Messages

While usually (for those who know my work) I post exclusively about "raw video", this time I am here to share a first straightforward comparison between the Canon 5D Mark III (with Magic Lantern) and the OnePlus One.

I am really pleased with the result, but I must admit that I am not particularly surprised, for two specific reasons:

- I am know that the one of the Canon 5D Mark III biggest issue is the softness (lack of sharpness).
- having properly tested the phone in different environments, I am well aware of the fact that this phone shoots great stuff in ideal light condition.

Just so you can have a clearer idea of the potential of this camera, take a look at this video (for those who can I suggest to switch on 4K) and compare it with a similar one I did years ago with the 5D.

OnePlus One

Previous video shot on the Canon 5D Mark II

I suggest you to take a look at this page, where you can find more tests (videos and pictures): http://giacomomantovani.com/blog/oneplusone

I just took a still with both the "cameras" so you can compare them. Also in this case the OnePlus One seems doing really well (in "Clear Image" mode).
Canon 5D MARK III http://giacomomantovani.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/2M6A5108-Canon-5D.jpg
OnePlus One http://giacomomantovani.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/IMG_20140818_135020-OnePlus-One.jpg

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

This misses the point of raw vs h264. Do a version with a profound amount of dynamic range and you'll actually see it shine.

I shoot in raw, and I appreciate the advantage of it especially in terms of post-production, as I can really color correct it as I want without damaging the footage (i do that in Lightroom) the rest is just what you see in the video... the difference in term of quality and details is significant but not massive. That's my point of view (please consider that I use ML since the very beginning, and I really appreciate it).

Thank you very much for posting this! Excuse me for asking, but why does your comparison not show the resolution difference between raw and h.264? When I compared the two different recording modes at 1080p, there was a noticeable difference in actual frame size. I feel puzzled 

Hi, I adapted the raw footage in order to get the same exact size, in order to make it easy to compare the quality. And then I offered this downloadable sample so everyone who is interested can see how is the original footage I worked with. Hope this helps. Take care.

Few weeks ago I have made a video comparison between the H264 and ML raw. Someone on YouTube asked to share a sample so it will be possible to properly compare the files. I have uploaded a sample on Wetransfer, the link will last only until the 30th of April, so hurry up and grab it before it's too late! Here is the link http://we.tl/tE5wwrxhaj

And this is the video comparison.

I have edited the footage without grading it, so to make it easier to compare the quality between the H264 and RAW.

By the way, that is my collection of Rubik's cubes, and other puzzles... some of which I have created my self.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

That's great!

Few days ago it has been released a new ML version for the Canon 5D Mark III 1.2.3 therefore I have decided to make a straightforward comparison between the H264 video coming from the camera and the Magic Lantern RAW.

I have edited the footage without grading it, so to make it easier to compare the quality between the H264 and RAW.

As few days ago it has been released a new ML version for the Canon 5D Mark III 1.2.3 I have decided to make a straightforward comparison between the H264 video coming from the camera and the Magic Lantern RAW. I have edited the footage without grading it, so to make it easier to compare the quality between the H264 and RAW.

By the way, that is my collection of Rubik's cubes, and other puzzles... some of which I have created my self.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 24-70mm and 70-200mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

Here is my third test on this new ML version. This time I have decided to make a straightforward comparison between the H264 video coming from the camera and the Magic Lantern RAW. I have edited the footage without grading it, so to make it easier to compare the quality between the H264 and RAW.

May be you fill the card with the second shot (the one corrupted)?

Impossible... there was still plenty of space as the card I used was a 32GB Lexar 1000x and both the two clip I shot were about 4.5GB each...

what kind of corruption?

It is simply impossible to extract the dng files from it. I have tried with RAWMagic and raw2dng but both give me error:

[IMPORTANT UPDATE 17th March 2014:]

Great!!! Here is the very first raw video test of the Magic Lantern for 5D Mark III 1.2.3 I just installed this new ML version and then I made a couple of shots to test the raw, which WORKS PERFECTLY!

The only issue, I was so in rush trying it that I committed the mistake to shoot with a very low ISO, so I had to increase the exposition in Lightroom, and this is why there is an incredible amount of noise, which indeed it wouldn't be there if I would have shoot at a decent ISO. 

I will keep testing the other functions and then come back with updates!

Thanks a lot ML guys!


IMPORTANT UPDATE 17th March 2014: Today I have tested the raw video capability again, this time with clips longer than 30 seconds. I shot two long shots: the first one, the one embedded below, is OK, while the second one is corrupted, meaning I can't convert it with RAWmagic, and I definitely can't use it... this is so bad! I am not sure if I am the only one having this issue, but must be seriously considered if you plan to shoot a job with this.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

[IMPORTANT UPDATE 17th March 2014:]

Great!!! Here is the very first test of the Magic Lantern for 5D Mark III 1.2.3 I just installed this new ML version and then I made a couple of shots to test the raw, which WORKS PERFECTLY!

