But what I see is, that is has much more chromatic aberration in the green area than the Ursa. You can see it on the earring.But mybe it is the lens :) But overall the image looks better of the canon :)
@@MadMusicLine Its likely to come from the difference in Sensor stack, The less paralell the light falls on to the sensor the more this issue becomes aperent.
Its really an impressive visualisation of what ARRI enginiers have ben preaching for years, its not about the amount of pixels, it about the quality of pixels and how you process the data coming of the sensor. So even if your goal is to punch in on an Image, more resolution might sill be worse then slightly upscaling a more detailed image. Also Interesting is, how the aberrations on the earrings only apear on the R5, i think its because the sensorstack is more optimised for RF Lenses, wich have a shorter flanch distance and proberbly can achive a more paralell light beam to hit the sensor. I dont think ELM or almost anyone else should really keep or buy the URSA 12k. It really sets prioritys in wierd places. Was anyone really asking for a 12k camera? I think a Full frame 6k Ursa with dual Base Gain and better noise perfomance would have been more apeeling for most customers. I only see purpose for high resolution video, in VFX heavy productions, or Controlled Studio Environments like Tabletop. But those guys all already use RED cameras for good reason. But then again what do i know, im just some guy commenting on a comment on a youtube Video...
Thanks for this Armando and @Epic Light Media! The differences in color are interesting. The Ursa looks rather more magenta than the Canon which matches my experience with the Ursa Mini Pro as well. And those specular highlights on the forehead - really useful to see the differences there. Really nice comparison!
Lol, I saw the opposite! I didn't think the Ursa looked magenta, I thought the Cannon looked greenish/blue?! However, we all have different monitors and our color settings are likely different!
@@danielmerkley4543 That is definitely the challenge on the web and everyone with a different monitor, most of which are not calibrated. I shot with an Ursa Mini Pro for about 2 years and found that the image from my copy of the UMP definitely tended magenta (both on scopes and Flanders Scientific DM240 grading monitor). Strangely, my brother also has one and shooting in the exact same lighting, same lens, his was far less magenta. But I haven't experienced the magenta tendencies on the Pocket 4K or 6K, at least not the copies I have here. Strange.
@@danielmerkley4543 The color does look more magenta. You can see the IR pollution clearly at around the 9:05 mark of the video. The face, shirt, dog's mane, etc are all impacted by it.
It's kinda hard to tell the difference of resolution if you add sharpening to the 12 k footage, also, when it comes to 12k, the sharpness of the lens is a big factor, I know the sharpest sony lenses are meant for up to 100megapixels, and 12k is 80megapixels so the lens you used might not be sharp enough to take full advantage of the 12k sensor.
The other thing to take note of, the power of braw can't be understated. It completely transforms a workflow in post from something painful to something smooth and effortless. Both in playback speeds to color and even in raw adjustments like white balance and ISO.
Exactly. Too Many people are using final cut and premier to edit it instead of using resolved which really just bring dad a whole Other level in that post processing workflow
No joke Armando, I feel like you've REALLY stepped up your videos in the past year or so. What I mean by that is, there are TH-camrs who get a camera, review it and make a video. While technical deep dives are needed and appreciated, those TH-camrs are a dime a dozen. Seeing videos of someone who's working with the gear in real-world settings, on actual productions and then bringing what you've learned to TH-cam is a breath of fresh air in a garbage dumpster of content creators.
I think it depends on the shoot. for outdoors I know a lot of people get that brown looking footage with the blackmagic cameras (although that is mainly due to them not using "ir cut" filters)
@@legendp2011 This is absolutely due to lack of IR CUT filters. It's shocking that people use these cameras and don't realise an IR CUT filter is essential in natural light. And ideally some kind of OLPF filter also. Otherwise moire and IR pollution will ruin your footage.
@@GarethStack after shooting features on this cameras and having 2nd unit shoot without one day, i can COMPLETELY attest that an IR filter is 100% needed. really they need to start including ir on the camera.
right the c500Mk2 is so damn expensive, and lets not forget the r5 fails after 29.59 minutes of recording if you need it continuous. glad there is a cameras for everyone's needs
Best 12k review I've seen. Obviously BM has some development issues they have to work out, but from past experience it's kind of amazing how much improvement they can get from firmware. Only nitpick is correction should have happened through a color chart. I get the reason not to, but if your going to spend $10K-$16 on a camera body - you're likely not going to just slap a generic conversion LUT and go on your way. Lastly, worth mentioning how easy it is to fix that highlight roll off, but in the RAW panel there is a slider just for that - not sure if that was touched at all in this video, but it's there.
Blackmagic color is rick. canon color is flat. blackmagic is reder and canon is greener. The compaint about "color WB is different" is true. even set same K degree WB cross brand is different, even with R5 vs R6 is different. Only way to know which one is right, use color checker like Undone. With Braw you can adjust easyly zero img damange. RAW in C500 MKII is the same too I think prores RAW is supported now
I love black magic. I’m definitely a fan boy for them 😂 However, that c500 mk2 looks stupid good! Both look really good! Also you always kill that color grade bro!
@@mondobytes wanna hear your thoughts armando on these two things: 1. canon cinema line is rocking and practical too. can't wait for you to use the canon c70 with the speedbooster. imagine how insane is that. but still canon has better skin tone than ursa in your footage 2. man you need to have a really master level lens if you don't want those 12k pixel to destroy your lens.
