Can I get professional quality video (for broadcast) from a Canon T3i?

[Pete Burger]

[Vic Noseworthy] “Do the stories I’ve heard about using DSLRs for serious (broadcast) work refer to higher end DSLRs than the T3i? For example, does the 5D have a far better codec that yields a higher quality final output? Or, are there other issues I’m unaware of?”

No, all (Canon) DSLRs use the exact same codec. The more high-end cams do a bit better in low-light (bigger sensor, faster processor). Can’t speak for the 5DIII though, since I don’t have first-hand experience, but AFAIK it uses the same H.264 compression. Also can’t speak for the Vixia cams in comparison with DSLRs.

We shot a lot of projects with the T2i, the 7D and 5DII (even alongside to each other) and IMHO picture quality is absolutely comparable if not identical (exception: low-light). The crucial point is glass. If you have good lenses IMHO it doesn’t really matter which DSLR you use (Bokeh and DOF of the full-frame 5DII aside here, as well).

The problem with compositing is – as you wrote: You need a good codec.
H.264 in general is a bad codec for both: editing and compositing. H.264 with the Canons uses interframe compression with 4:2:0 colour-sampling, which means a lot of information is lost during compression. So you don’t have much picture information left to work with.

If you transcode your footage before editing into a more editing-friendly intraframe lossless codec like ProRes, DNxHD, Cineform, etc. you’d most definitly notice an increase in editing speed and maybe stability of your NLE. But you won’t notice any differences in quality, since transcoding won’t add anything. It simply interpolates the missing frames which helps with both – editing and compositing.
So I don’t think you’d get (much) better quality through updating your NLE. When I made the step from 32Bit Windows XP and Premiere CS3 to 64Bit Windows7 and Premiere CS5 it gave me much higher editing speed and the ability to work with the native footage, but no quality improvement (other than being able to render more filters like “Denoiser” etc. in less time…)

Just my two cents.

Edit: One more thing comparing composition: When working in After Effects, be sure to use 16Bit mode rather than 8Bit. This can (depending on your footage and project) increase quality quite dramatically.

Could you describe, what exactly it is, your disappointed with? What are the “quality critera” you’re missing from your DSLR footage. Maybe it’s just a matter of settings and (I can’t stress this enough) lenses…

——————————————
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.” – Buster Keaton

Me on Twitter (english/german)
https://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo

Tweets by FastFoodVideo

[Vic Noseworthy]

Peter,
Thank you so much for taking time to explain this. I didn’t know that all the Canon DSLRs used the same codec. As for other factors (specifically, lenses), I have a nice Canon EF 1:1.4 lens which I’ve been using almost exclusively (paid about $400 for it).
The quality issue(s) I speak of are in the final output quality (to DVD). FYI: I just got into shooting weddings.
For years, I have worked with what most refer to as “prosumer” camcorders. The Vixias are single-chip AVCHD cameras. The latest have really nice PRO sensors (only one CMOS sensor); still, they are truly amazing in low light, especially for a $700-800 camera.
I know these cameras cannot compare with, say, a 3-CCD professional camera. I thought about upgrading to one of these professional camcorders, but with all the talk about DSLRs, I decided to go that route. Plus, I absolutely love the control over DOF (I think no single factor does more to give a cinematic look than bokeh!)
Recently, I was at a wedding trade show, where I could observe my competition’s image quality as compared to mine (many competitors had their sample videos playing on, like, a 52-inch television). I’ve checked out the equipment used by most of the local wedding videographers and, almost invariably, they use professional 3-chip camcorders.
The image quality that I get with my single chip prosumer camcorders seems, to me, quite comparable to what I am getting from my T3i. In fact, as I mentioned in my original post, I was told that the cameras (T3i and Vixia) yield similar image quality. If this is true, why do I so often hear that DSLRs can be used for broadcast? Wouldn’t a 3-chip camcorder yield a “stronger” (more robust) image than a DSLR?
Here’s the difference that I see between my DSLR wedding videos and my competitors’ 3-chip camcorder wedding videos: On larger TV screens, their images are sharper and somehow look more solid than mine. By comparison, my image seems appears more jittery, whereas their image seems stable. (Think: a new VHS movie tape vs. a 5th generation copy)
As I mentioned, I do a lot composite editing. And, to tell the truth, I believe that if I stuck with simple “cuts” editing, my end product would look stronger. In essence, then, I believe it’s the compositing that is “dirtying up” my image. Yet, watch almost any TV show (eg. Entertainment Tonight) and compositing is all you see!
So, that’s why I’m wondering about where the weak link is in my workflow. Would I be better off to get a three-chip camcorder, thereby giving me a stronger image at the point of capture (i.e. one that would better hold up to the rigors of compositing)? Or, should I be thinking more about upgrading my editing codec, eg. from AIC to ProRes?
With reference to your comment that “transcoding won’t add anything”: From what I understand, AIC has less “color space” than, say, ProRes. Wouldn’t having less color space yield a more “deteriorated” composited image? (Again, think of the VHS analogy: a 5th generation copy made with high-end VCRs would likely look better than a 5th generation copy made with consumer VCRs)
I hope my question is clear enough. :^)
I really do not understand all the technology involved. I just want my picture quality to be at least as good as my competitors’.
Again, Thank You, Peter. Any additional thoughts/information/advice you can provide would be greatly appreciated.
Vic

