I'm very curious. Did they look the same when mounted on your T2i or your 5D? Keep in mind that a lot of the "amazing footage" you speak of is usually taken with Canon's L series lenses which will give you much better detail and contrast (not to mention build quality). Personally, I don't see much wrong with the footage. If you want an edgier look you may need to be a little heavier handed with your grading. Stylistically I'd tighten up the people shots a bit more and open up the aperture for a narrower DOF. I'm guessing this is a clothing line? If so I'd focus a bit more on the clothing. Maybe he fixes hi his jacket (close up of his hand). Tighter shot of the shoes when they get out of the car. Don't be afraid to really get in there with weirdo angles. All those things will help with the edginess. Hope this helps!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
5Dii Help - looks terrible
- Thread starter matteusclement
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm very curious. Did they look the same when mounted on your T2i or your 5D? Keep in mind that a lot of the "amazing footage" you speak of is usually taken with Canon's L series lenses which will give you much better detail and contrast (not to mention build quality). Personally, I don't see much wrong with the footage. If you want an edgier look you may need to be a little heavier handed with your grading. Stylistically I'd tighten up the people shots a bit more and open up the aperture for a narrower DOF. I'm guessing this is a clothing line? If so I'd focus a bit more on the clothing. Maybe he fixes hi his jacket (close up of his hand). Tighter shot of the shoes when they get out of the car. Don't be afraid to really get in there with weirdo angles. All those things will help with the edginess. Hope this helps!
Actually, that's not how it's called. It's got a girl name: Alexa.
Touche. ;-) We all have different dreams, luckily I'm already living mine
Lucky you! I also work with the Epic, and while it's amazingly great for many things, for us (underwater filming) the lack of compatibility with standard ARRI (or even RED ONE) accessories is a serious issue, since we have to remote everything. The Epic is great if you can live with a few annoying issues and if you live within the RED ecosystem which, unfortunately, is something we cannot do, by the very nature of our job.
We use 5D for documentaries (see my sig), and (by order) Alexa/Epic/435/ONE/Phantom for commercials and movies.
I work with R3D, its still compressed in their own codec way.
But yes that is good dream
I ordered a Black Magic to get close to that dream.
Its for personal use.
Cant be bothered to borrow the RED MX for my own endeavor
My dreams fit in my pocket =)
As for the video: Really not bad.
Using a .9 or a 1.2 ND filter would help some of the wide depth of field shots.
The 5D2 has a hard time processing large (even medium) amounts of fine detail--especially vegetation.
You don't have to go full on shallow, but a little blur does help the overall image.
Walking with a DSLR creates a WHOLE lot more jitter than stabilized video cameras. Glidecams are tricky to balance--especially if swapping lenses--but well worth it.
Lenses are important, but not THAT important. 8bit color is tricky, as many have said, check out the Technicolor profile. Remember you can boost the blacks a bit and the midtones a ton (watch for noise, iso 320/640/1280 should have less than 200/400/800 etc, with a small sacrifice to dynamic range) but you can't recover detail that's not there--watch the highs.
I've never invested in a light meter, Magic Lantern has a cool spot meter tool which gives me an unprofessional "close enough" attitude, though I haven't tried it on the 5D2.
If you find yourself needing more fine detail: get your hands on a GH2 (or blackmagic!)
If you really want it to look good. Keep shooting!
I have found that the technicolor profile can get pretty muddy in the midtones. I've started using the Prolost settings, which are just
![Photo%20Mar%2026%202%2018%2019%20PM.JPG]()
no need to install a profile, and you can put these settings on any camera you just want to pick up and shoot with. Gives richer mids and is still very grade-able.
no need to install a profile, and you can put these settings on any camera you just want to pick up and shoot with. Gives richer mids and is still very grade-able.
Actually, that's not how it's called. It's got a girl name: Alexa.
RED's MONSTRO sensor may change that.
