Canon 5D MK 2/3 vs 6D: Film look at DVinfo.net

Rob Mah · September 25th, 2012, 04:57 PM

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.

Jon Fairhurst · September 25th, 2012, 07:01 PM

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. :)

Rob Mah · September 25th, 2012, 07:27 PM

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?

Michael Wisniewski · September 25th, 2012, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

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?

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.

Rob Mah · September 25th, 2012, 10:06 PM

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.

Buba Kastorski · September 26th, 2012, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

The look you get in the first two is literally impossible with a GH2

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.

Bill Grant · September 26th, 2012, 07:21 AM

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

Rob Mah · September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM

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?

Jon Fairhurst · September 26th, 2012, 11:22 AM

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.

Rob Mah · September 26th, 2012, 11:45 AM

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?

Jon Fairhurst · September 26th, 2012, 12:26 PM

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

Nigel Barker · September 27th, 2012, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob Mah

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?

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.

Rob Mah · September 27th, 2012, 10:23 AM

Hey Nigel,

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

Khoi Pham · September 27th, 2012, 11:36 AM

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.

Brian Brown · September 27th, 2012, 12:18 PM

...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.

September 25th, 2012, 04:57 PM	#1
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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: The Setup (Action Film) - Canon 5D Mark II Short Film - Film Look - YouTube Cynthia on Vimeo 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: Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 video quality - YouTube 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.

September 25th, 2012, 07:01 PM	#2
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	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. :) __________________ Jon Fairhurst

September 25th, 2012, 07:27 PM	#3
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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?

September 25th, 2012, 10:06 PM	#5
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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.

September 26th, 2012, 07:21 AM	#7
Bill Grant Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: Columbia,SC Posts: 806	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 __________________ Cinema Couture www.cinemacouture.com

September 26th, 2012, 10:46 AM	#8
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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?

September 26th, 2012, 11:22 AM	#9
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	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. __________________ Jon Fairhurst

September 26th, 2012, 11:45 AM	#10
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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?

September 26th, 2012, 12:26 PM	#11
Jon Fairhurst Inner Circle Join Date: May 2006 Location: Camas, WA, USA Posts: 5,513	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 __________________ Jon Fairhurst

September 27th, 2012, 10:23 AM	#13
Rob Mah New Boot Join Date: May 2010 Location: New York New York Posts: 8	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)

September 27th, 2012, 11:36 AM	#14
Khoi Pham Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Posts: 747	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. __________________ Khoi Pham www.proeditproductions.com

September 27th, 2012, 12:18 PM	#15
Brian Brown Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Estes Park, CO USA Posts: 426	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.