Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Hi guys - please bare with me as I try to explain in as much detail as possible my question so as to minimize any misunderstandings.

I utilize my DSLR for video primarily and stills as a distant second. That being said I am avidly seeking the "film" look, or something that looks like big budget hollywood. I have been unable to verbalize exactly what that means in technical terms but when I see footage I can quickly tell.

Suffice to say that after owning the GH2 which shoots beautifully I am still left unsatisfied in this regard. I am now looking for a new camera and was originally leaning towards the GH3 but have been piqued by the 6D.

Here are some examples I'd like you to see to sample what I am talking about:


These are both shot with either the Mark2 or Mark3, one with the 50mm 1.4 and the other the 1.2. As you can see from these shots it appears more "film-like" and based on my research I am fairly certain that very little has been done in post to these videos.

This is just one example of a GH2 shot:


As you can see, good as it may look, it does not have that "film" look.

My question is, since the 6D will have a similarly sized sensor, and from what my research tells me people are saying it will perform nearly identically to the MK3 and MK2 in most cases, will I be able to get the same sort of film look with it?

If so, what is the probability of that?

Further, what do you think is the central reason these shots appear so film-like compared to something like the GH2? Is it the full frame sensor that makes all the difference?

Thanks.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

I think you're seeing two things: shallow DOF and less sharpening.

The larger sensor and a fast lens will give you the shallow DOF you're looking for. To get shallow DOF on the GH2, get the object of interest as large as possible in the frame and far from the background. You can either use a wider lens very close to the subject or a use a longer lens. But no matter what you do with the GH2, a full frame sensor can get shallower.

How shallow you want it and in what contexts you want shallow DOF is an artistic decision. [Let's keep this to a "true/false" (technical) rather than "good/bad" (personal values) discussion. We don't need yet another thread on personal DOF preferences.]

Note that the shallower the DOF, the harder it is to nail focus. Sometimes one might choose deeper focus for practical, rather than artistic, reasons.

Regarding sharpness, to my eye the GH2 is overly sharp and looks like video. To others, the 5D3 is overly soft and needs lots of sharpening. Personally, I think the film-look is slightly soft. But for people who want to shoot in a more documentary style, the GH2 is potentially the better match.

One reason that color film is slightly soft is that the three emulsions are on different layers. You might nail focus on the green, but then it will be slightly off for red and blue. From what I've heard, this makes film focusing slightly more forgiving than when shooting digital. With digital, you nailed it or you didn't.

One thing I highly recommend is to watch a number of Hollywood films and find one that has the look that you want for your style. (It's good that you posted examples above.) What I've found is that there is no one film look. Film Noir is very different from 1950s Technicolor, which is different from modern film, and is different these days depending on if it's comedy, drama, sci-fi, or horror. And sometimes the specific look depends more on the costumes, makeup, lighting, fog, and art direction than on the camera. This can be especially true when shooting 8-bit video. The closer you get the look you want in-camera, the better.

BTW, for film-like narrative, I recommend that people not obsess about resolution. When you put two test frames next to one another, the sharper and more contrasty image will grab you. But people don't watch the same film shot by two cameras side by side. They only see your work on your camera. With adequate sharpness and a good story, nobody will care if your film isn't super sharp. And if a bit of softness hides your actors' blemishes, so much the better!

But again, this depends on style. When making a documentary about fine lace, sharpness is everything. But for a narrative film about a fallen angel in the fog, heck, add backlight and a touch of diffusion to soften things even further. :)

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Thanks for the detailed response!

So do you find that canon sensors are generally "softer" than say the Sony ones? I've seen a lot of footage and the type of look I'm going for is the kind you find in like Ocean's 11 and a lot of Steven Soderbergh films. It seems to me that the Canon captures that more readily than other ones.

I've even seen footage of the sony a99 and it looks more digital to me than the Canons.

Do you believe the 6D will shoot like the Mark 2 in regards to this film like quality that I am trying to describe?

One central question I have is, do you believe the canon sensors have a unique "flavor" that lends itself this film look I am describing vs other sensors?

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

I think the look of these videos comes from the lighting and has very little to do with the camera. If you shot these same scenes with different cameras you'd get pretty much the same "look" from each one. There might be a small differences in detail or highlight & shadow handling - because of the camera, but nothing really significant.

