How good is RAW video? (Canon 5D mark ii)
Vložit
- čas přidán 26. 08. 2024
- In this video, I test the new RAW video recording with the Canon 5D mark ii.
Learn how to film yourself and others with our brand new course: andyax.com/cou...
Raw video recording gives you uncompressed video, which looks like it was shot with a big budget camera! To achieve this, you need to download and install the Magic Lantern hack in to your camera, and download the RAW build. You can read more about it here: www.magiclanter...
PS. Be careful when installing the hack, because it may damage your camera.
Since the RAW hack on the Canon 5D mark ii doesn't support FULL HD video capture when using the whole sensor, I shot everything in 2.35:1. To capture RAW video, you need a really fast CF/SD card. It's quite complicated to work with the RAW files in post production, but since it's RAW, it's a dream to colorcorrect the videos :)
Thomas Leypoldt is a composer, and he have made the music for several of my videos. He does actually have a CZcams channel where he uploads his great filmatic soundtracks. I feel privileged to have a personal soundtrack. Thanks Thomas :) Check it out here: • The Andyax Soundtrack
If your want to stay tuned with our videos, you can subscribe here on CZcams. You can also visit my Facebook page here: / andyaxproductions
My homepage is: www.axp.no
Thanks for watching :)
![Canon 5D Mark II RAW Video Settings | Magic Lantern RAW [2020] Full-Frame](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/FeoSjDo6YPQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Learn how to film yourself and others with our brand new course: andyax.com/course/
8 years later and the color rendition on the raw video from this 16 year old camera is still way better than most cameras available today and the level of detail is enough for most use cases.
It's 14 years old actually, but yeah I know what you're saying!
yeah its absolutely crazy
thats why im still using mine😁
This honestly had me saying "wow" throughout the whole video. I am in awe, the RAW video is so beautiful!
I believe you can not record audio when filming in raw. Do not worry though, simply use a slate when filming. Hold the slate in front of the camera before you start a take(make sure the audio is running) then simply clap the slate. Later in post find the peaking point in the audio and the clap in the video and simply line them up. You can also use a program like Plural Eyes. I hope I was able to help you some.
Wow, what a world of difference
The flickering on your video comes from the Shutter Speed and the current that is pumping into your electricity. Adjust your shutter speed until you see the flicker stop. Usually somewhere in between 1/50th and 1/60th
I use 1/50th and I always have a flicker if for example im infront of the computer and filming myself. Is this due to the electricity current?
Yes, I believe. I have the same problem when recording in front of my 50" LCD TV as well. Try a few stops below of above that...it's usually 1 or 2 stops away. If it flickers at 1/50th for you, it should stop at 1/60th (or at least be a lot less apparent). I know the Golden Rule of doubling the shutter speed of your Frame Rate, but sometimes you have to break this rule to get rid of a bad flicker from electrical currents.
RipRecords
Yeah I try to stick to the golden rule and I thought if I broke that it'd make the video look weird, but I shall try it in future, Thanks :)
Sure thing bud.
It won't make the video look weird at all. I love sticking to the Golden Rule too, but sometimes, in cases like these...you have to break them.
Bumping up the shutter speed can actually make your image a little sharper too. Bumping it up a stop or two to help resolve a flicker image won't hurt your image at all. It's more psychological than anything.
RipRecords
Would the faster shutter effect the moray at all, like the top of the building at 4:28? In RAW is was even more obvious than h.264. I saw some vids where the ISO and shutter settings could cause that issue. Just curious what you guys have found.
You are very photogenic and your smile looks amazingly good on camera. More people should learn from your videos. I can really feel the positive energy and excitement you exhibit in your video regarding the use of RAW video quality. Your enthusiasm is remarkable.
Thanks, and no problem :) I used Canon 50mm f1.4 when talking to the camera, and Canon 24-70mm f2.8 for the indoor shots and Canon 24-105mm f4 for all other shots.
the only issue i see with the RAW video vs. the H.264 video is the amount of aliasing that has become more prominent than before. But it's great how much sharper the image is and how clean the light is on everything!
