I am about to order the 5dMKII. I know it shoots 1080 30p. I have an XDCAM EX1 and hope to use the 5D as a B camera, for limited intercutting some of that sweet shallow depth of field stuff this unit is capable of with the EX1.

I have always shot 24p, back to my DVX 100 days. But I am thinking of trying out the 1080 30p for a a couple of projects coming up next month.

What are the downsides to 1080 30p? I am not particularly keen to downconvert footage to 24p, (have a HV30 so I know the conversion drill) and there are quality issues with that workflow anyway.

What are the options for delivering 1080 30p? Can i burn NTSC DVD's with that format? What about HD delivery? Doug Jensen says he shoots everything 30p so that leads me to believe I have been overlooking this format for too long. I am basically looking for advice from folks who are familiar with shooting 1080 30p.

Does the EX1 support 30.00? If so, shooting at that rate and then slowing the whole project to 29.97 makes a lot of sense.

A few years ago at NAB, there was a JVC shooter who preached that we should shoot 30p (okay 29.97) for US broadcast and DVD distribution, and 24p for film out. Of course, he wasn't thinking about international distribution, and HD wasn't done on the web back then.

US DVD players support 29.97 and 23.976. 29.97 can be interlaced or progressive.

What are the options for delivering 1080 30p? Can i burn NTSC DVD's with that format?

I burned a 1080p30 dvd, encoding a blu-ray compliant mpg4. It is an option (interesting for sure if you are on a 50hz country) and images were stunning

I burned a 1080p30 dvd, encoding a blu-ray compliant mpg4. It is an option (interesting for sure if you are on a 50hz country) and images were stunning

So you were ale to play HD content of a standard DVD? I assume you would have to use a much lower bit-rate than an actually blu-ray disc...?

EX3 shoots 1080 29.97p among a bunch of other formats.

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

I just conform mkII footage to 29.97 (Cinema Tools) then drop in a 29.97p timeline along with EX3 footage. Works great.

I set up timeline to be EX3 with render to Prores HQ. DEpending on your cpu speed and raid setup you may want to render mkII footage to Prores HQ before you start.

The mkII footage always need softening and grading to match EX3 or other video cams. Easy to do in Color. I have some presets to get me in the ballpark. But I usually grade all my shots these days anyway. Color roundtrip works very well.

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

.

Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?

Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?

Both cameras are great. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I see them as tools to tell the story.

If I could only have one, it would be the EX3 for my work. We do mid level industrial work, commercials, promotional videos, a lot of fundraising video.

The EX3 has fantastic ergonomics, great viewfinder and is really very small for the quality it produces.

The mkII is a little awkward to shoot with. But it is really stealthy, the choice of lenses and low light performance is superior.

The Images from the EX3 are better, in my opinion. It does not have problems with thin horizontal lines, and has a very pleasant look. You can also have a lot of control over picture profiles. The quality of the compression is superior to the mkII. Also it shoots 23.976, 25, 29.97 and both i and p. It does over and under crank. But it can be hard to produce shallow DOF. It has a 1/2" chip, better than 1/3" but nowhere near the full 35mm imager in the mkII. It does have interchangeable lenses but they are very expensive. You can use Canon or Nikon etc. lenses but there is a 5.5 x multiplier factor.

It may sound like I don't like the mkII, not so. I love it. It just has some limitations. It has a more filmic look, in the right setting. It produces a better shallow focus (boketh) and that is how it really shines, the compression is just fine as long as there is a lot of soft focus in the shot. If you have a really detailed shot, like a house with clapboards that has to be in focus, don't use the mkII.

I almost always end up softening the mkII shots in Color FX room, normally to about .03 or so to look good, I do have some softening filters, but I almost always shoot with ND's and stacking to many filters can reduce quality in my opinion.

My conclusion. Right out of the box the EX3 excels, but with care and some fiddling the mkII can produce a superior image in the right circumstance.

I am really happy I can use both.

I am attaching 2 frame grabs, top one is mkII 400mm f5.6, second is EX3 std lens at 85mm f5.6.. Both shot at the same time no CC.

