Does the Canon EOS 5D Mk. II have a quality codec? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Canon EOS Full Frame for HD
All about using the Canon 1D X, 6D, 5D Mk. IV / Mk. III / Mk. II D-SLR for 4K and HD video recording.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old December 12th, 2008, 01:42 PM   #16
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MOSCOW
Posts: 860
Don,
thank you,

my colleagues had a hard time to get full 0-255, on different editing platforms,
it seem to always cut it off to 16-235

Is there a workaround, do you get 0-255, are you on a Mac, which editing program?

sorry for double post..
Oleg Kalyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2008, 02:28 PM   #17
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: UT
Posts: 945
We just got one yesterday, and after a bit of testing, I would say that although the bit rate is higher, it's just about the same as HDV in quality--maybe slightly better, and I would compare that to Canon's HDV implementations, not Sony or JVC.

I think it has a higher bit rate than prosumer AVCHD because it's not doing quite as much efficiency encoding as, say, the 24mbs AVCHD of the HF11.

It's definitely decent quality, but I see artifacts on certain scenes with fast movement, just like HDV.
Barlow Elton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2008, 05:06 PM   #18
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 181
Oleg,

On NewTek SpeedEDIT I can see the full 0-255 range. With a little contrast adjustment it can be made to fit into 8 bit RGB without clipping. Maybe there's a setting on other products to interpret the colorspace correctly and get the whole range. I've been seeing a lot of clipped video going around so it appears to be a problem for most users.
Luis de la Cerda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 12th, 2008, 06:33 PM   #19
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: MOSCOW
Posts: 860
Luis, thank you!

I can't wait to see a solution, fix, on FCP platform !
Oleg Kalyan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 04:13 AM   #20
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Paris, France
Posts: 80
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barlow Elton View Post
I think it has a higher bit rate than prosumer AVCHD because it's not doing quite as much efficiency encoding as, say, the 24mbs AVCHD of the HF11.

It's definitely decent quality, but I see artifacts on certain scenes with fast movement, just like HDV.
How surprising, 24mbps on HF11 better than 40mbps on 5DMII ?
Maybe that's because the HF11 has variable bitrate, I'm not sure 5DMII has it.

Do you have a screenshot with movement artifacts ?
Robin Lobel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 04:12 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barlow Elton View Post
I think it has a higher bit rate than prosumer AVCHD because it's not doing quite as much efficiency encoding as, say, the 24mbs AVCHD of the HF11.
From specs H264 should be better quality as its designed to need more processing power. It would have been a lot easier to implement HDV.

Isn't avchd and h264 implementation also?
Don Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 04:38 PM   #22
Obstreperous Rex
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Marcos, TX
Posts: 26,900
Images: 513
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Miller View Post
It would have been a lot easier to implement HDV.
Nope, because then it would have to be a tape-based camera, per the provisions of the HDV consortium.
__________________
CH

Search DV Info Net | DV Info Net Sponsors | A Decade (+5) of DVi | ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!
Chris Hurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 05:19 PM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 267
What about XDCAM, isn't a faster yet similar codec than HDV? Can we expect Sony to offer it with their new photo camera line?
How would that compare with the Canon codec? (maybe I m getting little bit to speculative)
__________________
Measure twice, cut once!
Robert Morane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 07:17 PM   #24
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Camas, WA, USA
Posts: 5,513
The 5D Mark II has a few things that I'm disappointed in. The codec isn't one of them. The only appreciable step up for me would be a compressed RAW option. h.264.MOV, HDV, AVCHD and XDCAM are all just different flavors with the similar bit-depth limitations.
__________________
Jon Fairhurst
Jon Fairhurst is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 07:36 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Chicago
Posts: 706
How well will the HF11 30p AVCHD edit with the 5DII in FCP? I assume colors can be made to be pretty close. Is FCP all happy with AVCHD now?

Seems like a nice camera to have with the 5DII. I've never even seen one of the HF models.
Don Miller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old December 17th, 2008, 08:10 PM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Mexico City
Posts: 181
From my observation, the codec seems really nice, except it doesn't really hold up well in the shadows, which is, incidentally, where digital hold most information. The solution is simple though. If you want something good for post grading, make a picture style that expands the shadows and compresses highlights a bit to make this information fall in more useable segments of the codec. This is particularly useful for very contrasty situations such as backlit scenes.

Here's such a picture style, in case anyone's interested.
Attached Files
File Type: zip backlightextreme9.zip (1.9 KB, 250 views)
Luis de la Cerda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2009, 03:24 AM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: paris
Posts: 289
A few weeks later . . . do you stand your prior statements about the quality of the codec?
Mathieu Kassovitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2009, 10:02 AM   #28
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Milton, FL
Posts: 27
My only testing so far with the video was a night shoot of local Christmas lights and some statues in a veteran's memorial.

The codec handles individual frames pretty well, so that a still pulled from the video would look good (I saw some slight banding in a clear blue sky as the gradient changed on the horizon, but nothing earth shattering). But from my tests, it's fairly clear that this codec is not optimized for motion as there is very slight mosquito noise even in shots that are on a tripod if there's high contrast AND high detail at the same time. Panning across a bronze, lit statue at night, for example, where there's a lot of luminance contrast and fine detail in the wrinkles of clothing and texture on the statue reveal this problem. Even some areas of grass lit by the vapor lamps showed this when the tripod was completely locked down. There's just a jittery quality to the fine details that appear to be due to shifts in the compression from frame to frame that I find annoying.
Elizabeth Lowrey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2009, 10:17 AM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: paris
Posts: 289
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elizabeth Lowrey View Post
But from my tests, it's fairly clear that this codec is not optimized for motion as there is very slight mosquito noise even in shots that are on a tripod if there's high contrast AND high detail at the same time. Panning across a bronze, lit statue at night, for example, where there's a lot of luminance contrast and fine detail in the wrinkles of clothing and texture on the statue reveal this problem. Even some areas of grass lit by the vapor lamps showed this when the tripod was completely locked down. There's just a jittery quality to the fine details that appear to be due to shifts in the compression from frame to frame that I find annoying.
What's the best post-production work-around in your opinion?
Mathieu Kassovitz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 19th, 2009, 10:30 AM   #30
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Voorheesville, NY
Posts: 433
There are statements in this thread speculating that the 5D MKII shoots in sRGB (16-235). I thought that issue was resolved before and that the camera shoots video in cRGB (0-255):

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/944824-post22.html

The problem is that the QT decoder is clipping the histogram and producing sRGB in most NLEs. If you install the DirectShow h.264 (MPEG4 Part 10) decoder, CoreAVC, you can decode the 5D MKII MOV files as cRGB in any software package that doesn't force the use of QT for decoding, such as Cineform.

Also, MPEG4 is a far more efficient codec than MPEG2. What this means is that for a given bitrate, MPEG4 will always be of higher quality than MPEG2. But there are various implementations of the MPEG4 standard, so people see different results when making comparisons between the two codecs. The point of the MPEG4 standard was to make more compact files and video streams than MPEG2, not higher quality. The limitations were either the capacity of an optical disk or the bandwidth available for cable or satellite broadcasting. To really compare specific implementations of the two codecs, you would have to conduct a double-blind viewing test to see whether a large population of viewers find the level of compression artifacts acceptable or not.
Jay Bloomfield is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Canon EOS / MXF / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Canon EOS Full Frame for HD

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:06 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network