HOLY SHIT!!!!! The amount of detail lost with the lossy formats they use is unbelievable. Even the colors aren't accurate.
Dhruv1223 About the colors, that's called a white balance for the most part. He could've set it accordingly during the shooting, though it would've been hard to set it perfectly.
Ihor Menshykov hmmm. But the whites seemed fine more or less.
+Ihor Menshykov Well put, I think that would have at least helped with a fundamental standard to make the evaluation a little more "fair" - despite the lack of proper white balancing on the h.264, the difference was pretty astounding... Btw, could you tell if he was shooting at 30 fps in some scenes then 24 on others? I couldn't be sure, but it felt like he was shooting at 2 different frame rates for some scenes; I know that his shutter speed was pretty fast when you could see the man serving them their food (when he walked across camera he was a little choppy - a result from a fast shutter speed setting).
Let me know if you could the frame rate. Andyax has been awesome with sharing great knowledge from his tests and short films, but I wish he could be a little more elaborate for the standard questions most videographers will ask:
1. Shutter speed
2. Frame rate
3. Camera Body (he shared that)
4. Lens
5. Picture profile (only applicable to h.264 obviously)
6. Gear used (slider, stabilizer, tripod etc)
7. Polarizers or filters
Dhruv1223 he said he did a lot of work in post to get it to look like that and agree - it looks amazing!
well, the amount of space saved on H264 format is also unbelievable
DSLR filmmaker here. For some reason, my eyes welled up when I saw the first RAW images in your video. Technology is beautiful. Well done.
That footage looks great! Was the in-camera sharpening turned down all the way? there were definitely some aliasing issues, but still a far clearer image. It may just be a problem that the Mkii has.
@DheerejSingh yes
wow the sensor picks up so much more detail in raw
I am home because of an episode of depression. And I try to do things that are Fun for me and help me get out of this again, for example video editing. But this incredible music made me cry so hard (I cry easily at the Moment) 🥴😅😶🙈
Smart 👍
Jesus loves you!
Light flickering is more likely happening not because of a tweak\program, but because of the shutter speed. Normally you set shutter speed 1\25 to 1\50 if you record 25fps. Also, it might depend on light sources.
Source: movie making experience with 5dmk2
@Jolly I did not find any reference to ""movie making experience with 5dmk2", can you please guide me where to find this?
Not a real comparison. h264 footage was not color corrected at all and the white balance is off (it's blue). RAW footage on the other hand had to be color corrected and is warm, that's why colors seem more pleasant. This is pointless. I want to see a comparison between color corrected h264 and color corrected RAW. I'm sure RAW will win, but the difference won't be nearly as big.
I think you might be right on this...
Actually I can't imagine how there could be even colour and sharpness differences that obvious. Would be really nice to see a non colour graded side by side comparison.
Actually I have to correct myself. I tried shooting RAW on my 600D (only capable of processing sth about 900p) and it really looks that much different than the compressed h264 video. It indeed is more blue and green, overall much colder than the default video, which means you would have to really colour correct the footage in order to receive comparable picture.
*****
I've only shot stills in RAW & those files are big. How much footage do you think you can get on a 64gb card?
Got it, thanks Kyle
exactly!
You look like a honest guy with a true passion behind the lens. I wish you good luck man! Amazing how simple you visually explain!
WOW! Raw makes so much of a difference
Mark II? That’s was so great!!!
This comparison is not really fair in my opinion, the picture profile you chosen to shoot h.264 looks desaturated, like neutral or other flat picture profile, and RAW footage looks graded in your videos, so that obviously shows such a big difference in quality. So this is you leaning towards suggesting how cool is the RAW and not letting us decide under same picture profile how much difference there is... interesting thought RAW looks a slight bit like HDR...
I thought the same .
but the 200x zoom in both videos comparison was useful ,
much detail in the raw footage .