The only issue, I was so in rush trying it that I committed the mistake to shoot with a very low ISO, so I had to increase the exposition in Lightroom, and this is why there is an incredible amount of noise, which indeed it wouldn't be there if I would have shoot at a decent ISO. 

I will keep testing the other functions and then come back with updates!

Thanks a lot ML guys!

IMPORTANT UPDATE 17th March 2014: Today I have tested the raw video capability again, this time with clips longer than 30 seconds. I shot two long shots: the first one, the one embedded below, is OK, while the second one is corrupted, meaning I can't convert it with RAWmagic, and I definitely can't use it... this is so bad! I am not sure if I am the only one having this issue, but must be seriously considered if you plan to shoot a job with this.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 24-70mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

Hi there, have you successfully managed to shoot your feature film on raw? Can you please tell something about your experience? Thanks

Apart from the aliasing/moire they both look sharp judging by YOUR test. The only way to judge which has a better image quality was if you had shot the same thing side by side (although i am well aware the 5D3 has a better image quality). You can't shoot people with one camera and shoot trees with the other and decide to make a judgement based on that 

Yeah, I understand your point, and it's true, nothing is better than a side by side comparison. But honestly, I think this is also a valid way to compare the result of the two cameras, as if your eye notices a difference between the two means there is a difference, while if it doesn't, it means that the difference is not relevant enough.

Hi there, here we go with some final conclusions. Months ago I have decided to sell my old 5D Mark II and buy a Mark III, in order to avoid that damned Aliasing and Moire effects. There is a massive difference between the result you achieve from the two cameras, as you can see from the example posted below. Both the video have been shot on RAW and then up-scaled in roughly 4K.

The first one, shot on the Mark II, is clearly affected by strong aliasing and moire effects, which really damage the beauty of the shots.

The second one, shot on a Mark III, it's perfectly clean and aliasing/moire free.

The obvious conclusion is that the Canon 5D mark III really stands out in terms of quality, sharpness and beauty of the image, but more importantly, being able to deliver aliasing/moire free videos it makes its predecessor Mark II totally obsolete.

Do you guys not see this or something? 

Andy, would you like to make a test as well and share it here? We would love to see others experimenting on this.

Wow. Awesome stuffs

Many thanks.

Another RAW video experiment on the Canon 5D Mark III. This time we shot with a macro extension tube, and then we simply processed the original files in 1916x1076 without up-scaling them. The result is really good, though I must confess, the 3 or 4K up-scaling technique  really pays back in terms of quality. Hope you enjoy it.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 USD with macro extension tube
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "babysleeping-01"
by Brilliant Orange Object
2007 - Licensed under
Creative Commons
Attribution (3.0)

Stunning!

Thanks a lot mate! 

Guys, why don't you make some test as well and then post it here, so we all can watch?!

I dont think so EXIV...
On your exemple the sharpening is too much visible on the upscale sequence.
> Try to make the same experiment on a face, with hair on a solid color background and it will be visible and it will look ugly.

If you sharpen to much on the original image, and then upscale after : you upscale the "sharpening lines" on the borders of the objects in the image...and make it visible.
Try to sharpen a bit after (if you need too sharpen), not before.

Francis

Hi Francis, thanks a lot for the suggestion. With the Canon 5D Mark II I couldn't really try to attempt that much, but with the Mark III it is actually working. By the way, have you got any idea of when will be available an official ML version for the Mark III?  I really would like the possibility to shoot more than HD in RAW...

[IMPORTANT:]

You're totally right, Pascal !
But I like the idea of testing this aspect...

Because I've tried to compare 30 secondes of video shoot with a Canon 5D Mark3 in RAW .dng (1920x1080) and the same scene shoot with an Alexa 2K.
Then I've made a DCP and organised a comparaison in a small movie theater....
To be able to make the DCP we have upscaled the Magic Lantern Footage to 2k, and I was curious to see the result.
I've made some drastic modifications on the exposition and drastic color correction to compare the capacity of the 2  différent files (ARRIRAW and ML RAW)...

The result is just amazing.

The upscale does not destroy the quality of the ML file, it gives just a bit of sotness, wich is good for my point of view compare to the ARRIRAW wich is naturally soft.
Resolution, lattitude are same !
More than that, the upscale gives a cine  look to the image, compare to the "surgical precision" of the RED...

Thank you EXIV, your idea is not bad.