Interesting comparison, on my macbook the canon looks sharper, and as you say, more filmic. Also interesting that the EX is able to *see* the shaded face of the subject, the canon shows a silhouette. Thanks for the review.

Nice example!

The EX3 is a videocamera and the 5D is a picture camera, for someone who need to make videos, the EX3 will make more sense 95% of the time!

EX3 = 10K +
MK2= 3.4K with the 24-105 f4 box kit +/-

I have the EX1 and am seriously considering trading it in for a couple of MK2s. The main thing is the audio capture at this point, then which shoulder rig to buy.

Granted to get the ergonomics to where you want them will cost a chunk and even the playing field between the two cams.

My new MO is to shoot with the EX most of the time when the sun is "up" and use the MK2 when I need to go below 6db gain on my ex. I AVOID using any kind of light during my events.

You really need to try using the MK2 with a nikon 1.4 50mm !!!!!!! It can see better than you in the dark! OK maybe me :)

Peaking on the MK2 would be super. Focusing can be an issue unless you get a hoodman or other sort of focus help.

You know what I really love most about the MK2.... the weight! or lack of. my bag is like a before and after Jenny commercial when all I use is the MK2.

... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless. It looks great on my Mac monitors, but exported via Intensity Pro card to the external monitor shows unacceptable artifacts.
So, I would (and I guess many other guys here) highly appreciate if you would share your workflow, and perhas presets being used in the Color. Many thanks.

... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless. Aliasing? . . .

Both cameras are great. They both have strengths and weaknesses. I see them as tools to tell the story.

If I could only have one, it would be the EX3 for my work. We do mid level industrial work, commercials, promotional videos, a lot of fundraising video.

The EX3 has fantastic ergonomics, great viewfinder and is really very small for the quality it produces.

The mkII is a little awkward to shoot with. But it is really stealthy, the choice of lenses and low light performance is superior.

The Images from the EX3 are better, in my opinion. It does not have problems with thin horizontal lines, and has a very pleasant look. You can also have a lot of control over picture profiles. The quality of the compression is superior to the mkII. Also it shoots 23.976, 25, 29.97 and both i and p. It does over and under crank. But it can be hard to produce shallow DOF. It has a 1/2" chip, better than 1/3" but nowhere near the full 35mm imager in the mkII. It does have interchangeable lenses but they are very expensive. You can use Canon or Nikon etc. lenses but there is a 5.5 x multiplier factor.

It may sound like I don't like the mkII, not so. I love it. It just has some limitations. It has a more filmic look, in the right setting. It produces a better shallow focus (boketh) and that is how it really shines, the compression is just fine as long as there is a lot of soft focus in the shot. If you have a really detailed shot, like a house with clapboards that has to be in focus, don't use the mkII.

I almost always end up softening the mkII shots in Color FX room, normally to about .03 or so to look good, I do have some softening filters, but I almost always shoot with ND's and stacking to many filters can reduce quality in my opinion.

My conclusion. Right out of the box the EX3 excels, but with care and some fiddling the mkII can produce a superior image in the right circumstance.

I am really happy I can use both.

I am attaching 2 frame grabs, top one is mkII 400mm f5.6, second is EX3 std lens at 85mm f5.6.. Both shot at the same time no CC.And just about a single aspect . . . sharpness?

And just about a single aspect . . . sharpness?

This is a reprint from an eariler post I made.

"I was out shooting this morning with an EX3 and the Canon 5DmkII.

Most of my MkII video is very good, but this was very disappointing, I am attaching a still from the video.

I have noticed problems with horizontal lines before but never this bad. In the video the banding moves around. It makes this shot unusable.

I guess the moral is don't shoot buildings with clapboards or anything else with strong horizontal lines in the distance."

Link to thread:http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/canon-eos-5d-mk-ii-hd/235268-thin-line-problems.html

It is not just about sharpness. It is about how the camera handles compression.