While I agree as far as the grading and white balance goes, the sharpness difference was really obvious. Was that in-camera or post sharpening? Didn't look that way to me.
Have you tried grading H.264? The point is that you CAN grade the raw footage - so you do.
To me RAW is the next best thing to HDR because it is similar in principle. (more color / value range than the naked eye can see) But HDR is leagues better because bracketing allows for so much more light information to be captured. Even as better sensors are invented that capture practically HDR color depth in a single shot, we can then bracket that down 3x or 5x and capture 3-5x the data.
Все верно говоришь!
Wow....RAW is amazing........Good job, man!!!
choice of music is amazing
Ti sono grato per questo video.
Oh my God. The colors are incredible! And the detail is so refined.
Great video. The best thing about RAW is you can run it through Lightroom and color correct just as you would with still photos.
In the shot in 1:21 , I attribute the non-raw H.264 giving that indie film look of the 2010s while the RAW is giving that Netflix indie look. Though, I love the non-Raw version because it is really nostalgic and there's a charm in it. The RAW video is really good to. More so, my liking is only pulled through sentimental feelings.
I just wanted to say, Thank you Andyax. You have made it possible for me to follow my dream to becoming a film producer, by simply passing off your knowledge to others. Just a little bit of time and I will achieve that dream! I wish you the best of luck, and keep doing what you do. Cheers!
No contest, raw simply looks gorgeous, everything just pops more.
Jepp. But I slightly overexposed the outside, to compensate for the indoor. But not to much, since I didn't want to make it completely white. Since the room is white an bright, it was enough light indoor as well. Since it's shot in raw, I could easily use fill light in post to raise the shadows :)
WOW!! That looks amazing ! Is is just my eyes or is the RAW footage much sharper than the normal footage!
People are complaining that the RAW is graded wheras the h264 is not. The main difference in shooting raw is how far you can actually "push" the grading without breaking the image and causing artifacts. RAW has much more color and value depth, you can crush the blacks without them looking flat, squeeze more vibrance and saturation without it looking messed up or pixelated. Personally i prefer it for shadow quality--if you shoot overbearing chiaroscuro without the aid of raw, you're going to lose a lot of detail and the darks are going to look flat and homogeneous. If you want to boost the shadows in H264 the only thing you'll end up boosting is noise.
Konge!!
Synes du bør vurdere å lage en skikkelig gjenomgang av hva man bør tenke på når man skal skyte RAW. Det mangler ikke på tutorials om hvordan man installerer, men heller hvordan instilinger man bør ha på kamera til post! bare en ide! Forøvrig, synes dere er flinke og håper dere blir den norske versjonen av film riot (med norsk egenart!
Keep up the good work!!
The colors in the RAW are pretty amazing! WOW! ;)
I have an EOS500D that has been pretty much dead for a while now, in that the 'nifty fifty' lens is stuck on the body and the connections to the lens(es) and flash long since failed. I knew about Magic Lantern way back, but it didn't offer much more and was near impossible to install. With my camera dead(ish), I figured I might as well check out ML and play around.
Now I wish I'd gone back to check ML a lot earlier, because the difference is astonishing. It doesn't seem possible that something as simple as ML could change the video quality so much. The level of control available for video and stills has really rekindled my love for photography.
Giant difference there... RAW is definetely worth it...
Ignore the sharpness difference guys, as the picture style he choose for H264 likely has sharpness on default (in the middle) and witg Raw internal processing is bypassed altogether
I have to laugh at the thumb's down. What the hell do people expect? Thank you for taking the time for yet another FREE video for the public. Fortunately you can see those who appreciate your time far outweigh the thankless few. Great vid.
Wow, the raw footage is absolutely gorgeous!
Uhhh... That piano music is HEAVEN to my ears! :)
Night and day.... Thank you for making this video. Magic lantern, here I come.