The 5D II doesn't have significantly better IQ than the t2i (which has the same IQ as the 7D). They intercut fine. The big advantage (or disadvantage if you're an AC) is the option for fast wide lenses and shallow focus. The image looks exactly the same to me otherwise. The GH2 DOES have significantly better IQ (as do the C300 and F3 of course!), but lacks latitude and the small sensor makes lenses tricky.
But the 5D is a half stop slower at the same ISO for whatever bizarre reason. So don't underexpose! Oh, and the technicolor profile is GARBAGE except if you're shooting on a show that's posting in log and you need log footage to match. It can really strain the tonality of your mids if you aren't careful. Neutral is so much better! It is harder to expose properly with technicolor and you have to use a light meter or expose in another picture look profile and switch back before recording. But it does help a bit if you're using a dSLR as a crash cam and need flexibility (but you might also need to do NR and skew removal so it intercuts!). I don't really think it serves much of a purpose but I did use it on a log show once and it did fine.
You can watch some of what I've shot on a mix of heaps of Canon cameras and see for yourself that they all look the same (contingent on grading, of course):
http://vimeo.com/37024225
0-11 seconds is t2i (with film grain added)
14-26 is 5D II/7D mix (can't tell the difference? neither can I)
31-39 is 7D (with film grain and looks like ****, why did I include this?)
39-44 is t2i (with film grain)
54-1:00 is t2i
1:01 is 7D (and ugly)
The rest is bad and is red and hvx from like six years ago... I look at this now and it's no wonder I couldn't find work with hvx footage on my reel and so much bad material. All the decent stuff is from the only two gigs I got in the past two years and a personal project.
Why does 14-26 look best by far? A genius director, good stylist, location, and model--and good lenses. Camera is secondary. I do find the 5D III to be noisier in the shadows at low ISOs and cleaner in general at high ones (by a lot), but otherwise (excepting its lack of aliasing) its footage looks exactly the same, too.
That said, the Alexa is totally magic. Hopefully some day I will shoot with one. I love that camera. It lets you light way more creatively since the highlights just go on forever and the noise texture is really beautiful and organic. It puts the Epic to shame unless you don't mind clippy highlights and need a high res, digital, plastic, inorganic look, in which case the Epic is genuinely better. But in less-than-super-genius hands and without a totally insane post budget the Alexa is a much better camera (and I'd argue most super-geniuses still shoot better with it than with the Epic).
But the 5D is a half stop slower at the same ISO for whatever bizarre reason. So don't underexpose! Oh, and the technicolor profile is GARBAGE except if you're shooting on a show that's posting in log and you need log footage to match. It can really strain the tonality of your mids if you aren't careful. Neutral is so much better! It is harder to expose properly with technicolor and you have to use a light meter or expose in another picture look profile and switch back before recording. But it does help a bit if you're using a dSLR as a crash cam and need flexibility (but you might also need to do NR and skew removal so it intercuts!). I don't really think it serves much of a purpose but I did use it on a log show once and it did fine.
You can watch some of what I've shot on a mix of heaps of Canon cameras and see for yourself that they all look the same (contingent on grading, of course):
http://vimeo.com/37024225
0-11 seconds is t2i (with film grain added)
14-26 is 5D II/7D mix (can't tell the difference? neither can I)
31-39 is 7D (with film grain and looks like ****, why did I include this?)
39-44 is t2i (with film grain)
54-1:00 is t2i
1:01 is 7D (and ugly)
The rest is bad and is red and hvx from like six years ago... I look at this now and it's no wonder I couldn't find work with hvx footage on my reel and so much bad material. All the decent stuff is from the only two gigs I got in the past two years and a personal project.
Why does 14-26 look best by far? A genius director, good stylist, location, and model--and good lenses. Camera is secondary. I do find the 5D III to be noisier in the shadows at low ISOs and cleaner in general at high ones (by a lot), but otherwise (excepting its lack of aliasing) its footage looks exactly the same, too.
That said, the Alexa is totally magic. Hopefully some day I will shoot with one. I love that camera. It lets you light way more creatively since the highlights just go on forever and the noise texture is really beautiful and organic. It puts the Epic to shame unless you don't mind clippy highlights and need a high res, digital, plastic, inorganic look, in which case the Epic is genuinely better. But in less-than-super-genius hands and without a totally insane post budget the Alexa is a much better camera (and I'd argue most super-geniuses still shoot better with it than with the Epic).