Specifically, the lighting in the 3rd video (duck/park) is always going to look like "video". If you shot it like that with 16mm film - it would still have that "video look", just with the highlight/shadow detail that film gives you.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Uh, no, that's not true. The look you get in the first two is literally impossible with a GH2 unless it is butchered in post, and even then, maybe.

They aren't the greatest comparison examples, but the fact still remains that the first two look much more like a hollywood film than the latter one, and not because of the lighting. Especially the night time one.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

impossible huh?
and I can post another hundred and fifty thousands links to the videos where M4/3 is shallow and FF is in deep focus, but videos shut on FF at f/1,2, or 1,4 will look very different from f/5,6 on M4/3 - so i think those example videos are not the best ones :)
and you know why when you see footage you can quickly tell? it is not selective focus, or DOF, or color space, well, it is all together, but the main difference it's dynamic range, shadows are not crashed and highlights are not clipped.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Sorry Buba, to me that looks mushy. The handheld shake is too much to handle, and you can really tell that was shot with a lesser image sensor. BUT that is what opinions are for. Getting to see a different perspective. I think the film look is useless without content. How many movies fail because audiences don't like the look? NONE. How many fail because of a weak story. A LOT. Focus on content, shoot with an Iphone if you have to. My Opinion. Not "true"
Bill

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

lol

You think that looks even close to the videos in the original post? Wow. I am always amazed when people present information they believe to be true when it is bordering on insane. That GH2 footage looks digital, first and foremost, and is so clearly butchered in post to add grain and contrast that you lose nearly all the clarity (the reason you bought a high resolution camera to begin with).

Presenting ideas of yours with videos like these as premises are indicative that your standards for the type of film quality I am talking about are far, far lower than mine.

I always hear people, and have for years now, talking about "story is all that matters". The thing is, no one is arguing this. The assumption that anyone trying to optimize their artistic desire to get a type of look they want is compensating for weak storytelling is a lame and erroneous assumption.

The film quality is like the canvas. I want my canvas to be very specific so my story shines. I've been seeking a camera that will provide me film like footage for years now, and it looks like the 6D might just do that for me.

Do you think it is likely Canon will drop the price when it comes out in light of the fact that the Nikon D600 is technically superior on almost every level?

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Regarding the 6D video, I hope that it has anti-aliasing similar to the 5D3.

Another option is the 5D2 with the VAF-5D2 anti-aliasing filter. That's what I use. Unfortunately, it doesn't really work well beyond 28mm or so, depending on the lens. That said, by removing aliasing, I find that shots look much more creamy and less digital - even when there is no obvious moire in the shot. My favorite example is faces with stubble or freckles. With aliasing, those features turn into rectangles. Without aliasing, they become natural shapes that flow, frame to frame. Yes, we lose (mostly false) sharpness, but we gain a more transparent look at the scene. Personally, I find that the harshness is more likely to negatively affect my feeling about the scene than a touch of softness. (Of course, there are limits, and buzzed focus can steal one's attention.)

If the 6D has good anti-aliasing, I might just replace my 5D2+VAF. I can't quite justify the price of the 5D3 right now. If the 6D aliases, I'll continue the VAF route.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Hey Jon,

Can you post an example of the anti aliasing you are talking about?

The reason I am leaning towards the 6D is:

1) It's newer (and hence has some newer tech than the 5dm2 - I'm no expert but from what I've read it seems to have technical improvements)
2) Uses SD (i really dont like CF)
3) Appears to be smaller
4) Probably won't suffer some of the issues I've read about with the 5dm2 in regards to video (moire, overheating?, etc)

Basically I've narrowed it down to the lens. I have personal experience with lenses looking light years different and providing very unique looks, and now I need a specific canon lens. So I need to go canon, otherwise I'd probably go with the Nikon D600. Can you point to any reason why the 6D would be better than the D600 other than the canon glass?

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Anti-aliasing is the main advantage of the 5D3 over the 5D2. Well, that and lower noise. I don't know how the 6D will stack up and I've never studied the D600.