Man, the color depth looks amazing in RAW. Definitely looks less dull. That, and the compression artifacts are pretty much nonexistent. Well, from what I can tell past CZcams's compression anyway.
I would absolutely love you if you could show us the process of getting the RAW .dng files to a video file to edit in a NLE
Agree. The moire is quite bad. I hope its possible to fix it with a new update :)
Fantastic video... only thing I would have liked is a small part on how to change to raw video and how you converted and worked with the video in post. Cheers
The thing is that cameras are not powerful enough to make the best rendering in real time thus they ruin the quality. I can see here that the edges suffer so much, the raw video is at least more crispy in the good sense. also having the video in raw format gives the ability for rendering softwares to give the best result because this video is seen on youtube thus the final quality is H.264 but the post production compress could do a better job at giving more data where is needed.
the differences in colour are made by the same factor, an object might have multiple tiny colours that make it, by smearing the edges of colours you literally create an average colour for the whoole object which is not "true colour" of the object.
Time here; the raw video out of the Mark III is STILL just as good as any camera out there. Not only that, it’s full frame 3:2 video when done right.
I haven’t found a good reason to upgrade from it for video in spite of how unstable it may be.
What a synaptic man !
Yes, Eskild has this camera. Do you think it's because the mark iii is faster?
nice one. thanks!
the raw ones have very impressive colors
That's amazing!
Everything should be in RAW!
Professional digital video/cinema is in raw. That is a production quality.
yeah it would help it you properly white balanced the non raw photos. Either way though the raw video is much sharper.
theBrothersThre3 only cause he made it that way raw is not a sharper image just more colour information to work with before you compress it to make it a viewable video image
watching this in 2020, and I am still impressed.
Wow, the RAW footage is beautiful!
A lot of people have made note of the difference in white balance in this video as an unfair comparison between the two formats. But go to 4:23-4:33 pause and analyze those two shots. Highlight detail, roll-off from bright sunspot to darker part of the sky, color gradation (the smoothness of transition from one color to the next or different shades of color), and the vividness of the color; it's a clear distinction regardless of the difference in white balance between the two. Its night and day. The only characteristic they share is some pretty bad moire. But the 5Diii does better at that.
You're actually a bit off. The 1880x800 is the 5D Mk2's native video resolution, so it's not a bug. When shooting compressed, the camera upscales a 1880x800 stream to 1920x1080 inside the camera.
Also, you CAN shoot RAW on the whole rebel/550,600,650,700D series, but it doesn't support continuous shooting, and is cropped pretty badly.
I see major sharpness improvements, but not much in dynamic range in the raw. Am I wrong? I'm speaking only for the Mark 2 - which is also what I own. I think the Mark 3 is where raw has major improvements in the dynamic range??
Great info new to film production thanks for all your help!
No problem. My pleasure :) 1 min RAW in 2.35:1 with resolution 1880x800 its approximately 5GB...
This is amazing! Glad you show us the difference - thank you.
Ive been shooting raw for awhile now and I can tell that for outside daylight shots, its incredible - but once you get into poorly lit environments, its a noise box. Got to the point where I went back to shooting from an external recorder to pro res for night time/ in door shots.
Great test footage. The colors really do pop in raw.
I had to subscribe because I think this guy is really nice and has great content.
absolutely mind blowing
So freaking different. Very Nice
This is fantastic! The video really showcases the astounding difference between the formats. Thanks for sharing!
Astonishing with RAW!!!
The raw was gorgeous.
Outstanding Raw and Post production video sir love from India 🙏❤️
which lens did u use for this video???
The max video size when shooting 2.35:1 is 1880 x 800
the difference is huge !
Very nice video!! you convince me to tray to shut a Row video with my 5D Mark II. I only hope that my MacBookPro is powerful enough to manage the entire project properly.
Just Beautiful. I agree.
Thank you Andy. your videos are amazing and inspirational. Great work
Well, H.264 MPEG4 codec (as well as H.265) wasn't developed for production but for broadcasting purposes.
