put my 16mm-35mm zoom on that camera and it was SPECTACULAR! Then we used a 105mm f1.8 and I was BACK in the saddle again - just like my old days on the Panaflex (quarter of a million bucks) fronted by Cooke movie lenses ($50k or more, each). The zooms suck! You can't do a good creep on a still zoom. But the marority of my career has been with primes (in film) anyway. No good DP will use a zoom lens when he's got the time to change to a prime - believe me.

Hooray - video is FINALLY an artistic medium - the film look is really here (only better).

NOTE: I will be posting samples soon.
NOTE 2: We are wrestling with the Canon/MOV> Vegas Video issues.
NOTE 3: I have been a "Sony Vegas" guy for so long that it's unthinkable for me to revert to my old AVID ways, or to Final Cut. I am following the lead of others above and searching my own path to fully intercut the Mark II with the Z1. So far it looks incredible - can't wait to put some stuff up...
First hint - I am "Rendering to a new track" in normal AVI widescreen for the editing process. Everything looks fabulous.
NOTE 4: I am NOT worrying about pixel counting or final delivery resolution yet. This gig is MTV bound. Rendering out to DVD is all I need, so why should I worry about anything other than the Concept!! Because kiddees... remember what I always say: "Concept is King!"

Now while you're waiting - go out and shoot something!
v

vic - pretty sure neoscene is the best solution out there for MkII videofiles (pun intended).

and just over 100 bux, no question if you're shooting 5D your going to want something like neoscene, and neoscene fixes the messed up color values that default from the 5D's.

Maybe this was said before, didn't read the whole thread.

Dave

Vic -- love your enthusiasm, and greatly appreciate the posts. Looking forward to your future posts to help out the novices (me) getting these MOV files into Vegas.

p.s. I'm struggling with Neo right now, it won't open my MOV files. Working with customer support on this issue currently.