You can see example of aliasing here:
VAF-5D2 Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter: Video Resources

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Why do you say that? Apparently you cannot even change aperture when shooting video unless you have a manual lens. Moire and aliasing is apparently similar to video from the D800 which in turn is no better for moire and aliasing than the 5D2. The only full frame camera without moire and aliasing is the 5D3 & hopefully the 6D but that has yet to be confirmed.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Hey Nigel,

I did not know that. Can you point me to some videos on the D600 that show these issues? (or an article)

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Just Google it, people that review it said you can not change aperture in live view mode, and from the footage, I see the same aliasing and moire.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

...what Jon said... there is no ONE film look. AND, you'll have to pick the right "tool for the job". Canon DSLR, particularly full-frame, will render very nice skin tones for faces and close-ups. However, they are very poor at rendering deep focus master shots that have the "looking out the window" feel, although the MkIII footage can be sharpened in post pretty substantially before falling apart. The 6D's sensor noise, moire, and "tweakability" in post is yet-unknown, AFAIK.

Most films will need a mix of shots, and it doesn't seem like any one manufacturer's DSLRs handle ALL shots well. Detail vs. skin tones vs. moire vs. DOF is a mixed bag of tradeoffs between Canon, Nikon, Panny and Sony DSLRs.

You might do some due diligence with the hopefully soon-to-ship Black Magic Cinema camera. If you can live with Super16mm DOF, the form factor, and lack of few wide-angle lens choices, the mix of RAW workflow OR ProRes/DNxHD output coupled with high dynamic range seems very promising indeed. For $3k, the unit seems like a real steal for filmmakers on a budget.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Rob,
I'm just trying to point out that the film look isn't as important as people that look for it think. If you know what you're looking for then why ask here? No one knows about the 6D yet, but it will be probably pretty similar to the 5D. I would look up the samples from the black magic camera. The stuff I've seen looks pretty rocking. But you can screw up any shot with bad or inadequate lighting or lens choice no matter the camera. I just don't think there's a "film look" switch you can flip on...
Bill

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

The makers of House have used a 5DII for one of their episodes and some time ago I saw Crank high voltage which was filmed with xh-a1's and a set of small handicams, both movies had a different look but both looked like big(ger) budget hollywood films. "filmlook" has a lot to do with how you light a scene, your setting and sound. (good sound you don't "see" but it's something that helps you "feel" your watching a real film.

If you would give a Hollywood filmcrew a GH2 you can bet they will make it look like a big budget movie. A good example is also a short I saw from Philip Bloom some time ago (Hirano San) where 5 other filmmakers used the camera (a af101) for a day and if you look a bit on Vimeo you can find the other films as well on the same topic. Philip's video was the only one that had that "film" look, so same subject, same locations, same camera but different shooters. What's the secret here? The guy behind the camera that knows how to shoot right and how to deal with the camera's limitations and work around it and who knows how to treat in in post. (not talking specifically about the af101 but any dslr camera's for that matter, limitations could be sensor size, cropfactor, moire, aliasing, how the camera deals with highlights etc...)

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

These last two posts show the importance of finding your own personal film look. If its a street/prison/gang film, a GH2 might be perfect. The sharpness and deep focus can be made to look very gritty. If it's romantic, you can't beat full frame's shallow DOF. A gritty horror flick might be the perfect vehicle for the BMC as you can live with deep focus but might want the freedom to re-color with RAW.

One comment on RAW though... it's not a fix-all. Shoot a RAW still at a family get together and just try to grade it to look like an action/horror/fantasy film. It's not so easy.

But the camera does matter. Just watch a behind-the-scenes video and compare it to the look of the graded final scene. Same scene. Same lighting. One looks like video. The other looks like Hollywood.

But step 1 is to identify your target look and to analyze what you need. Here are a few items to look for:

* DOF. You can always get it with closeups, but do you need it with medium shots? If so, you need a large sensor.

* Color Palette. You can do a lot with grading - especially with a high-quality codec, many bits, and RAW. But it's easier if you use good art direction, costumes, lights and gels. With 8-bit 4:2:0, the scene and your Picture Style is critical.

* Framing. Is it tight, wide, medium, mixed? If it's wide and needs fast lenses, full frame is ideal and the BMC would be a fail. If it's tight, the BMC might be perfect.

* Light levels. If shot under city lights at night, sensitivity is key.

* Dynamic range. If shot in the desert at noon, DR is key.

* Sharpness. Do you want to show every grain of sand? The GH2 is sharp. (Well, maybe a bit too sharp as it can look like video.) Or do you want a dreamier look that doesn't rely on fine detail? The 5D3 is good for this.

* Diffusion. Do you like films with a glow? Consider Glimmerglass filters. (I like the #1 and #2.) Even better: use fog and backlighting.