They different ways that the camera processes the information from the sensor may be the reason for it. If they shot in RAW then it shouldn’t have mattered, but I can’t remember if they did or not
Pixel peeping on a 4K monitor, the URSA 12K almost looks like someone jacked up the sharpness slider on some 6K footage. It has an over sharpened digital feel. I think the clear winner here is the C500 MarkII, the footage from that camera is just beautiful.
BRAVO, what a great review. I'm so impressed with all of them but I think the Ursa 12k has an edge. I liked the image a fraction better than the others. Can't wait for future content!
Watching a review for cameras I can't get. But it's always good to know such useful informations in this video to help influence decisions for buying cameras in the future
Canon is applying sharpening by default into the RAW footage settings. I've tested the C300 mk III and it was the first feature I was curious about - XF-AVC Intra was way softer compared to RAW images. In resolve the default sharpening was set to 10 in the raw tab, while setting it to 0 made the image look the same as XF-AVC Intra. It does seem like a small marketing trick to make the RAW footage stand-out.
Both cameras are really amazing considering what we had only a few years ago.. That said I really prefer the color of skin on the URSA it just looks more filmic, but the C500 MKII may only need some color correction tweaks. The R5 definitely is sharp and low noise but it has a more videoish look, too bad you didn't also compare the Panasonic H1S in 6K. I would like to see that. My choice in a fast production turnaround, however, would probably be a C300MKiii / C500MKii or the Sony FX9 depending on the type of shots needed.
Kinda comes down to workflow, tbh. Blackmagic Cameras + BRAW + DaVinci Resolve = absurdly good results. Obviously you can shoot great stuff on Canon gear (heck, you can shoot great stuff on an iPhone), but there just doesn't seem to be a realistic justification for paying $16,000 for that camera given the alternatives (unless you are already HEAVILY invested in the Canon ecosystem or have an incredibly specific use case). Especially when you start looking at postproduction. That said, the 12k also clearly needs some firmware updates, as is to be expected with any new piece of gear like this. But you could get a G2 and two BMPCC 6ks for about the price of one 12k. When you consider how much that opens up your possibilities on a shoot, it's just hard to recommend spending that money on one capable camera over 3.
I like the URSA better in almost all the shots. I work in a studio. It is important to consider what it looks like by the time it has been compressed by TH-cam and other streaming services.
For me the EOS is the winner. The chromatic aberration on specular highlights was odd, but the gamut balance between channels is much better. My monitoring is only 4K. Great job guys.
I think for me the biggest difference is the fact that the Ursa 12k retails for $6,000 USD, while the C500 mk.ii costs $16,000 USD. I do think the image of the C500 mk.ii is nicer; but for 3x the price... it better be.
Lowest common denominator comparisons are being made here when matching grades, it lowers the ceiling on every camera that isn't the "worst". Plus coloring in Davinci is basically half the reason you'd get a BlackMagic camera and the only way you'd be able to take full advantage of it. It's like testing the "sport" version of a car without using any of the sport features considering how much post-production has to do with the value of cameras these days.
are you doing the downscaling in camera, in Resolve or in Pr? The method matters. I blame Pr for a lot of stuff, including how color is done. the sensor is made for a bRAW pipeline and that means Resolve. It looks like the 12K breaks in DR at some points. Early adopter issues with BMD cameras, rather common. Updates seem to be happening tho. smaller pixels = more noise. That is photon statistics and there is no way around it. Phones use a lot of processing on the images, BMD uses barely any. This also means you need more sophisticated denoising methods in post that work different to already available methods (Resovle NR, Neat Video; others should eventually be developped.). Same with sharpness, but that is just the low level approach of BMD in their cameras that allow them to get such datarates.
I stoped the video right after i saw the guy from epicligthmedia ¨grading¨the footage in PP , the ursa 12k comes with a license for resolve studio, there's no excuses, also grading the footage ruins the purpose of these tests, record all the footage in Log and then just do a simple CST from log to rec709
What interests me is that a lot of people in this comment section prefer the look of the c500, and a lot of people prefer the Blackmagic. That tells me that it's ultimately just subjective; and, hey, which look is "better" also depends on what your particular project is, and what you're aiming at. I think it's objective to say, though, that, regardless of which look you like, the Canon does produce flatter colours. The light on the hair is more golden for the Ursa, for instance. Now, this difference might partly be down to grading. I don't know. But I've always had issues making Canon Log footage saturated. In terms of most other features, apart from resolution and sheer preferred look, I think the c500 wins. Autofocus, stabilisation, weight (2.55kg for the Ursa vs 1.77kg for the Canon), recording options (not restricted to raw workflow), low light. Slow motion -- Ursa basically wins, but then there's aspect ratio or sensor crop trade-offs. In terms of cost, an Ursa body is 2/3 the price of a c500 ii body, but I don't know who ultimately wins if you factor in media cost, battery cost, and the cost of rigging them out equivalently. That said, one perhaps underappeciated point of comparison is that, at max data rate, the c500 produces 2.1Gbps, while the Ursa produces 578 MB/s. So, even though you're shooting 12K, you're producing about a quarter of the data. I suppose that's the real price of full frame.