I work primarily for television or DVD releases, not WEB or computer viewing. The way a shot looks on a TV set even old CRT is very important to me. A lot of footage that looks great on a computer screen is unacceptable on a NTSC monitor.

I was responding to:


Hi Olof, which camera produces the better image?


I have to do more work on a mkII shot than on a EX3 shot in general. And sometimes the mkII produces unusable shots. If you blow up the attached screen shots you will see what I mean.



Olof, culd you elaborate in more details...
... the process of adjusting the MkII footage in Color. I am also mixing EX3 and MkII footage, and am extremely unhappy with the artifacts contained in MkII footage. I love, otherwise, working with both, but when MkII footage is viewed on external monitor, in most cases the edges are so jugged that the image is useless. It looks great on my Mac monitors, but exported via Intensity Pro card to the external monitor shows unacceptable artifacts.
So, I would (and I guess many other guys here) highly appreciate if you would share your workflow, and perhas presets being used in the Color. Many thanks


When I work in FCP or M100 I decide shots to be used in program on a simple timeline no transitions graphics etc. just shots in order t be used. I then send to Color (file menu). In Media 100 I export as XML and import XML in Color.

I then grade all the shots so they match and send back to FCP (file menu). I M100 export again as XML.

The new sequence (FCP) / program (m100) from Color has corrected shots, you now have to relink the audio but now proceed to edit as normal. Yes it takes time but it is well worth it. I always use a NTSC grading monitor and external scopes as well as the Color ones.

There are a number of tricks to working in Color, an important one is to uncheck "broadcast safe" in project setup before you grade, otherwise the whites will be clipped.
First I fix contrast then any colorcast, then I adjust anything that needs secondary (individual color or parts of shot). Then I go into FX room and drop blur into window and adjust initially to 0.03 or so, this is for mkII some shots don't need it but about 90% do. You can save the settings you like as a preset.

Not all shots need grading but it is nice to have them in color so you can compare shots. When you are done turn on broadcast safe again and render and send back, that is it.

The more you use Color the more you will love it. Thousands of pages could and are written about how to use it. Way beyond my Sunday morning musings.

Added info: I use a AJA HDe and a Matrox MXO2 to output to SDI pro HD monitors (JVC JVC DT-V20L3DU) and to Sony NTSC pro monitors by component as I am doing my grading and editing.

I can't seem to attach images, because I attached them in original thread. Click on link to that threa to view mkII image with serious problems and EX3 shot at the same time.

hi Olof

Did you try the filters, that Jon Fairhurst recommend in the other thread. If so, do you feel that solve the problem?

Pedro

hi Olof

Did you try the filters, that Jon Fairhurst recommend in the other thread. If so, do you feel that solve the problem?

Pedro

I got the filter, but I have not had a chance to retry that clapboard shot yet, I will and I will then post result.

My shoots have been mostly soft focus w/o need for thin line correction. We are currently shooting a lot of nature and closeups of people, tourism promos. For these type of shots I find the Color softening works great. I don't like to stack filters, and I almost always use ND 6 or 9. But I will try the Tiffen Soft/fx 1 filter and ND9 soon.

I also just got a Fader vari ND, and that is already 2 pieces of glass, it will be interesting to see how that works with Tiffen Soft/fx 1.

EX3 shoots 1080 29.97p among a bunch of other formats.

I use mkII footage with EX3 footage all the time now. Sometimes 29.97p.

I just conform mkII footage to 29.97 (Cinema Tools) then drop in a 29.97p timeline along with EX3 footage. Works great.

I set up timeline to be EX3 with render to Prores HQ. DEpending on your cpu speed and raid setup you may want to render mkII footage to Prores HQ before you start.

The mkII footage always need softening and grading to match EX3 or other video cams. Easy to do in Color. I have some presets to get me in the ballpark. But I usually grade all my shots these days anyway. Color roundtrip works very well.

Ive seent this in a couple of threads - what does it mean - easy to do in Color?

Thanks,
Fred

Ive seent this in a couple of threads - what does it mean - easy to do in Color?

Thanks,
Fred

Color is a really fantastic color correction/grading program that comes with FinalCut Studio II, Mac only.