Fran6

Thanks a lot Francis, I really support what you just said, also considering that when you open the file sequence on Lightroom you can also increase the sharpness of at least 60% (which is still amazing) without damaging the "softness" of the image. You see how testing with this technology is so important for all of us. By the way, please have a look at a more "tripod" kind of test made on the same landscape, and read my definitive thoughts about all of this.

Second 4K RAW video attempt made with the Canon 5D Mark III. Following the previous handheld test http://youtu.be/gONtARNBrbw we have now shot on tripod, in order to get as much details as possible. The main experiment consist in resizing the 1920x1080 dng frames to 3840x 2160 from Lightroom.


IMPORTANT: Having analyzed and compared the original files with the re-sized ones, we have found no difference at all in terms of details. In conclusion, up-scaling the files is not going to actually "resuscitate" any "lost detail", not at all. But for sure, when we upload the video on Youtube (or Vimeo) and we then compare it with the HD version of it, it is clear enough that the "4K" version offer a superior and impressive quality, even when it is played in HD resolution. So, nothing revolutionary as some people is suggesting, unfortunately not at all. This is our definitive thought.

So far so good

Many thanks mate!

[IMPORTANT:]

Second 4K RAW video attempt made with the Canon 5D Mark III. Following the previous handheld test http://youtu.be/gONtARNBrbw we have now shot on tripod, in order to get as much details as possible. The main experiment consist in resizing the 1920x1080 dng frames to 3840x 2160 from Lightroom.


IMPORTANT: Having analyzed and compared the original files with the re-sized ones, we have found no difference at all in terms of details. In conclusion, up-scaling the files is not going to actually "resuscitate" any "lost detail", not at all. But for sure, when we upload the video on Youtube (or Vimeo) and we then compare it with the HD version of it, it is clear enough that the "4K" version offer a superior and impressive quality, even when it is played in HD resolution. So, nothing revolutionary as some people is suggesting, unfortunately not at all. This is our definitive thought.

All the best.
 

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru...
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/s...

[2014-03-16 Update:]

I should have read the description. The topic title is misleading. Yeah actually with upscaling you can achieve unlimited Resolution, haha.

But when you have the video on Youtube or Vimeo (that is the place where a corporate or a video like this is going to be) the "4K" video is actually and drastically better than the 1920x1080 version. So it make sense to test it and see if anything good can come from it. No miracles promised, just trying to push the footage at a relevant level. All the best.

2014-03-16 Update: the up-scaling experiment may really help when you plan to upload a video on the internet, since the HD version you get by uploading a 4K version of it (for example on Youtube) is always better then the one you get by uploading a video processed in HD (as all of us usually do). Here is a normal HD raw video, which I have just shot with the new ML version for the 5d Mark III 1.2.3 you can really see this is not as good as the HD version of the 4K tests. Because of the way Youtube compress the video, this seems less sharp than the one of the video posted above.

[IMPORTANT: Having analyzed and compared the original files with the re-sized ones, we have found no difference at all in terms of details. In conclusion, up-scaling the files is not going to actually "resuscitate" any "lost detail", not at all. But for sure, when we upload the video on Youtube (or Vimeo) and we then compare it with the HD version of it, it is clear enough that the "4K" version offers a superior and impressive quality, even when it is played in HD resolution. So, nothing revolutionary as some people is suggesting, unfortunately not at all. But worth a try. This is our definitive thought.]

Here we go, finally our first 4K RAW video test made with the Canon 5D Mark III.  Following our 5D Mark II previous tests, we have exported the dng sequence in 3840x 2160 jpeg files directly from Lightroom. No moire and aliasing. We will make a tutorial about all of this soon, stay tuned!

Second 4K RAW video attempt made with the Canon 5D Mark III.  Following the previous handheld test http://youtu.be/gONtARNBrbw we have now shot on tripod, in order to get as much details as possible. The main experiment is to resize the 1920x1080 frames to 3840x 2160 from Lightroom.

IMPORTANT: Having analyzed and compared the original files with the re-sized ones, we have found no difference at all in terms of details. In conclusion, up-scaling the files is not going to actually "resuscitate" any "lost detail", not at all. But for sure, when we upload the video on Youtube (or Vimeo) and we then compare it with the HD version of it, it is clear enough that the "4K" version offers a superior and impressive quality, even when it is played in HD resolution. So, nothing revolutionary as some people is suggesting, unfortunately not at all. But worth a try. This is our definitive thought.

All the best.

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0/

The video has been shot on:
Canon 5D Mark III
Tamron SP 70-200mm f2.8 USD
CF Lexar Professional 1000x 32GB

Special thanks to EXIV

Music: "Yiourgh" by DoKashiteru (feat. Coblat)
http://ccmixter.org/files/DoKashiteru/21394
is licensed under a Creative Commons license:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/sampling+/1.0