[John Young]

I would bet the ACI codec is the culprit here. I haven’t had first hand experience with ACI, but a quick look at info on the codec shows that it looks like a fairly lossy codec. I would guess that ProRes (for Mac) or DNxHD (for PC) would yeild much better results. And they are free, so that would be the first thing I would do before investing money into another solution.

A couple of points:
-You cannot technically get “broadcast quality” from any DSLR, Canon or otherwise. The BBC for instance, has a minimum of 50mpbs recording bit-rate for cameras used on their broadcasts. No current DSLR can do that (unless the camera is hacked).
-3 chip cameras, 7 years ago considered the best for video quality, have really fallen out of favor in a lot of people’s minds. Three small (1/3″ or 1/2″) sensors still have that flat “video” look. Now people tend to go for one large sensor to get that more dynamic “film” look. And I would guess that is what your competitors are doing.
-The good news is that is what you have with your T3i, despite its limitations, it has a good large sensor. So you may be able to get what you want out of it. There are a lot of things that can go into getting “good quality” out of a DSLR. I would do some heavy research into lenses and ISO to see why you are not getting the “quality” you want out of your camera.

John

[Al Bergstein]

Vic, there are a lot of things going on with the notion of broadcast quality and also the issues you are seeing.

The quality between you and the ‘pros’ you talk about, could come down to stabilization, for example. Pros shooting weddings sometimes use gear to stabilize out their shots, and if you are shooting handheld, you are likely at a disadvantage.

Philip Bloom, Chase Garrett and Vincent Laforet are all top level shooters that primarily use HDSLRs and their work could easily be broadcast.

In my investigation into “broadcast quality” it’s more the nature of broadcaster than the actual capability of the equipment. PBS, for example, wants you to shoot with a camera that will hold up under broadcasting (loosely defined), but the BBC has specific requirements that are overseen by engineers who put the cameras through rigorous tests for the codec to hold up. Minimum rates of throughput seem to be close to 50 Mbps as opposed to low end 24 runs of standard HDSLRs using something like AVCHD. Could your T3i shoot something that gets broadcast? Sure. Would they ‘allow’ you if you asked? Probably not. But I’ve heard that some broadcasters around the world are less picky.

Go look at the work of Bloom, Garrett and Laforet. It’s about lighting, composition, tripod mounted and on the slider. Stable, high quality work. Great storytelling. Take your work to that level, and don’t worry about broadcast quality. You’ll get it by doing that. Some TV shooters have already done that, as documented here over the last few years with 5D shooters.

I for one, bought into the higher end cameras that are broadcast capable, because I am shooting right now a doc that I would like to see about getting broadcast, very unique Native American stuff, and I don’t want it dismissed out of hand by PBS and others. But I love the look I get from my 7D. At times, it is the equal to my higher end cameras, and sometimes, not. If I ran it through an external capture device, it likely would be.

Al

[Brent Dunn]

The 5D Mk II and Mk III have a full size sensor. The color can be pushed to a better dynamic range, giving you a better detailed image.
There is a significant difference between these two DSLR and the T1i, 60D or 7D.

You can upRes your edited content for a suitable codec that broadcast companies will accept.

Brent Dunn
Owner / Director / Editor
DunnRight Films
DunnRight Video.com
Video Marketing Toolbox.net

Sony EX-1,
Canon 5D Mark II
Canon 7D
Mac Pro Tower, Quad Core,
with Final Cut Studio

HP i7 Quad laptop
Adobe CS-5 Production Suite

[Vic Noseworthy]

Hi John,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. You mentioned that ProRes and DNxHD are free? What do you mean? In order to utilize ProRes, I would have to invest in Final Cut Pro, wouldn’t I? (Right now I am using FCE4, and that doesn’t work with ProRes).
Thanks,
Vic

[Vic Noseworthy]

