5D Mark III - 890 lines of resolution
- Thread starter jcs
- Start date
Lammy
Well-known member
>_>
We found it aliased less...
I agree with Uwe Lansing's reading of chart somewhere between First Detail and Strong Detail, and I too read 750-800 before the lines go all weird mush/inconsistant/wavey. It will be towards 900 for Extinction.
It's just that compression that gives the footage something off that I don't like when using sharpening...
Last edited:
Lammy
Well-known member
I have a strong feeling all the charts we've been seeing for the D800, GH2, 5D3 are not accurate... mainly because they were all done under different circumstances with different setups and lenses and different people. eg: a the wall that the chart is stuck to may not be level, or the paper is abit sticky outy rather than flush, or the lens has varying characteristics centre and to the edge.
Hence why we're seeing no moire on the centre of the D800 circle, or on the 5D3 graph its sharper to the right side rather than middle and left.
I've personally been looking at the diagonal trumpet near the centre top left. In that regard, all the cameras we've seen in this thread are pretty damn good above 720.
Hence why we're seeing no moire on the centre of the D800 circle, or on the 5D3 graph its sharper to the right side rather than middle and left.
I've personally been looking at the diagonal trumpet near the centre top left. In that regard, all the cameras we've seen in this thread are pretty damn good above 720.
This would be a valid objection if we were comparing two samples of the same camera but between two camera models it's perfectly valid to have a different workflow e.g. sharpen in camera for one model & sharpen in post for the other.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
It could be, but this is not the point on topic. The point is we're comparing the same camera model with two distinct routes to get sharper pictures from field.
And even if in post, it is possible to mimic one of the routes. The outcome is far away to be the same. It compromises the quality of DOF (again, to not confound 'DOF' with 'shallow DOF'), increases the risk of visible sawtooth artifacts, etc. To follow the discussion in a different thread:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?276379-5D-MKIII-specs/page153
and a mug of ale
dustylense
Veteran
Without pointing at any charts, if we can agree that the AF100 is a solid 800 lines, then the Mk3 is higher than that. Wether is's scientifically or perceptually, it's resolving more than the AF100. As for being sharper than the gh2? Ummmm... I have a gut feeling that what we are seeing again is the difference of shooting FF vrs m4/3 as a factor of appearance. After the af100 and hacked gh2, I did not shoot any motion with the Mk2. So I conditioned myself into m4/3's for a solid year. Now with this clean mk3, I'm again back in wonderland. The FF is throwing people off that got used to the gh2, or at least me. But, i shoot stupid stuff around the house all the time playing with profiles and lenses, etc. I will say that the most impressive feeling I'm getting out of the 3 (mk3, af100, gh2) is coming from the mk3. Lots of factors to consider. First, NOISE. I WILL NOT shoot above 1250 with the Gh2, PERIOD. 1600 is my max on the AF100. I have no issues hitting 6400 with the mk3. Second, COLOR PROFILES. Gh2 LOSES and LOSES BADLY. And even when you go from standard to let's say Nostalgia, you have a major quality jump. Even the AF100 feels limited to me. Having the XF105, its color control is far advanced over the AF100 controls. One can spend a solid week setting up CP's in the XF105. But, with the Mk3, not only do you have its built in CP's, then cinestyle, you can for each scene create a custom CP with canon utility. Play with contrast, curves and color with incredible control. THen third, IQ. The camera function and how it reacts. The gh2 is crap! Green monitors that switch by hitting the record button? It's 2012 guys, a $100 point and shoot doesn't exhibit that. The gh2 doesn't even have a mic jack (or a standard one). And it feels like a toy. The Af100 has great IQ. What is in a typical video cam is in the AF100 minus punch in focus check. Now the mk3. Built like a tank, great monitor, and overall good IQ.
SHowing up on a $10,000 corporate video with the gh2 is weird. You have to convince the client into a "trust me, the image is fantastic" gimmick. They are second guessing hiring you in their head. I was shooting in Santa Monica some B-roll with my Gh2 and ran into a production shooting on Epic. I'm sure most of the grip knows about the hack and the Gh2's possibilities, but I still felt like a monkey standing there with it talking to the GRIPS. A kitted out mk2 or mk3 will give off a better perception than a gh2 anyday.
Between the MK2/3 and gh2... I have never had a request or heard of a request from a client to shoot the gh2. I have stood in front of clients that don't request cameras with the gh2 and they look at it and I have to say "trust me, it's gonna look good". Here they are paying you thousands of dollars and you're standing there with a camera they just saw at Best Buy convincing them to "Trust you". I'll never get used to that car salesmen game....
SHowing up on a $10,000 corporate video with the gh2 is weird. You have to convince the client into a "trust me, the image is fantastic" gimmick. They are second guessing hiring you in their head. I was shooting in Santa Monica some B-roll with my Gh2 and ran into a production shooting on Epic. I'm sure most of the grip knows about the hack and the Gh2's possibilities, but I still felt like a monkey standing there with it talking to the GRIPS. A kitted out mk2 or mk3 will give off a better perception than a gh2 anyday.
Between the MK2/3 and gh2... I have never had a request or heard of a request from a client to shoot the gh2. I have stood in front of clients that don't request cameras with the gh2 and they look at it and I have to say "trust me, it's gonna look good". Here they are paying you thousands of dollars and you're standing there with a camera they just saw at Best Buy convincing them to "Trust you". I'll never get used to that car salesmen game....
