5d Mk. III for Broadcast - Yes or No?

Will Turner said:
Nigellbb speaks the truth.

The C100 will take the 5dIII to the cleaners for video, especially docu work.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but it's not because of the codec. Unbelievable that people can't realise that the reason the 5d mark III has a soft image is not because of the codec.

You take that All-i codec and snap it on to the C100 and you have a better codec than the AVCHD variant.
 
nigelbb said:
See my previous reply.Differences in quality are somewhat dependent on bit rate but it does depend an awful lot on how good the encoder is. By rights MPEG4 should be anything up 4x as good as MPEG2 i.e. image quality is similar at 1/4 of the bit rate but Canon MXF files (C300, XF105/305) are 50Mbps MPEG2 & vastly better quality than even 90Mbps All-I from the 5D3.
Click to expand...

The 50 mbps mpeg2 on the XF100 is pretty ok but the reason comparing it is difficult is because the cameras itself are completely different. You can still break up the 50mbps Mpeg2 from the xf100 (I have broken it, especially shooting clubs) and in those situations the all-i would be considerably better as it doesn't care about motion.

The only way to compare CODECS instead of cameras is to encode outside the cameras. You can do that with Adobes media encoder for example. An all-i 90mbps h.264 will generate better images than a 50mbps long-gop mpeg2 at 4:2:2 especially when things move or when there is considerable noise. 24mbps long-gop will not compare.
 
 
Alright, based on this information, does the 5D III meet the following specs?

"frame size of 1280 x 720 and have been edited minimally as 3:1:1 -8 bit video (HDCAM resolution)."

Obviously the resolution surpasses it, and it has 8 bit color. Is it's 4:2:0 color space equal to or better than 3:1:1?

Thanks
 
Airwolf - To be honest I'm excited to try my Mkiii on this next film shoot and I hope all goes well with it. I'm really looking forward in the long distance travel without sooooo much film gear. I'm taking a two day Canon class next month in Burbank, CA that is being taught by the same people that are making these films and TV shows using the 5d so I will be able to get hands on with the pros and a full understanding about setting etc... (at least I hope I will). After the class I should be able to give you some really good feedback on your questions if you haven't gotten them answered before hand.
 
Sounds good, I just want to get out of this "what camera to buy". When the 5D and 7D came out, there was no question about it, if you want to be in the game, you buy that camera, the studios will work with it because it was that revolutionary.

Now, we have so many options, between the Sony FS series, the Canon DSLR's the Canon C series, the option of going back to a 1/3 inch chip video camera, etc, etc. I was just looking at some raw footage that came off a FS700 and it looked amazing, I don't see how anyone can turn these cameras down on finite specs alone.

I'd like to just buy a camera and start shooting, I own a 7D and have shot a decent amount of project already on one, and have rented a 5D Mk III twice before, I'd just like to stop freaking over the specs and get it done!
 
New_Zealand said:
If you like all of them then you can't go wrong.
Click to expand...
Well, yes you can though -- if your purpose is specifically to get one to make a broadcast piece, and you select a camera that the broadcaster has specifically rejected, then that would be going wrong.

Airwolf, it sounds like you really want to convince yourself that the 5D Mark III will be fine. Maybe it will, maybe it won't, but if your primary concern is whether the broadcaster will accept it, you would do yourself a disservice to ignore that question. Ask the broadcaster you have in mind. Don't assume. Ask them for a list of acceptable cameras. The BBC publishes a list of cameras they've approved, Discovery maintains a list of cameras they've approved...

In short, just because a camera "looks good" doesn't mean that it will meet broadcaster specifications, and each broadcaster is free to determine for themselves what units meet their own particular specs.
 
Will Turner said:
Broadcast standards are pointless. Re encode your 24mbps AVC from the C100 into 50mbps 422 before sending it off to post if you are that bothered, they won't have the foggiest.
Click to expand...

I really wish that were the case. We would be able to get away with a lot more for a lot less!

I don't understand why no one believes that networks have strict delivery requirements. There's really no way around it for episodic or top-tier television. There are certainly projects that get picked up that break convention...there are always exceptions to the rules. But there are also contracts. And there are very technical requirements within those contracts. They can dictate what your main acquisition codec will be, what percentage of non-compliant footage (IE h.264) will be allowed in the final cut, who owns the footage, delivery dates & formats, etc...

Most importantly, these are all factors in the bottom line, and the quality of the equipment used to create the project are a big factor.

I've shot some great content on DSLRs and some equally terrible content on $70k ENG rigs. Content will always be king, but when broadcast standards are in question the fact is: they really do matter.


Edit: To clarify, I love the look of the MkIII (that's why I own one). It makes some really pretty pictures. Unfortunately, that is irrelevant to a lot of what I do because there just aren't enough 1s and 0s making up the final frame - which is the real concern addressed in this thread.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top