Another very interesting video! Thanks Armando and Epic light folks, keep up with the useful content that inspires and helps us all learn more and more. 🙏
There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolutions... At some point, clients can tell the difference. No need spending more money on resolutions that are all viewed on 4k and 5k monitors.
wow 3:27 3x Zoom - the answer. to me it was like looking at the difference btwn a Bluray and a DVD. Both nice, but really no comparing the visual superiority of the higher bits. But, just a few mins before when looking at both zoomed out - i thought, one couldn't go wrong with either. Both beautiful. But once zoomed in, for me it was night and day with the clear winner being the 12K dowscaled by far. But overall, by the end of video presentation, i was convinced simply that all 3 cameras would offer exceptional image, and if not compared side by side, the client would in most cases be 100% satisified.
I am watching in an 8K TV. I can see the difference. I can see the difference even on my 1080p laptop. My phone is limited to 720p youtube playback, they all look similar.
3 ปีที่แล้ว
Canon C500 MKII, a7siii and fx6 are somehow the only cameras i am interested in right now ... many other options simply solve no problems for my workflow or are made for simply usecases ... but the other way around there are soooo incredible cameras out there it is hard to make an actually bad choice. Everytime i think "i would never buy this camera, this feature sucks" and so on, i see somebody that has actually bought that and made fantastic content with it ... i think it is just a personal think, how you are used to work, what features matter to you and so on ...
The green color fringing on the r5 looks like it's due to the earing being out of focus slightly because of the shallower depth of field on the full-frame sensor. It's just longitudinal chromatic aberration which is common in slightly out-of-focus locations on many fast lenses. It is quite distracting, but it's not an issue of the camera at all. While the Ursa 12k is still a fairly large sensor, 1.3x crop, you can still see that the earring is in perfect focus along with the rest of her face. This being said, the very minor difference in depth of field between the two causes the longitudinal chromatic aberration to really go crazy on the ever so slightly blurred earring. Not trying to be a keyboard warrior at all I just thought I'd provide an explanation in defense of the mighty R5. It may overheat like mad for long shoots in 8k....but it doesn't cause optical imperfections! Other than that, great video, makes me happy with my R5 considering it's a fraction of the Ursa 12k's cost!
I really can't feel confident in this comparison due to the divergent coloring pipelines/workflows. We are trying to compare images @ 200/400% for sharpness when one has been denoised and sharpened in a different facility by a different person with a different monitor?
From 3.15-3.45 the difference in skintones (Highlights RollOff on the face) , as well as in resolution is EXTREME , in favour of URSA 12K. (In my 42inches 4K monitor was to be expected , yet being THAT obvious in my 6inches youtube cellphone screen , is quite remarkable !!!!) Yet you seem to diminish the actual extend of such difference. Thank you for ALL your information you provide , as well as your effort to test the cameras.
PLEASE do a proper thorough review of the Canon XF605. I can only find either repetitions of the specs or Canon's promo footage, or poorly shot clips from vloggers who do not understand cameras. I have an XF605 on pre-order and am dying to find out how it performs. I understand that a 1" sensor is not going to be as good as a super 35 shooting at 8k! That's fine, but how does it stack up for use in ENG, especially compared to the likes of Sony and Panasonic as well as prosumer APS-C mirrorless, such as Fujifilm X-T4.
I remember when 1080p was being rolled out and all the video's were telling us how great it was. We even had Gareth Edwards (God Zilla & Star Wars Rougue One) telling us that was all would ever need as 1080p was cinema quality. Now we're being told we can't live without 4K, 6K, 8K and 12K. Do we get the message yet that it's all just a never ending sales pitch. 1080p is good enough and 4K is good enough to shoot and edit with. In truth 3K is probably good enough for reframing and post stabilization when required. I reckon I'd rather spend some of that processing power on other features like All-i and a standardized version of RAW-Light like the Black Magic BRAW codec. Something that offers more flexibility in post for grading and something easier to edit without having to transcode.
Umm because they chose 12:1 compression instead of 5:1 which is minimum compression at 12K. They have crippled the camera themselves. He's obviously biased towards C500.
I absolutely love my R5 and C300 mk III. If it was your choice, would you get a second c300m3 or a c500 mk II? Getting a second c300 would leave more room for lenses or gear. So many videos have given me the idea that it is better than the c500 in some areas.
@@mondobytes I run a non-profit right now that mentor's youth how to create their own documentary films. Right now I'm making a feature about black migrants in Mexico (Tijuana & Tapachula, so both of Mexico's borders). What are the chances of making a video comparing the c300m3? I love you videos and keep up with them all!
@@nathanieldennison4272 that’s great! Even more reasons to get the C70 as it’s more attainable. Not sure I’ll do a C300 MKIII video mainly because it’s a camera that doesn’t interest me. I just don’t think it’s worth the price, honestly Canon should have priced it at $7000 or less. It should have been the C200 MKII. I feel the older C300 MKII is a better buy.
I use the c70 for my studio stuff on my channel, Power of Drew, and then an a7s3 for my run-n-gun 120p slowmo stuff... and I been thinking of picking up two extra cameras, first an EOS R5, to swap out the a7s3 and then a Red Komodo, which then would leave me with the c70, Komodo, and R5... thus, all would be EF/RF lenses. And stuff. I think this is a good way to go. What are you thoughts about the a7s3 and the R5, if you are going to be using a RED and already use a c70? Would you trade an a7s3 for the R5?
The 12K looked sharper when you were saying that the Canon looked sharper. So, I'll attribute that to your preference for Canon. At 5:06, the 12K was definitely sharper.