I am sure there are Windows programs that do similar adjustments.

The incredible thing about Color is that it is a really inexpensive replacement for grading suites. Used to cost many tens of thousands of dollars.

However a colorist is very specialized profession, and just having the program does not turn you into one. It is a great learning tool, and as you get more experience in it, very useful.

I used to think that Media100 had great color correction, and it does, but Color blows it out of the water.

Cinema tools is also a program, part of FCP suite.

Ahhh - thanks. If only they made a FCP version for PC!

Aliasing? . . .

Mathieu, what I am talking about is the fact that - in my experience so far, and I would LOVE to be wrong here - MkII is great for internet but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.

Do not get me wrong, I love idea of having a still camera that can be used fro HD video, to the extent that I actually bought two, but so far I have not been able to get acceptable image outside computer monitor.

I am as the matter of fact quite surprised at the fact that this less then perfect codec is not been discussed more at this forum; we all were furious about lack of manual control, happy to get it, but so few people complained about the codec artifacts which - IMHO - is just not tolerable. And for me, the question of good codec is by far superior to the question of having manual control. Now, I have full manual control over bad image quality.

What I am getting is a sort of schizoid output: great video shoots on my computer becomes ugly beasts on my PAL/HD 1080p control monitor. And guess what - I am in broadcasting. So, unless I find some acceptable manner to maintain great image I have on my computer monitors once I output the footage to external/control monitor, my Canons will be just what they are meanbt to be - great still cameras with NON-broadcast able HD video option.

I have just tried what Olof suggested to do with transfer to Color and apply some blur: no deal. In my case blur makes jugged edges even worse on wide shoots. Portraits done with 200mm lens are in most cases good, as long as any horizontal line does not appear in the shoot.

Again, I am not trying to be offensive to Canon here, I love my MkII and if anyone can point me in direction of solving the artifacts issues I mentioned - I will keep buying him rounds of beer for next two decades! Cheers!

Mathieu, what I am talking about is the fact that - in my experience so far, and I would LOVE to be wrong here - MkII is great for internet but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.

Do not get me wrong, I love idea of having a still camera that can be used fro HD video, to the extent that I actually bought two, but so far I have not been able to get acceptable image outside computer monitor.

I am as the matter of fact quite surprised at the fact that this less then perfect codec is not been discussed more at this forum; we all were furious about lack of manual control, happy to get it, but so few people complained about the codec artifacts which - IMHO - is just not tolerable. And for me, the question of good codec is by far superior to the question of having manual control. Now, I have full manual control over bad image quality.

What I am getting is a sort of schizoid output: great video shoots on my computer becomes ugly beasts on my PAL/HD 1080p control monitor. And guess what - I am in broadcasting. So, unless I find some acceptable manner to maintain great image I have on my computer monitors once I output the footage to external/control monitor, my Canons will be just what they are meanbt to be - great still cameras with NON-broadcast able HD video option.

I have just tried what Olof suggested to do with transfer to Color and apply some blur: no deal. In my case blur makes jugged edges even worse on wide shoots. Portraits done with 200mm lens are in most cases good, as long as any horizontal line does not appear in the shoot.

Again, I am not trying to be offensive to Canon here, I love my MkII and if anyone can point me in direction of solving the artifacts issues I mentioned - I will keep buying him rounds of beer for next two decades! Cheers!

I agree with you and I have stated that mII codec can not handle sharp thin lines and does a very poor job with highly detailed shots. Like lots of leafs and branches in focus. It also does some interesting things with small pinpoint lights (white pinpoint lights can become multicolored and twinkle).

But the mkII really excels in shots that are mostly out of focus (shallow DOF), these are very common shots for me at least. Also shots with a lot of even colors in it are fine.

The low light capabilities of the mkII are outstanding.

I have used mkII footage in broadcast SD commercials, and in bluray DVD and HD-DVD. And it looked fine. No one other than us here at Westside A V Studios would know it was not shot with a "video camera".