One cool thing is to create a target scene and to shoot a still with RAW. Play with it to get your perfect look. Didn't get it? Try, try again. Once perfected, review your lens, settings, etc. Now find a video camera that can deliver what you need - as well as lights, gels, makeup, costumes, paint, filters, fog, etc.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

The film look probably has more to do with lighting, props, wardrobe, set-design, make-up & location than it does with the actual camera, at the end of the day; never minding a good script and good actors.

As someone mentioned above; professional film crews have managed to pull off great looking movies with 1/3" video cameras. 'Crank 2' was done with the HDV XHA1, and the old Standard Definition DV tape XL1 was used to pull off the very successful '28 Days Later'.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Jon, actually, your example kinda shows the opposite. If a film crew creates a Hollywood film look, and the behind-the-scenes documentarian ends up with a video look of the same scene - it doesn't make me think, oh heck it must be because of the camera.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Really? The film crew likely uses film, a RED, or equivalent. The BTS camera is likely a small chip camcorder. The film is shot with enough latitude to allow grading. The BTS camera is probably shooting 8-bit 4:2:0 with a lot of sharpening, less dynamic range, etc. Regarding DR, the BTS camera likely shoots with high contrast, blowing out the highlights. The film crew captures the scene flatter so highlight detail is preserved.

While one could shoot BTS with a high-end camera using a small aperture, boosting the contrast and sharpness in camera and in post, it's not so easy to shoot the scene with a small chip digital camera in a way to look like 35mm film. Just look at what hoops they jumped through in the recent Zacuto Challenge to get the iPhone to handle the dynamic range - they took about four stops out of the background image and while it was impressive, it was the clear loser. If you're shooting at noon in the desert, no way will a low DR camera give a Hollywood look.

Anyway, the BTS example takes the scene and lighting out of the equation. We are left with the camera, camera settings, and post. Depending on the camera, there might not be enough image left in post to do the trick.

If you can control the scene, you have a wider choice of cameras. But not all cameras can deliver all target looks.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Bill, don't need to be sorry :)
this is not even my footage, i don't have GH2, i just grabbed first one from the Youtube with more or less sdof cuz shots that Rob posted are kinda very different, couple FF wide open against smaller sensor + deep aperture, that's loose/loose situation :)
but my friend, i don't even go to what is more important look or content, there is no argument about that, as well as we all know that film has it's distinctive look, regardless of color correction scheme, and that was Rob's question, is sdof possible on M4/3 - yes it is, not as shallow as FF f/1.2, but that's given :)
Rob, i hear you, i was there, for many years,
take my advice, get RED, today R1MX in good condition is cheaper than FS700, you'll be happy,
at least with the look, i promise.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

And if you ever thought about that, now is a time :)

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Love to go for the RED but I simply can't afford that. :-)

To inform you all after a lot of further research and educating, yes, lighting, grading and what not are important, but I already knew most of that.

There are two factors that I have discovered determine, to a most reasonable extent, how to control and also get the look you want:

1) Sensor size + quality
2) Lens

Each lens you use will almost always swing the look in a different manner. I already knew this but did not know the extent to which the lens will completely alter the way a scene looks.

That being said I have basically found that the Alpha a99 + a specific lens I have painstakingly found that is alpha mount should give me the results I want. And for video + full frame under 3k I don't think anything beats the a99.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

provided you don't care about the aliasing & moire that is evident in all the A99 clips that I have seen. It's a nice camera & the XLR add-on is a nice option but the video quality isn't up to 5D3 standard.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Nah, the moire and aliasing is totally overblown. Video quality is on par with MK3 as far as I have seen not to mention a superior 1080p 60fps option which provides slow mo at full res.

This is a great example of some of the spectacular footage you can get with this:


No color correction, audio through the camera via XLR.

Even this author complains of moire and aliasing and I see none at all. Mind you I am not focused on nit picking irrelevant details - 99.9% of the visible audience won't notice these things so it's a moot point.

Re: Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look
 

Clever of Canon, probably deliberately crippling the 6d in the video department so it doesn't affect the sales of it's bigger full frame brother. Really disappointing, on their site it says for the 6d: "the benefits of a Full-Frame sensor provides stunning performance and creative flexibility. " You sure need to be flexible not to get all that moire and aliasing in your image. It looks like it has the same low light capabilities like its bigger FF brother but if you want the real thing you need to cough up another 1000 euros.