@@mondobytes It would have been better to see it without sharpening. Everything done in post makes the test iffy. As we've suggested: shooting the scenes with a macbeth chart and using an auto-LUT generator, without more tweaks, would be a more fair test. Using different pre-fabbed LUTs designed for different cameras skews the test. It is better to create an auto-generated LUT for each camera in the different shooting environments.
Very nice comparison video. But what's really sad is that when you don't see 2 footages side-by-side and whatever you shot is being displayed on TH-cam you really can't tell any difference between any of these cameras. It all looks good. We're talking splitting hairs. I think what's important with all these modern cameras is the price, ease of use and portability
Weird. I thought youtube usually pushed videos that are matched to your monitor resolution. Was surprised to see auto 8k for my 4k panel. Also like the guy said the canon cameras are pretty dope for their prices against the 12k res beast.
Also the 500MKII has color fringing everywhere and loses details on faces somehow, while also changing skin colors and losing color on reflections, yellow lights look white.
Great videos! Both the video from Epic Light Media and Armando's are interesting and well done comparison tests. This because they went behind the technical stuff and analyze what happens in a real shooting scenario. Thanks guys. Only One question: is it only me, or is really there a magenta shift in the blacks in the URSA 12K footage? I noticed much in the clips starting at 09:04. Thanks
Wow URSA 12K footage lookes more cinematic with better color than Canon *except for the silly image issues*. used to be the other way around but Blackmagic is getting good
12K is just too far, particularly for a non FF sensor. However, disregarding the noise issues in some out of focus backgrounds, I liked it’s cinematic look. Don’t like the shadow roll off on the Canon’s. The shadow’s on the ladies arms aren’t nice, particularly on the dark haired lady outside. The elbow joint shadow looks like a bruise! Always had that problem on my 5D4.
That's a combination of choice of lens and compression and (sometimes) LUT. We've run into that on our ACES shows. The combo needs to be tested. An entire 2 hour feature landed in our lap with that fringe problem. It was mitigated by changing to an ARRI LUT (even though it wasn't shot that way) but not completely removed.
Because it’s faster, all my stuff is web delivery and Premiere’s tools work just fine. Davinci is great for color grading but for editing Premiere is still better
I think this is a good example as to why certain high resolutions should be use case only and that you should choose a camera more for the look of the sensor at whatever resolution " 4k and above in 2021 ofc although HD is still fine for many web streaming and online content applications " Time for camera manufacturers not to wear the pixel count as a badge of honor and simply let the images be as good as they can be " all subjective ofc " Dynamic range and Camera ergonomics are the main factors with Codec and Post Processing speed being a close 2nd as far as what I look for in a camera. Resolutions above 4k do not make a camera more attractive to me. But others may obviously differ.
The C500 II really is an amazing camera. I want one now...
Do I subscribe??
I'm not going to help Canon further... I'm tired of them to cripple their 'DSLR' to promote their more expensive C serie.
But what I see is, that is has much more chromatic aberration in the green area than the Ursa. You can see it on the earring.But mybe it is the lens :) But overall the image looks better of the canon :)
@@MadMusicLine Its likely to come from the difference in Sensor stack, The less paralell the light falls on to the sensor the more this issue becomes aperent.
Its really an impressive visualisation of what ARRI enginiers have ben preaching for years, its not about the amount of pixels, it about the quality of pixels and how you process the data coming of the sensor. So even if your goal is to punch in on an Image, more resolution might sill be worse then slightly upscaling a more detailed image. Also Interesting is, how the aberrations on the earrings only apear on the R5, i think its because the sensorstack is more optimised for RF Lenses, wich have a shorter flanch distance and proberbly can achive a more paralell light beam to hit the sensor. I dont think ELM or almost anyone else should really keep or buy the URSA 12k. It really sets prioritys in wierd places. Was anyone really asking for a 12k camera? I think a Full frame 6k Ursa with dual Base Gain and better noise perfomance would have been more apeeling for most customers. I only see purpose for high resolution video, in VFX heavy productions, or Controlled Studio Environments like Tabletop. But those guys all already use RED cameras for good reason. But then again what do i know, im just some guy commenting on a comment on a youtube Video...
Thanks for this Armando and @Epic Light Media! The differences in color are interesting. The Ursa looks rather more magenta than the Canon which matches my experience with the Ursa Mini Pro as well. And those specular highlights on the forehead - really useful to see the differences there. Really nice comparison!
Thanks for stopping by Curtis 👊🏽
Lol, I saw the opposite! I didn't think the Ursa looked magenta, I thought the Cannon looked greenish/blue?! However, we all have different monitors and our color settings are likely different!
@@danielmerkley4543 That is definitely the challenge on the web and everyone with a different monitor, most of which are not calibrated. I shot with an Ursa Mini Pro for about 2 years and found that the image from my copy of the UMP definitely tended magenta (both on scopes and Flanders Scientific DM240 grading monitor). Strangely, my brother also has one and shooting in the exact same lighting, same lens, his was far less magenta. But I haven't experienced the magenta tendencies on the Pocket 4K or 6K, at least not the copies I have here. Strange.
@@danielmerkley4543 The color does look more magenta. You can see the IR pollution clearly at around the 9:05 mark of the video. The face, shirt, dog's mane, etc are all impacted by it.
@@mmlewis1030 The same I noticed
It's kinda hard to tell the difference of resolution if you add sharpening to the 12 k footage, also, when it comes to 12k, the sharpness of the lens is a big factor, I know the sharpest sony lenses are meant for up to 100megapixels, and 12k is 80megapixels so the lens you used might not be sharp enough to take full advantage of the 12k sensor.