Hi John,
Thanks for your thoughts on this. You mentioned that ProRes and DNxHD are free? What do you mean? In order to utilize ProRes, I would have to invest in Final Cut Pro, wouldn’t I? (Right now I am using FCE4, and that doesn’t work with ProRes).
Thanks,
Vic

[Pete Burger]

John, Brent and Al gave excellent advice on “broadcast quality”. I’d like to add just one tiny little thing: I really don’t believe that – for video – there’s such a huge differnce between the full frame cameras and the APC cameras concerning the picture quality. Of course there *is* a difference (DOF, low-light, quality…) but honestly, if you use your camera mainly for video, better invenst in gear, rather than a MkII or MkIII body… But that’s just my personal opinion. As written, I edited a lot of DSLR videos from all sorts of DSLRs (exception: MkIII), the difference I noticed was mainly low-light.. But enough of that! Why don’t you rent a MkII or MkIII and compare to your footage…

[Vic Noseworthy] ” I believe it’s the compositing that is “dirtying up” my image.

This might most definitly be the case. As written, the H.264 codec is a heavy compressing codec, so not much picture information left. Everything that cannot or just barely be seen in the original picture is thrown away by the codec (example: details in the shadows, …) If you’re doing intense post-production, colour-grading etc. those “weak spots” of the picture will get visible (excuse my english, I hope you get, what I mean).
Like a heavily compressed JPEG image: Do colour correction and artifacts will get visible.

The perfect solution for intense compositing of course would be to use not a DSLR but a camera with a better codec (especially codecs with 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4 colour subsapling and or 10bit) – or even a cam with a raw codec like the RED or Alexa. You’d have a lot more information left in the picture to play with. The problem is, these are mostly pro-cameras and they are … well … not very affordable.

[Vic Noseworthy] With reference to your comment that “transcoding won’t add anything”: From what I understand, AIC has less “color space” than, say, ProRes. Wouldn’t having less color space yield a more “deteriorated” composited image? (Again, think of the VHS analogy: a 5th generation copy made with high-end VCRs would likely look better than a 5th generation copy made with consumer VCRs)
I hope my question is clear enough. :^)”

Sorry, I don’t know too much about AIC, and I don’t know if transcoding to AIC will degrade the footage, so all I can say here is: ProRes (even ProRes LT) or DNxHD or Cineform are (more or less) lossless codecs. That means you don’t lose any picture information, but you won’t add any information either. So you can’t really compare to VHS copies.
Transcoding IMHO only makes sense now, if you can’t work natively on your NLE.

——————————————
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.” – Buster Keaton

Me on Twitter (english/german)
https://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo

Tweets by FastFoodVideo

[Vic Noseworthy]

Thank you, again, Peter. If I could… just one more question:
Since I’m shooting in AVCHD, would I be better off using Premiere (which can natively edit that codec), or using Final Cut Pro (and ProRes)?
Two things to bear in mind:
I am talking about Premiere Pro CS4 (not CS5 or 6), since my current MacBook Pro can only run CS4.
Also, I can get Premiere Pro for around a quarter the cost of FCP7.
The latter point is not the biggest issue. Not that I have barrels of money; rather, that I want to invest in something that will solve my problem instead of just “making do”.
Note: I’ve heard that, while Premiere Pro can, indeed, edit AVCHD, but that it can also introduce considerable stuttering unless one has a really powerful computer (I’m using a MacBook Pro 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo).
Any thoughts?
Thanks so much,
Vic

[Pete Burger]

[Vic Noseworthy] “Since I’m shooting in AVCHD, would I be better off using Premiere (which can natively edit that codec), or using Final Cut Pro (and ProRes)?” (…) “I’ve heard that, while Premiere Pro can, indeed, edit AVCHD, but that it can also introduce considerable stuttering unless one has a really powerful computer (I’m using a MacBook Pro 2.5 GHz Core 2 Duo).
Any thoughts?”

Don’t think, I’m the right guy to answer that since im “Windows only” 🙂 Had to edit on an iMac and FCP last week and it was a disaster. ;))

Sorry, can’t really compare Premiere with FCP.

On Windows, CS4 wasn’t too great for AVCHD if I remember correctly, haven’t tried it more than once though.
I’m quite sure that native editing of DSLR footage wasn’t really possible before CS5.

I absolutely don’t know if this is even remotely comparable, but I had Windows 7 64Bit on an Intel Core2Quad running for about one year and was able to edit natively with Premiere CS5 with no big issues. But the moment I threw some effects on the clips, it took ages to render previews.

I did a hardware update recently (Intel Core-i5), so AVCHD is of no issue now.

But concerning Mac hardware, some expert should chime in here.

——————————————
“Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot.” – Buster Keaton

Me on Twitter (english/german)
https://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo

Tweets by FastFoodVideo