Awesome demonstration. Loved the soundtrack
wow, that's a huge difference, awesome
does anybody realize that in this video you're not seeing RAW, but you're looking at a youtube compressed video? youtube uses a lossy compression that is at most on par with h.264. so when you look at the "RAW clips" in this video, you're actually staring at a highly compressed video. the difference in quality depends probably on camera settings for the most part, especially the color settings are completely different
It's definitely sharper, but it's a little too sharp at points. Like when things are far away they look like they have a very visible outline to them. I don't know if that makes sense. But I really do like the RAW footage. I would love to try this out with my new camera but I'm not sure I've got the skills for it or not. I haven't even made my first short film yet and I really don't want to screw up my camera which I just spent a pretty penny on.
Could you please tell How much time the a 64gb 1000x cf continuos footage can hold?
Thats Really cool... I love to shoot RAW... You have done an amazing job...
depends on what your shooting and how prepared you are to work with raw, RAW is awesome and it's great to use but it's not an easy workflow, for instance 1 minute of footage is roughly 5GB. if your just going short clips or little short films then it's great, but if your shooting for hours on end everyday, you better have a lot of redundancy drives.
The most significant difference is whether or not there's shine a brilliant
you actually made me cry
with a camera test video
Hei Per Magne. Skjedde det samme med meg. Trodde først det var noe galt med kortet, men fant ut at jeg ikke hadde lastet ned riktig build for RAW. Du må ha den aller nyeste og riktige versjonen. Husker ikke hvor jeg lastet den ned, men søk litt på nettet. Lykke til :)
Raw is uncompressed data you cannot show raw it first has to be processed and put into a watchable file format, which takes time.
Content is far more important than actual video quality.
Ultimately anyone can watched a film from start to finish in 480p and throughly enjoy it, because of the content being shown.
Yet most wouldn't sit through 15 minutes of 4k video of people walking around doing nothing.
Sometimes too much detail can even ruin an experience
What you are saying is technically accurate, but also a massive cop out. Artistic merit does not excuse poor quality instruments when the shittiness of the instrument isn't being leveraged as a component of the artistic vision. Put another way, "but it's art though" is no excuse for being lazy about your quality.
An engaging movie shot with shitty equipment would be objectively better with better equipment, unless the artist was trying to achieve a certain look that was centered around the inferiority of the equipment. Period pieces that utilize Hi8 tapes or even DVD at this point come to mind. Also, I have found situations where more detail is a bad thing to be incredibly rare. Again, artistic vision is important to consider, but in general, better instruments are better, all other variables controlled.
But yeah no contest on raw video being a massive pain to deal with. Heartily agree there!
Thanks Alex, you are awesome.
Great viadeo, many thanks!
I have a Canon EOS 700D and waiting for live ML release for it to shoot raw. God, can't wait!!!!
this is amazing! I m so in love with this look. Its like a professional movie! congrats!
what lense was used? great video thank you
muscleammo xxx
Filme promo
Ce filme promo? :))
We tried in raw and done some cc shot with canon 5D and iPhone 5s it's amazing
So, add some contrast and saturation? Much more details as you can se.
Awesome video man, nice job, subscribed
Alltid morsomt å støte på noen norske videoer, der det åpenbart er kvaliteten på innholdet og ikke min egen lokasjon som bestemmer at jeg får den som forslag :)
Such quality!
Looks amazing! Really wish i had a 5D Mark II or III...
Is there a clip max time limit on the 5D Mark II in raw for Full HD at 2.35.1 ? In order to compare H.264 you really need to color correct it at least, as the raw treatment of Adobe AF creates a post production look not obtainable in camera so uncorrected H.264. I think even adding some grading to the H.264 would make the comparison even richer. I am of the thought that raw is great when you dont want to add lighting, but that with proper lighting even the humble H.264 can look cinematic.
Beautiful.
Hi can u do a video on how u setup ur DSLR and the setting u use before u start to film