Came back and watched again. Blown away at the C500 honestly. For me, it's very filmic and just looks like a good movie.
Me watching this in a small cellphone 1080p display.
I can't tell the difference between anything
oof.
The other thing to take note of, the power of braw can't be understated. It completely transforms a workflow in post from something painful to something smooth and effortless. Both in playback speeds to color and even in raw adjustments like white balance and ISO.
Exactly. Too Many people are using final cut and premier to edit it instead of using resolved which really just bring dad a whole Other level in that post processing workflow
I like my details so...
No joke Armando, I feel like you've REALLY stepped up your videos in the past year or so. What I mean by that is, there are TH-camrs who get a camera, review it and make a video. While technical deep dives are needed and appreciated, those TH-camrs are a dime a dozen.
Seeing videos of someone who's working with the gear in real-world settings, on actual productions and then bringing what you've learned to TH-cam is a breath of fresh air in a garbage dumpster of content creators.
Honestly, I like the overall look of the Ursa far more than the Canon cameras.
I think it depends on the shoot. for outdoors I know a lot of people get that brown looking footage with the blackmagic cameras (although that is mainly due to them not using "ir cut" filters)
@@legendp2011 This is absolutely due to lack of IR CUT filters. It's shocking that people use these cameras and don't realise an IR CUT filter is essential in natural light. And ideally some kind of OLPF filter also. Otherwise moire and IR pollution will ruin your footage.
Me too. Blackmagic fan
@@GarethStack after shooting features on this cameras and having 2nd unit shoot without one day, i can COMPLETELY attest that an IR filter is 100% needed. really they need to start including ir on the camera.
The only difference between those two footages are literally the money from your pockets being spent👀😂
right the c500Mk2 is so damn expensive, and lets not forget the r5 fails after 29.59 minutes of recording if you need it continuous. glad there is a cameras for everyone's needs
Best 12k review I've seen. Obviously BM has some development issues they have to work out, but from past experience it's kind of amazing how much improvement they can get from firmware. Only nitpick is correction should have happened through a color chart. I get the reason not to, but if your going to spend $10K-$16 on a camera body - you're likely not going to just slap a generic conversion LUT and go on your way. Lastly, worth mentioning how easy it is to fix that highlight roll off, but in the RAW panel there is a slider just for that - not sure if that was touched at all in this video, but it's there.
I'm hyped up to see how the Canon C70 stacks up to some of the newer releases as well.
I really appreciate how much Hard work you do to help others to let them know what camera to go for
Blackmagic color is rick. canon color is flat. blackmagic is reder and canon is greener. The compaint about "color WB is different" is true. even set same K degree WB cross brand is different, even with R5 vs R6 is different. Only way to know which one is right, use color checker like Undone. With Braw you can adjust easyly zero img damange. RAW in C500 MKII is the same too I think prores RAW is supported now
Undone, love him, great guy and I enjoy his technical reviews but I have not actually seen any of his video work. Does it exist?
I love black magic. I’m definitely a fan boy for them 😂
However, that c500 mk2 looks stupid good!
Both look really good!
Also you always kill that color grade bro!
The company is called "Blackmagic", not black magic.
W. W. Haha damn auto correct
@@w.w.7148 like Voodoo and voo doo?
i'm here from epic light media. i don't know why i do not get notifications from you armando.
Because TH-cam sucks 🤣
@@mondobytes wanna hear your thoughts armando on these two things:
1. canon cinema line is rocking and practical too. can't wait for you to use the canon c70 with the speedbooster. imagine how insane is that. but still canon has better skin tone than ursa in your footage
2. man you need to have a really master level lens if you don't want those 12k pixel to destroy your lens.
Obviously, I wasn't there but there shouldn't be the sharpness difference. Perhaps it is from post?
They different ways that the camera processes the information from the sensor may be the reason for it. If they shot in RAW then it shouldn’t have mattered, but I can’t remember if they did or not
Canon default RAW sharpness setting is set to 10, which results in a highly sharpened image.
Pixel peeping on a 4K monitor, the URSA 12K almost looks like someone jacked up the sharpness slider on some 6K footage. It has an over sharpened digital feel. I think the clear winner here is the C500 MarkII, the footage from that camera is just beautiful.
BRAVO, what a great review. I'm so impressed with all of them but I think the Ursa 12k has an edge. I liked the image a fraction better than the others. Can't wait for future content!
Watching a review for cameras I can't get.
But it's always good to know such useful informations in this video to help influence decisions for buying cameras in the future
Canon is applying sharpening by default into the RAW footage settings. I've tested the C300 mk III and it was the first feature I was curious about - XF-AVC Intra was way softer compared to RAW images. In resolve the default sharpening was set to 10 in the raw tab, while setting it to 0 made the image look the same as XF-AVC Intra. It does seem like a small marketing trick to make the RAW footage stand-out.
Both cameras are really amazing considering what we had only a few years ago.. That said I really prefer the color of skin on the URSA it just looks more filmic, but the C500 MKII may only need some color correction tweaks. The R5 definitely is sharp and low noise but it has a more videoish look, too bad you didn't also compare the Panasonic H1S in 6K. I would like to see that. My choice in a fast production turnaround, however, would probably be a C300MKiii / C500MKii or the Sony FX9 depending on the type of shots needed.