As I have stated before it is not a great all around ENG EFP cam, but a special tool and if used correctly produces wonderful broadcast acceptable shots.

.. quite right. It can do great stuff, but not in the realm of wide angle. With soft focus telephoto lens if fine. Pitty.

but unusable for any professional broadcast. What I am getting out on my control monitor via Intensity Pro card is unacceptable for broadcast. Period.

Wow, it's nice to see people worried about quality around!

I have seen the worst content-less and quality-less videos on TV. I think there is no use for the term "broadcast" anymore!!! :-(

Wow, it's nice to see people worried about quality around!

I have seen the worst content-less and quality-less videos on TV. I think there is no use for the term "broadcast" anymore!!! :-(

When you are commissioned by a broadcaster to produce a documentary in HD, believe me term ''broadcast quality'' is very much alive. Want to play with their technicians? You are most welcome to do so! I am not going to challenge them. Because any of those guys can pull out the plug pronouncing your program technically sub par, and you are gone.

Again, I love my MkIIs, but I am reluctant to include footage made with them on my HD timeline due to described artifacts. I agree that contemporary TV programs are usually an insult for intelligent person, but that is not my battle.

i'm also the happy owner of an EX1 and i'm really intersted by the MK2 as a king of "b" camera. But what bothers me is the 30 images/sec. I live in France and we shoot in 25 images down here. So my question is : is it easy to match both rushes, one filmed with the MK2 at 30images and the other from an EX1 at 25 images. Exemple : if i shoot an interview with my EX1 and i want to integrate shots made with the mk2.
Thanks for your answers,
Fred

I can only share my experience. I mostly use MkII for general shots, not intws. If sound is not important in the paricular shoot, I leave the shoot at 30fps, conform frame rate in Cinetools, ignore the sound (as it is slowed down) and use other ambiental sound that I record with propper sound gear.

OK, when I need original sound (last week I've shoot a performance of twirling dervishes in Cairo, using 70-200 lens with soft focus and thus acceptable amount of artifacts I mentioned above) I simply convert the MkII footage in Compressor or MPEG Streamclip to Pro Res HQ, and alter the frame rate to 25. No problem, except for two shoots with movement of the camera that revealed frame drops (because the frames are dropped in the process of converting from 30 to 25 fps). Simply did not use those takes.

Now, I recently made a video spot for a jazz singer friend of mine, in a jazz club, static, her sitting on the high stool, basic jazz trio setup, not much movement. All shoot with EX3 and MkII with 85 lens, full aperture, soft focus. Non frame drop was detectable, perfect sync. That would suggest - you being shooting intws - somewhat similar setup, the person being interviewed will most likely not move too much, so you should not have problem. Just - if I may advice - avoid if at all possible any lines and highly detailed background, to avoid codec artifacts.

soft focus

Just curious what do you mean by "soft focus"?

Thanks.

I can only share my experience. I mostly use MkII for general shots, not intws. If sound is not important in the paricular shoot, I leave the shoot at 30fps, conform frame rate in Cinetools, ignore the sound (as it is slowed down) and use other ambiental sound that I record with propper sound gear.

Cineform (Neoscene in particular) properly adjusts pitch when converting to 29.97 so there is no audio slow-down you mention. While I am praising their product I will also say it converts very fast and the resulting format is very nice for editing.

By soft focus I mean using telephoto lens at full aperture so that only a small portion of the image is in focus whereas foreground and background are out of focus, blurred. In this way sharp edges are almost eliminated from the image, thus avoiding jugged edges.

Also, in picture style, I use 'Portrait' and reduce contrast to the minimum, helps a bit. Using 'Landscape' with high contrast - nightmare.

Mark

What you do is fine in NTSC lands, not in PAL. Correct me if I am wrong, but Neoscene does not convert from 30 to 25 fps.

...Neoscene does not convert from 30 to 25 fps.True. Neoscene isn't a converter at all. It just slows the 30p by 0.1% so we don't drop frames on a 29.97 timeline. It resamples the audio to match.

