5D Mark III firmware with clean HDMI is ready right now.

alex1 said:
I guess. But you have to admit that this firmware update has been a major let down. No audio, greenish cast, very small sharpness increase, not to mention how much a good external recorder costs. The IQ is not even noticeably different in most tests.
Click to expand...

At least it saved me $1000 for ninja 2 and a SSD! I would have been tempted had there been more visible improvements! I wonder if Atomos is just as disappointed as we are. I am sure they hoped to sell a lot more ninja 2 with this firmware update.
 
It seems that the best use for the upgrade is full res monitoring. I will be interested to check how far I can push or recover in a Nanoflash file compared to the internal recording. Don't know why there is a greenish cast. You would think Canon would have sorted that out. Well, we will keep on watching anyway...
 
By no means a scientific test; but I just wanted to check it with the Nanoflash quickly.

I recorded some footage in my garden with the 5Dmk3 (1080, 25, IBP) along with the Nanoflash (mov, 50mbs). The Nanoflash records the 25p signal inside the 50i stream with the PSF function (as expected) - so you get 25p. It does not seems to recognize the timecode (so I had to set timecode to internal, and set the trigger to record button).

In FCPX I put 3 scenes side by side with different lighting. Then I added a sharpen filter to them, and then added some preset looks from Magic Bullet Looks (just to see how the codecs handle aggressive grading). The idea was just to replicate typical scenes for filming and delivering on the internet. No pixel peeping. I used the original codecs, no transcoding.

I think this shows that Canon probably squeezed as much as they could out of the camera with the onboard codec; its hard to see much difference, either in the editor or on vimeo.

Presumably the Nanoflash footage will hold up better for green screen footage, and would be handy for broadcast work (using a 5D as a 'b' cam at least you could hand over all the footage in the same codec as your larger cameras).

For most jobs the con of having a big rig with extra batteries defeats the pros of having a small dslr.

Password is 'nano':

 
Try to do a luma key or secondary color correction to change the color of the greens in the image. This might show a difference especially if you look at the key and how smooth the edges are (B&W mode).
 
You need to test it using sharp textured object layered on the dark grey gradiently background. All power of compression then goes to draw this sharp object (small but sharp complex texture on it is good for test). Then grey gradient must show you a lot of compression artifacts. After you get the artifacts clearly visible go capture by HDMI and show to us. DONT COMPRESS IT TO MP4. WE CANT SEE THE DIFFERENCE ON YOUTUBE AND VIMEO. Just grab the stills.
 
alex1 said:
I guess. But you have to admit that this firmware update has been a major let down. No audio, greenish cast, very small sharpness increase, not to mention how much a good external recorder costs. The IQ is not even noticeably different in most tests.
Click to expand...

Honestly, if you had expected any of those things from this firmware update, you were nuts. It does beg the question, though, why Canon needed to announce such a lackluster (and apparently flawed) update 6 months in advance of its release? The only reason I can think of is to prevent owners from jumping ship sooner to better cameras for video.

Oh well, my pre-order for the BMPCC is looking sweeter and sweeter every day. :)
 
With regards to audio, isn't it possible to get a recorder with XLR inputs such as a PIX 240 and just use audio with that and an external mic? I haven't read this whole thread so I apologize if this was already discussed.
 
I'm using a Black Magic HyperDeck Shuttle 2 and I can't figure out how to trigger it to record from the 5DMKIII. Any anyone else having this issue?


Mike
 
ras815 said:
Honestly, if you had expected any of those things from this firmware update, you were nuts. It does beg the question, though, why Canon needed to announce such a lackluster (and apparently flawed) update 6 months in advance of its release? The only reason I can think of is to prevent owners from jumping ship sooner to better cameras for video.

Oh well, my pre-order for the BMPCC is looking sweeter and sweeter every day. :)
Click to expand...

The reason is likely because ML was on the march towards doing it themselves and Canon probably felt that the delay would keep the sales of their higher end from being hurt, as well as giving them the opportunity to control the outcome. Remember, they announced it 6 months in advance and yet exactly 2 days after ML made their announcement. Which, as we have seen now is successful in dissuading us from using it as an alternative. I have absolutely no doubt that if ML had attacked the problem they might have opened up a pandora's box of possibilities. Which they have now with the discovery of 14 bit in burst mode anyway. I have very little doubt that Canon has been quite disingenuous in this whole episode. They gave us exactly what they said they would, clean HDMI out. However it is AFTER their internal processing scheme has been applied. This achieves the goal of keeping both the moire and ML at bay, and giving us absolutely nothing more than they promised. Very clever.
 
Last edited:
Yes, I agree. Not to pile on Canon here, but my view of them as a company has been altered since the 5DMKIII was released. Or at least enlightened to how they have always been. They are in full dribble/protect/hobble mode imho.
 
ras815 said:
It does beg the question, though, why Canon needed to announce such a lackluster (and apparently flawed) update 6 months in advance of its release?
Click to expand...

Remember that Canon also announced updates to the C300, C100, C500 WELL in advance, like 5 months.
 
ras815 said:
Honestly, if you had expected any of those things from this firmware update, you were nuts. It does beg the question, though, why Canon needed to announce such a lackluster (and apparently flawed) update 6 months in advance of its release? The only reason I can think of is to prevent owners from jumping ship sooner to better cameras for video.

Oh well, my pre-order for the BMPCC is looking sweeter and sweeter every day. :)
Click to expand...

Haha, mine too, I pre-ordered the day they were announced.

If everything goes as planned, the bmpcc for less than $1k will have better IQ than both the C100 and C300. No wonder Canon keeps dropping the price on these cameras.
 
The C100 and C300 are cameras people are making money with NOW. it's moot to stack a camera available now, against a camera that will come out....who knows when.
 
Does the new firmware make any difference when recording internally using IPB? Or the only differences will be when recording to an external recorder?

What about the green tint and sharpness increase...is that only when recording externally or internally as well?
 
Last edited:
HDMI out certainly helps with monitoring! I uploaded the new firmware and tested it yesterday real quick with my marshall. Nice to finally have the full screen image.
 
swanny said:
HDMI out certainly helps with monitoring! I uploaded the new firmware and tested it yesterday real quick with my marshall. Nice to finally have the full screen image.
Click to expand...

Certainly in terms of peaking, it is a plus to not have to rely on Magic Lantern for that.
 
Looks like I will wait to upgrade until a few more people "test" this upgrade. Very concerned about the green cast people are talking about.
 
greenheron said:
Looks like I will wait to upgrade until a few more people "test" this upgrade. Very concerned about the green cast people are talking about.
Click to expand...

That green cast can be corrected out in about 2.5 seconds. Shouldn't really be an issue. What is of more of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal of benefit going HDMI out at all.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top