Everyone says "filmic" but I think people forgot what film looks like. Ursa doesnt look filmic at all.
Kinda comes down to workflow, tbh. Blackmagic Cameras + BRAW + DaVinci Resolve = absurdly good results. Obviously you can shoot great stuff on Canon gear (heck, you can shoot great stuff on an iPhone), but there just doesn't seem to be a realistic justification for paying $16,000 for that camera given the alternatives (unless you are already HEAVILY invested in the Canon ecosystem or have an incredibly specific use case). Especially when you start looking at postproduction. That said, the 12k also clearly needs some firmware updates, as is to be expected with any new piece of gear like this. But you could get a G2 and two BMPCC 6ks for about the price of one 12k. When you consider how much that opens up your possibilities on a shoot, it's just hard to recommend spending that money on one capable camera over 3.
That C500 color and dof though... gets me every time.
The r5 footage looks amazing
I like the URSA better in almost all the shots. I work in a studio. It is important to consider what it looks like by the time it has been compressed by TH-cam and other streaming services.
Yeah, that moiré on the Ursa footage is rocking. Imagine seeing that at the cinema on the big screen.
@CYVstudio moiré - just HORRIBLE
We edit in Resolve but shoot on Canon. Loving the comparison video. Komodo comparison next? ;)
-Jason
For me the EOS is the winner. The chromatic aberration on specular highlights was odd, but the gamut balance between channels is much better. My monitoring is only 4K. Great job guys.
C500 Colors are pleasing and looks great
Your video are always DOPE Armando. Well done as always
I think for me the biggest difference is the fact that the Ursa 12k retails for $6,000 USD, while the C500 mk.ii costs $16,000 USD. I do think the image of the C500 mk.ii is nicer; but for 3x the price... it better be.
overalll the c500 looks better than ursa, much more pleasing to the eye
yes! I dunno why this happens but that's true
yes in post (premiere whit ursa ahahah) you can go where the advertise want !
the canon sensors are closer to the skin tone rendering of an alexa.
but, you probably didn't watch on a 8k monitor, probably 4k or 1440p.
Watching in 144p .... Good quality 👍🏻
Lowest common denominator comparisons are being made here when matching grades, it lowers the ceiling on every camera that isn't the "worst". Plus coloring in Davinci is basically half the reason you'd get a BlackMagic camera and the only way you'd be able to take full advantage of it. It's like testing the "sport" version of a car without using any of the sport features considering how much post-production has to do with the value of cameras these days.
are you doing the downscaling in camera, in Resolve or in Pr? The method matters. I blame Pr for a lot of stuff, including how color is done. the sensor is made for a bRAW pipeline and that means Resolve.
It looks like the 12K breaks in DR at some points. Early adopter issues with BMD cameras, rather common. Updates seem to be happening tho.
smaller pixels = more noise. That is photon statistics and there is no way around it. Phones use a lot of processing on the images, BMD uses barely any. This also means you need more sophisticated denoising methods in post that work different to already available methods (Resovle NR, Neat Video; others should eventually be developped.). Same with sharpness, but that is just the low level approach of BMD in their cameras that allow them to get such datarates.
I stoped the video right after i saw the guy from epicligthmedia ¨grading¨the footage in PP , the ursa 12k comes with a license for resolve studio, there's no excuses, also grading the footage ruins the purpose of these tests, record all the footage in Log and then just do a simple CST from log to rec709
What interests me is that a lot of people in this comment section prefer the look of the c500, and a lot of people prefer the Blackmagic. That tells me that it's ultimately just subjective; and, hey, which look is "better" also depends on what your particular project is, and what you're aiming at.
I think it's objective to say, though, that, regardless of which look you like, the Canon does produce flatter colours. The light on the hair is more golden for the Ursa, for instance. Now, this difference might partly be down to grading. I don't know. But I've always had issues making Canon Log footage saturated.
In terms of most other features, apart from resolution and sheer preferred look, I think the c500 wins. Autofocus, stabilisation, weight (2.55kg for the Ursa vs 1.77kg for the Canon), recording options (not restricted to raw workflow), low light.
Slow motion -- Ursa basically wins, but then there's aspect ratio or sensor crop trade-offs.
In terms of cost, an Ursa body is 2/3 the price of a c500 ii body, but I don't know who ultimately wins if you factor in media cost, battery cost, and the cost of rigging them out equivalently. That said, one perhaps underappeciated point of comparison is that, at max data rate, the c500 produces 2.1Gbps, while the Ursa produces 578 MB/s. So, even though you're shooting 12K, you're producing about a quarter of the data. I suppose that's the real price of full frame.
Another very interesting video! Thanks Armando and Epic light folks, keep up with the useful content that inspires and helps us all learn more and more. 🙏
Great video thanks Armando! That R5 footage looks dope...
I felt that the footage from the EROS looked better with natural colours and more details 🔥👌
8:19 - Golden nugget find. Must record in lower compression on the URSA12K for better quality!
RAWLITE ... hopefully, will make OLPF for the 12K that allows for the PL mount.
There is a point of diminishing returns when it comes to resolutions... At some point, clients can tell the difference. No need spending more money on resolutions that are all viewed on 4k and 5k monitors.
wow 3:27 3x Zoom - the answer.
to me it was like looking at the difference btwn a Bluray and a DVD. Both nice, but really no comparing the visual superiority of the higher bits.
