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

yoclay said:
What is of more of concern is that there doesn't seem to be a great deal of benefit going HDMI out at all.
Click to expand...

And how is that different from people plugging in an FS100 (or any other cam?) and going "There is no difference!". There is a difference but the differences are subtle. It has always been like that. DVXUser has been full of comparison posts - way before 5d - where people go : "It's not really worth the hassle."

But now it's controversial? I just don't get you guys.
 
I updated the software and expected to get a full frame on my S-1071F 7-inch HDSDI&HDMI Waveform LCD monitor so I don't have to use the Canon DSLR scale zoom-in anymore. But I didn't get the full frame of the monitor filled, even with the clean HDMI out?

What's going on?
 
So has any one tested the new firmware with internal recording? Does it make any difference to IPB/ALL-i footage internally?
 
Celluloid Dream said:
5D Mark III firmware is ready now. It has already been installed on some users cameras by Canon service. This is the firmware that provides clean HDMI output of video and Auto Focus in photo mode for lenses with a maximum aperture of f/8. For you non photographers that enables auto focus when combining an f/5.6 lens with a 1.4x teleconverter or an f/4 lens with 2x teleconverter. Anyway, the firmware is finished, it is version 1.2.1, and it is out in the wild right now. In fact, I have a copy on my hard drive but I think I will wait for the official download from Canon USA.

P.S. I can't wait to see some sample footage in Prores HQ...

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3474597
Click to expand...

Do you know the data storage needed for uncompressed HDMI recording, per minute, hour?
 
ROCKMORE said:
Do you know the data storage needed for uncompressed HDMI recording, per minute, hour?
Click to expand...

Michael, I don't understand your question to me. Is this a trick question? Are you testing me?, LOL... I didn't ask to see uncompressed. What I wanted to see is actual ProRes and ProResHQ 4:2:2 recorded from the HDMI. All I wanted to see is maybe 1 or 2 seconds, that is enough. And someone did post some, so I am fine. I thought it took sharpening quite well and maybe has potential to be better than internal All-I for some uses.

We all know uncompressed video is huge. I personally don't ever want to mess with it. ProResHQ is already too big for me, but workable for small projects.
 
Thanks. So when ML supports firmware 1.2.1, it may be possible to shoot raw internally and prores to ninja2. That would be great.
 
I am trying to understand the consensus here about HDI out, would simply converting the internal codec footage to 12-bit Cineform 444 be better or the same as capturing ProresHQ 422 through HDMI?
 
mtan said:
I am trying to understand the consensus here about HDI out, would simply converting the internal codec footage to 12-bit Cineform 444 be better or the same as capturing ProresHQ 422 through HDMI?
Click to expand...

You shouldn't care what the consensus here is about HDMI output recording. What you should care about are the technical facts. Capturing from the HDMI out to Prores or DNxHD will be technically superior to transcoding the internal codec to Cineform or other any codec. The difference may not be worth the cost, and that is what you have to decide.
 
mtan said:
I am trying to understand the consensus here about HDI out, would simply converting the internal codec footage to 12-bit Cineform 444 be better or the same as capturing ProresHQ 422 through HDMI?
Click to expand...

Technically, it should be better, however in actuality the difference is so small that there is virtually no difference at all. In general the image is slightly brighter and greener. Other than that I see virtually no quality gain when pushing the image around, even in an extreme manner. You would be far better off going to Magic Lantern RAW than doing HDMI out, if quality is what you are looking for.
 
yoclay said:
Technically, it should be better, however in actuality the difference is so small that there is virtually no difference at all. In general the image is slightly brighter and greener. Other than that I see virtually no quality gain when pushing the image around, even in an extreme manner. You would be far better off going to Magic Lantern RAW than doing HDMI out, if quality is what you are looking for.
Click to expand...

You cant create what isnt there... Even with hdmi out youre only getting 8bits of data. Instead you risk that the remaining data that is made up in the process will look terrible because its made from guess work.
 
legrevedotcom said:
You cant create what isnt there... Even with hdmi out youre only getting 8bits of data. Instead you risk that the remaining data that is made up in the process will look terrible because its made from guess work.
Click to expand...

Magic Lantern raw is 14bits of data from practically straight off of the sensor (almost), you can easily pull a Prores444 proxy from it for instance. No guesswork at all. Simply tons more data. The crappy 8bit output from the HDMI or internal IPB/All-I is pulled from far down the in-camera processing chain, this is why they are virtually identical.
 
Last edited:
magic lantern was unstable on my camera so I removed it, not trying that again, I wish it worked for me.
 
Yes... Thats what Im saying. The signal you get from ML raw is no where near as bad as the crap that the camera produces normally or through HDMI... I simply thought that we were talking about hdmi out since that is what this thread is about. You cant make good workable footage from the hdmi out no matter what codec you try to force on this psudo 10 bit signal.
 
legrevedotcom said:
Yes... Thats what Im saying. The signal you get from ML raw is no where near as bad as the crap that the camera produces normally or through HDMI... I simply thought that we were talking about hdmi out since that is what this thread is about. You cant make good workable footage from the hdmi out no matter what codec you try to force on this psudo 10 bit signal.
Click to expand...

Actually, I suspect the difference is that the HDMI is spitting out RGBG, while the regular output throws away the extra green info. That extra green pixel is normally assigned luminance values rather than color information. This is why the HDMI output is slightly brighter and greener. Thus the RGB info is easier to process without the additional green pixel and is more easily converted into codecs which the camera processes. So you are technically getting more info with the hdmi output, it's just not that much more useful and does nothing for what is essentially an 8 bit image by the time it hits the end of the processing chain. Barry Green probably would be able to correct me if I am wrong, but I suspect that this is what is happening.
 
^ I wouldn't think so.
RAW is sharp, but both internal H.264 and external HDMI share the same softness, which, to me, means that the in-camera debayering is the source of the softness. You are getting more info with external HDMI recording, but the reason is that you skip the very-destructive H.264 encoding. It's just as soft, but, for example, shadows should be nicer, with fine noise instead of the usual H.264 blobs. Nowhere near as sharp and as RAW, though.
 
Samuel H said:
... but the reason is that you skip the very-destructive H.264 encoding. It's just as soft, but, for example, shadows should be nicer, with fine noise instead of the usual H.264 blobs. Nowhere near as sharp and as RAW, though.
Click to expand...

I have no why people are blaming the H.264 encoding which is actually pretty good. Why? Because it matches the HDMI output closely. Slightly more encoding artifacts but that's it. That means that the H.264 encoding is great. The softness is because of the debayering.

But remember that the RAW- stuff is also a bit soft when you disable the ACR sharpening algorithm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top