Last edited:
Here is some stuff I have shot since then. I like the technicolor profile to be honest. It ensures I don't blow out and I find my metering to be better.
All shot with the 5dii and with mostly pentax 55mm f1.8 (old lens w/ adaptor)
http://youtu.be/LD2MML0LahQ?hd=1
https://vimeo.com/52054639
https://vimeo.com/51003029
I have some more fun stuff in the can but I think i am getting there. I feel that my color correcting is where I need to put my energies next.
As shown in another thread, I am trying to get my head around what series of lenses to get next. L Glass vs Zeiss.
All shot with the 5dii and with mostly pentax 55mm f1.8 (old lens w/ adaptor)
http://youtu.be/LD2MML0LahQ?hd=1
https://vimeo.com/52054639
https://vimeo.com/51003029
I have some more fun stuff in the can but I think i am getting there. I feel that my color correcting is where I need to put my energies next.
As shown in another thread, I am trying to get my head around what series of lenses to get next. L Glass vs Zeiss.
Oh, they still make you do it...in the introductory classes, that is. I happen to be in such a class and I don't care for it at all. I guess it's good to know where it all comes from, but I'm a poor college student that can't afford to get all of it developed.
Also, I think that my thing is digital post-production, so it's especially inapplicable to me. Not sure why I've mused you my life story, but there you go.
Don't get me wrong, I think the RED is very good, and in some aspects better than the Alexa, but there are many annoying incompatibilities that make the Alexa better in the production environments I usually work in.
I don't know, for all noise that's been made of the workflow differences I think it just comes down whether the shop is set up for Alexa or RED from the start. Granted it would have been simpler if FCS 4 would have been released and Color was in there and you could grade RAW and edit a proxy, but it aint there.
Roundtrip Workflow FCPX to RedCineX:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ffvuu52QZjo
With the Meizler module you can now tap off a ProRes proxy stream as well. My guess is that the next major upgrade of EPIC will have the Meizler module built-in and I'm sure they'll have Meizler equipped bundles, especially with the lowered prices. Between the advancements made in hardware, the niceties being added in workflow development and the price reduction there's an awful lot to like in RED Epic if you can afford it vs. a lot of other similar options.
----------
The only major thing I need from FCP X now is the ability to save my project files and organize them without having to archive them. Sure I'd still like to have the FCS suite, but FCPX is making strides and working between RedCineX and/or DaVinci Resolve is pretty decent now.
It's always difficult to say, but when you can afford either you're already in pretty good shape, both are gonna be sharp and you can. I'm thinking your question may be more "Zooms for versatility or Primes for depth accuracy?" Personally I would go with the Canon lens(es) if pressed to make a choice because the flexibility of the zoom without loosing sharpness is huge AND the image stabilization is something that will yield huge dividends with any kind of shot that not somehow locked down.
If on a budget, Samyang (Rokinon in the US) just came out with a series of cine style lenses with manual focus and aperture (de-clicked so smooth aperture changes). They also have focus "teeth" so they work with any follow focus system. They are T1.5 mostly and incredible value for money.
At the moment the 8mm, 24mm and 35mm are out, the 85mm is shipping in December and a 50mm is expected soon after.
They cost between 250-750 US$!!
I use the 24mm and 35mm on my Epic to get that plastic unorganic look with clipped highlights and been very happy so far
At the moment the 8mm, 24mm and 35mm are out, the 85mm is shipping in December and a 50mm is expected soon after.
They cost between 250-750 US$!!
I use the 24mm and 35mm on my Epic to get that plastic unorganic look with clipped highlights and been very happy so far
You need more work on your cinematography. You have to figure out where to place the camera and how to move it.
But the look (colors, clarity) is fine. Although you could use a bit more DOF in there to make it better.
And be more stable when you shoot, next time. A tripod, maybe? Or use FCPX's stabilization.