But, just a few mins before when looking at both zoomed out - i thought, one couldn't go wrong with either. Both beautiful. But once zoomed in, for me it was night and day with the clear winner being the 12K dowscaled by far.
But overall, by the end of video presentation, i was convinced simply that all 3 cameras would offer exceptional image, and if not compared side by side, the client would in most cases be 100% satisified.
I am watching in an 8K TV. I can see the difference. I can see the difference even on my 1080p laptop. My phone is limited to 720p youtube playback, they all look similar.
Canon C500 MKII, a7siii and fx6 are somehow the only cameras i am interested in right now ... many other options simply solve no problems for my workflow or are made for simply usecases ... but the other way around there are soooo incredible cameras out there it is hard to make an actually bad choice. Everytime i think "i would never buy this camera, this feature sucks" and so on, i see somebody that has actually bought that and made fantastic content with it ... i think it is just a personal think, how you are used to work, what features matter to you and so on ...
The green color fringing on the r5 looks like it's due to the earing being out of focus slightly because of the shallower depth of field on the full-frame sensor. It's just longitudinal chromatic aberration which is common in slightly out-of-focus locations on many fast lenses. It is quite distracting, but it's not an issue of the camera at all. While the Ursa 12k is still a fairly large sensor, 1.3x crop, you can still see that the earring is in perfect focus along with the rest of her face. This being said, the very minor difference in depth of field between the two causes the longitudinal chromatic aberration to really go crazy on the ever so slightly blurred earring. Not trying to be a keyboard warrior at all I just thought I'd provide an explanation in defense of the mighty R5.
It may overheat like mad for long shoots in 8k....but it doesn't cause optical imperfections!
Other than that, great video, makes me happy with my R5 considering it's a fraction of the Ursa 12k's cost!
Was distance to subject the same for all the cameras? to my eye the subject appears thinner on the c500II.....Much more flattering than the URSA.
Great video Armando as always ! Thanks
I really can't feel confident in this comparison due to the divergent coloring pipelines/workflows. We are trying to compare images @ 200/400% for sharpness when one has been denoised and sharpened in a different facility by a different person with a different monitor?
From 3.15-3.45 the difference in skintones (Highlights RollOff on the face) , as well as in resolution is EXTREME , in favour of URSA 12K.
(In my 42inches 4K monitor was to be expected , yet being THAT obvious in my 6inches youtube cellphone screen , is quite remarkable !!!!)
Yet you seem to diminish the actual extend of such difference.
Thank you for ALL your information you provide , as well as your effort to test the cameras.
Oh nonono Nono... epic light Medea is becoming famous...
PLEASE do a proper thorough review of the Canon XF605. I can only find either repetitions of the specs or Canon's promo footage, or poorly shot clips from vloggers who do not understand cameras. I have an XF605 on pre-order and am dying to find out how it performs. I understand that a 1" sensor is not going to be as good as a super 35 shooting at 8k! That's fine, but how does it stack up for use in ENG, especially compared to the likes of Sony and Panasonic as well as prosumer APS-C mirrorless, such as Fujifilm X-T4.
That was really impressive. Great video.
“Unfortunately TH-cam only supports Uploading 8K video at the time of this recording”. 😂😂😂😂
the color results of blackmagic RAW files are completely different using Davinci Resolve comparing to Premiere
Great stuff again! Thank you for putting this out there!
That's why I love CANON ❤️ great review sir Armando. Thanks for sharing!
Beautiful.. good content as always. I owe you a cup of coffee ☕️
What is your opinion on low light handling on the 500 mkII? What ISO would *you* rate each camera?
I remember when 1080p was being rolled out and all the video's were telling us how great it was. We even had Gareth Edwards (God Zilla & Star Wars Rougue One) telling us that was all would ever need as 1080p was cinema quality. Now we're being told we can't live without 4K, 6K, 8K and 12K. Do we get the message yet that it's all just a never ending sales pitch. 1080p is good enough and 4K is good enough to shoot and edit with. In truth 3K is probably good enough for reframing and post stabilization when required. I reckon I'd rather spend some of that processing power on other features like All-i and a standardized version of RAW-Light like the Black Magic BRAW codec. Something that offers more flexibility in post for grading and something easier to edit without having to transcode.
Why you compare a Super35 with Full frame camera? I noticed Canon R3 & R5 have inaccurate color, especially on green.
Holy smokes. The R5 absolutely blows me away
I feel braw has a lot of image compression artifacts and magenta going on the footage, which looks not natural compared to canon raw
Umm because they chose 12:1 compression instead of 5:1 which is minimum compression at 12K. They have crippled the camera themselves. He's obviously biased towards C500.
I absolutely love my R5 and C300 mk III. If it was your choice, would you get a second c300m3 or a c500 mk II? Getting a second c300 would leave more room for lenses or gear. So many videos have given me the idea that it is better than the c500 in some areas.
Check out my C500 MKII Review 😉 I’d get a C500 MKII with the C70 I feel the C300 MKIII is a tough sale.
@@mondobytes I run a non-profit right now that mentor's youth how to create their own documentary films. Right now I'm making a feature about black migrants in Mexico (Tijuana & Tapachula, so both of Mexico's borders). What are the chances of making a video comparing the c300m3? I love you videos and keep up with them all!
@@nathanieldennison4272 that’s great! Even more reasons to get the C70 as it’s more attainable. Not sure I’ll do a C300 MKIII video mainly because it’s a camera that doesn’t interest me. I just don’t think it’s worth the price, honestly Canon should have priced it at $7000 or less. It should have been the C200 MKII. I feel the older C300 MKII is a better buy.