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
Just reporting how I "felt" in front of clients and peers. In the end, they are all just tools to get the shot. Like I've stated, I have my gh2 and am not selling it for any reason. If I need the ability to go stealth like I did in Santa Monica, its far more convenient to pack the Gh2 and even the lumix lenses to stay light and fast with the ability to have shallower DOF. Packing just the lumix lenses you can do about anything under the radar with a wide range of focal length and not draw attention. 20 1.7, 14-140, 100-300, and the incredible 7-14 fits better in a lens bag than the MK3 equivalents, no?
I now have a thinktank airport international that packs that whole gh2 kit, a xf105, and the MK3 with 3 nikor primes, the 24-105, and the 70-200 non IS. One bag that fits in the overhead. Lots of possibilities in that bag.
So you felt embarrassed because you were using a camera that is arguably better, but isn't the one that's "sexy", i.e. that everyone uses. You know, you may have been imposing viewpoints on people that didn't have them in the first place.
dustylense
Veteran
No, absolutely not. I got my shots. But there was a high end film production going on with the epic and I could "sense" the crew while talking to them "judging" what I had in my hands. I'm not sure if this has ever happened to you but take this example: Say you have a studio stills shoot. You know that you can get that shot with a single light and softbox. But client is paying you $50,000 for the campaign you're shooting. If they walk in and see the single light stand and powerpack, they might second guess you. So, what we photo guys do is set up "dummy" lights. Why? To give off the impression that they are getting their money's worth, especially when they start breaking down the line items of the production. Make the production seem chaotic and busy, for nothing else other than they are getting their monies worth.
So in essence, I'm NOT saying the Gh2 is incapable. I'm saying that just by the look of it, it can throw a client unfamiliar with it off. Again, I will state, I have never heard of the Gh2 being the requested camera of choice. WHY? But I have heard many instances of the Mk2 being REQUESTED. I had a shoot with Michael C. Hall of Dexter shot against greenscreen for last years series promo. Client (SHOWTIME) REQUESTED the mk2. Greenscreen and the mk2? I tried to pull for a red rental. No dice. MK2 is what they WANTED. I then got them to settle on my AF100 with the Kipromini. Fought tooth and nail. WHY? Because that is what they were seeing around hollywood. Not Gh2's, but Mk2's. Mostly as being the in thing at the time.
I feel the Mk3 will have that same affect. WHY? FF sensor being one of them. If a client like that called and I said, "I'm gonna suggest the gh2 hacked", they would reply, "the what"?
maranfilms
Veteran
5d3,gh2,nikon. Whatever. Without a kit, they all look like a still photo cam, because they are. As far as clients are concerned, You better show up with something thats fairly impressive looking. Even if it is a dslr, you need to kit it out. People do not, and will not take you as seriously as they will with an impressive looking rig.
Without knowing you, or anything about you and your work, they usually will think your just starting out, and can not yet afford a " big cam" even though we all know a little gh2 can do just as well or better. It's all about an image. When a client hires you for a shoot, and their boss walks in and sees an impressive setup, they have piece of mind, and feel their getting their moneys worth. It's pretty much the same in all fields. People tend to forget, their paying mostly for your experience, professionalism, and work ethic. I have had clients ask me why a praticular light doesn't have the "four doors" Their referring to barndoors. The light didn't need them on at the time. but they felt a light needs to have a movie light look. silly as it sounds it's a true story.
I agree with Gary, that it is utterly silly and even ignorant, but when it comes to production work, most people are just that. Very ignorant.
The biggest problem with people are they feel if they have the same cam, or seen yours in BestBuy, then they feel they can do just as well, or even could have gone to the store, bought the cam (without knowing anything about production or glass, for that matter) and done just as well themselves. Of course we know it's ignorant, but It's human nature. I almost want to hand them the cam and say "ok, shoot" just to prove to them they really are clueless.
Without knowing you, or anything about you and your work, they usually will think your just starting out, and can not yet afford a " big cam" even though we all know a little gh2 can do just as well or better. It's all about an image. When a client hires you for a shoot, and their boss walks in and sees an impressive setup, they have piece of mind, and feel their getting their moneys worth. It's pretty much the same in all fields. People tend to forget, their paying mostly for your experience, professionalism, and work ethic. I have had clients ask me why a praticular light doesn't have the "four doors" Their referring to barndoors. The light didn't need them on at the time. but they felt a light needs to have a movie light look. silly as it sounds it's a true story.
I agree with Gary, that it is utterly silly and even ignorant, but when it comes to production work, most people are just that. Very ignorant.
The biggest problem with people are they feel if they have the same cam, or seen yours in BestBuy, then they feel they can do just as well, or even could have gone to the store, bought the cam (without knowing anything about production or glass, for that matter) and done just as well themselves. Of course we know it's ignorant, but It's human nature. I almost want to hand them the cam and say "ok, shoot" just to prove to them they really are clueless.
dustylense
Veteran
Which is exactly why I fought for the AF100 over the 5dmk2 on the Dexter shoot. A big Ol' 20-100 Cooke mounted with image going out to a panny 17' monitor for all the Hollywood "trendies" to gather around. It was nothing more than shock and awe over the 5dmk2 package I would have set up.
latyshev
Active member
AF 100 resolves 1018 lines as per zacuto shootout.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
Many many, many ads here locally looking for shooters and if they name a specific camera it's either 5D or Red.
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
No, they probably wouldn't ask, but whether it looked better or not is subjective. to me, it likely would not.
The topic was name recognition in the wider (non camera nerd) world, and 5D has it.