The benefit of Neoscene isn't rate conversion. It's that it converts the video to independent frames with wavelet compression, so we can edit quickly, and get lower resolution proxy views as needed on the fly. It's similar to Pro Res, but can be used on any NLE and OS.

True. Neoscene isn't a converter at all.

I thought NeoScene could actually convert to 24p if you force it to, it will just pretty much suck because taking 30p to 24p, well just pretty much sucks in general regardless of the converter. Their 24p conversion, if I have this correct, was more for removing unflagged pulldown from cams like the HV20, and for converting 60i sources, which convert to 24p much better than 30p converts to 24p. I think I even remember them saying that there were better options out there for 30p > 24p than HDLink, but that none of them were that good regardless. Anyway, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate to say Neoscene won't convert to 24p, but beyond that, you should pretty much act like it doesn't -- so on that point I wholeheartedly agree with you John! <SMILE>

so we can edit quickly, and get lower resolution proxy views as needed on the fly.

I think in general, Cineform is used for intermediates more than proxies, but surely it's used for both. But more importantly, it's worth mentioning that neoscene CANNOT resize to lower resolutions as far as I know. For the 5D2, it's 1080p to 1080p whether you like it or not. This is one of the reasons I'm not using Neoscene actually. I'd like to convert to Cineform at 720p, but I'm not pro enough to want to spend the money to get NeoHD or whatever product will do that -- which sucks because I love Cineform. I'm actually building my 720p Cineform intermediates using batch rendering out of Vegas 8 right now (which has a very old version of Cineform built in, but good enough for web work).

I think in general, Cineform is used for intermediates more than proxies, but surely it's used for both. But more importantly, it's worth mentioning that neoscene CANNOT resize to lower resolutions as far as I know.

Because Cineform uses wavelet technology, you can extract 1/2 size (1/4 area), 1/4 size, 1/8 size and so on directly, while reading only 1/4, 1/16, or 1/64th the data. So, it works as an intermediate format, and provides proxies for free.

But yeah, 1/2 size does not 720p make.

I wish NeoScene had the option to scale on the fly, but even more so, I wish that I could turn on or off the conversion to 29.97. For my audio tests, I've been using the old version of NeoScene which slows the video to 29.97, but doesn't touch the audio. I then have to manually reset all of the clips to 30p. Certainly, PAL users would rather start with 30p than 29.97 as well.

I recently made a video spot for a jazz singer friend of mine, in a jazz club, static, her sitting on the high stool, basic jazz trio setup, not much movement. All shoot with EX3 and MkII with 85 lens, full aperture, soft focus. Non frame drop was detectable, perfect sync. That would suggest - you being shooting intws - somewhat similar setup, the person being interviewed will most likely not move too much, so you should not have problem. Just - if I may advice - avoid if at all possible any lines and highly detailed background, to avoid codec artifacts.

Thank you for your advices and experience sharing Dan. That's exactly what i meant : the ability to do cut shots with an mk2 while most of the filming would be done with my EX1, for a documentary for example. I guess, after reading all these posts that you can't count on an mk2 to do all the video work. That's not my intention. After all, this is a camera, not a camcorder. But it's good to know it can help also in professional video stuff.

You are right. MkII is a video tool, but not universal. And as long as you are aware of its limitations, you should be fine. As a young photographer, sometimes I used to go to assignments only with one body and one lens: my favorite 35mm. my friends asked me if I was not reducing my potentials and possibilities making that choice. On the contrary! I fond that often limitation can be creatively turned into an advantage, because it forces you to think harder and therefore find new solutions, often better then if you had backing of variety of lenses in your bag.
Then - what I discovered - mixing of MkII and EX1/3 is good thing, since the mixed footage 'hide' MkII imperfections: you see artifacts in one shot, but there are non in the next shoot, so it is a sort of 'covering'. Do some testing, especially experiment with the contrast level: low contrast is by far better then high, tele lens is generally better then wide etc. If you are in Final Cut Studio, you can pretty much adjust MkII footage to the EX1/3, and it is not too complicated process. Anyway: best of luck!