The only real way to watch these kind of videos is on an 8k TV to really see the comparison. But great video
I use the c70 for my studio stuff on my channel, Power of Drew, and then an a7s3 for my run-n-gun 120p slowmo stuff... and I been thinking of picking up two extra cameras, first an EOS R5, to swap out the a7s3 and then a Red Komodo, which then would leave me with the c70, Komodo, and R5... thus, all would be EF/RF lenses. And stuff. I think this is a good way to go.
What are you thoughts about the a7s3 and the R5, if you are going to be using a RED and already use a c70? Would you trade an a7s3 for the R5?
I love people that admit their mistake.
Love the collab
I respect the work that went into this!
Liked the fairness of a sidebar followup!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but even shooting in RAW, Canon apply a bit of sharpness
Hey Armando great Video by the way. Did you shoot the videos with the same lenses?
Yes
Where did you download the LUT from for the canons
The 12K looked sharper when you were saying that the Canon looked sharper. So, I'll attribute that to your preference for Canon. At 5:06, the 12K was definitely sharper.
No, Canon is sharper because I didn’t add any sharpening like we did with Ursa 12K because it was too soft.
@@mondobytes It would have been better to see it without sharpening. Everything done in post makes the test iffy. As we've suggested: shooting the scenes with a macbeth chart and using an auto-LUT generator, without more tweaks, would be a more fair test. Using different pre-fabbed LUTs designed for different cameras skews the test. It is better to create an auto-generated LUT for each camera in the different shooting environments.
Armando Great Video Again
R5 Footage is Amazing
Epic! Love those guys Armando and you of course! Lol ✌️
Amazing 👏👏👏, how to solve moire problem in the BMU12K.
Very nice comparison video. But what's really sad is that when you don't see 2 footages side-by-side and whatever you shot is being displayed on TH-cam you really can't tell any difference between any of these cameras. It all looks good. We're talking splitting hairs. I think what's important with all these modern cameras is the price, ease of use and portability
my laptop screen not even 4k was laughing at me in this whole video.
Hello armando I wanted to ask you the monitor that I see behind what company and model is it?
Weird. I thought youtube usually pushed videos that are matched to your monitor resolution. Was surprised to see auto 8k for my 4k panel. Also like the guy said the canon cameras are pretty dope for their prices against the 12k res beast.
The ursa looks so much better than either canon camera. Loved the colors, and the details on the ursa on most samples.
Also the 500MKII has color fringing everywhere and loses details on faces somehow, while also changing skin colors and losing color on reflections, yellow lights look white.
I disagree.
Great video Armando!
12k is cool and all but can't beat Canon's amazing colour science
great video! So the guy with the dog. why did his shirt change colour so obviously between these cameras. .
THe URSA 12k doesn't have a UV filter and the blacks shot it super hard @ 9:11 ???
Great videos! Both the video from Epic Light Media and Armando's are interesting and well done comparison tests. This because they went behind the technical stuff and analyze what happens in a real shooting scenario. Thanks guys. Only One question: is it only me, or is really there a magenta shift in the blacks in the URSA 12K footage? I noticed much in the clips starting at 09:04. Thanks
makes me wonder how much can really been on that 12K, wow. amazing. very informative, definitely see the difference and the price range too XD
Wow URSA 12K footage lookes more cinematic with better color than Canon *except for the silly image issues*. used to be the other way around but Blackmagic is getting good
Man the R5 is one impressive camera. They just need to figure out that heating issue a little more.
Hey Armando, what is your opinion on low light handling on the 500 mkII?
What ISO would _you_ rate each of these cameras?
Such a fantastic video from Armando Sama!
amazing job and thanx a lot for your work men
Armando how do you color grade now. Please give that look😭😭
I like the colors of the Black Magic 12K
Great video here. That noise on the URSA though is disappointing.
12K is just too far, particularly for a non FF sensor. However, disregarding the noise issues in some out of focus backgrounds, I liked it’s cinematic look. Don’t like the shadow roll off on the Canon’s. The shadow’s on the ladies arms aren’t nice, particularly on the dark haired lady outside. The elbow joint shadow looks like a bruise! Always had that problem on my 5D4.
7:00 that green fringe you see on her earring is called chromatic aberration
That's a combination of choice of lens and compression and (sometimes) LUT. We've run into that on our ACES shows. The combo needs to be tested. An entire 2 hour feature landed in our lap with that fringe problem. It was mitigated by changing to an ARRI LUT (even though it wasn't shot that way) but not completely removed.
i feel like owing the r5 despite the overheating issues, did you experience any overheating?
One question: Why do you grade in Premiere Pro instead of Davinci Resolve?
Because it’s faster, all my stuff is web delivery and Premiere’s tools work just fine. Davinci is great for color grading but for editing Premiere is still better
I think this is a good example as to why certain high resolutions should be use case only and that you should choose a camera more for the look of the sensor at whatever resolution " 4k and above in 2021 ofc although HD is still fine for many web streaming and online content applications "
Time for camera manufacturers not to wear the pixel count as a badge of honor and simply let the images be as good as they can be " all subjective ofc "
Dynamic range and Camera ergonomics are the main factors with Codec and Post Processing speed being a close 2nd as far as what I look for in a camera. Resolutions above 4k do not make a camera more attractive to me. But others may obviously differ.