5D MKIII specs

[squig]

Right. Reason enough why you well know Kholi was kidding with you a few weeks ago and we are all waiting to see you match on the set, first. Later, at the screen ;-) At least, as much as in these boards. LOL

I'm pre-producing a teaser trailer now. Chances are it's going to be shot with a MKIII. And there will be a candlelit scene!

 

[Emanuel]

And given that the noise reduction is applied in video mode too it should look very good especially if the noise reduction is applied pre-compression and pre-downscaling

Neat video is always useful indeed. But as we well know, the more noise free the better. Any word on the tracking autofocus to be available during the video recording? I read some other people asking but no input yet. Any information?

 

[klas]

New stuff at Canon Europe:
Movie features of the EOS 5D Mark III

 

[Bassman2003]

A lot of people are having a whinge about no clean HDMI out. Prores 422 compresses 24p 1080p at an average of 117Mbit/s (typically 5-10% less) We know from Canon's spec sheet that ALL-I is 91Mbit/s. Both codecs are I-frame and compress each frame individually. We're not sure if ALL-I is 4:2:2 yet. So when you look at the specs ALL-I could be close to Prores in lossyness which would be f...ing awesome! And if it is who needs the hassles of an external recorder?

I am torn about this. Firstly, I am not holding my breath about the I-frame compression being 4:2:2 This would actually rival the XF codec and that territory seems to be off limits. Secondly, I see using an external audio recorder as pretty standard with this type of setup to get quality sound. If I am going to use external audio, I might as well get a PIX unit, record both audio & video and not have to worry about sync or drift.

If the I-frame is 4:2:2 then I will see Canon's intention and accept their thinking. If it is 4:2:0 then I see it as protectionism for no reason and this does not make me a proud Canon owner. They are abosultely kidding themselves if they think people are going to say "darn, I guess I will go buy that C300 because the MKIII just does not have the signal quality I am looking for"... These consumers are going to buy another similar priced product that Does offer what they want. At this stage in the camera game a clean HDMI output or high bitrate option is pretty standard in $3,000+ image gear. The absence is what is an oddity.

 

[Grug]

I am torn about this. Firstly, I am not holding my breath about the I-frame compression being 4:2:2 This would actually rival the XF codec and that territory seems to be off limits. Secondly, I see using an external audio recorder as pretty standard with this type of setup to get quality sound. If I am going to use external audio, I might as well get a PIX unit, record both audio & video and not have to worry about sync or drift.

If the I-frame is 4:2:2 then I will see Canon's intention and accept their thinking. If it is 4:2:0 then I see it as protectionism for no reason and this does not make me a proud Canon owner. They are abosultely kidding themselves if they think people are going to say "darn, I guess I will go buy that C300 because the MKIII just does not have the signal quality I am looking for"... These consumers are going to buy another similar priced product that Does offer what they want. At this stage in the camera game a clean HDMI output or high bitrate option is pretty standard in $3,000+ image gear. The absence is what is an oddity.

I can promise you, 100%, with total conviction, that the 5D is not going to have 91Mbit/s 4:2:2, and it's not going to be 10-bit. It just won't, not with the C300 in existence and a 'cinema-DSLR' on the way, and not without clean 4:2:2 HDMI output - it's simply not going to happen.

I don't understand why so many people feel let down though.

Even through the horrible compression on the sample videos, it seems pretty clear that moire isn't going to be an issue any more, rolling shutter isn't going to be an issue any more, resolution will be notably better than before, and we'll have a highly detail intraframe codec to work with (albeit 8-bit and 4:2:0)... am I missing something here, or is that not a great combination of features for $3500?

It basically addresses ALL of the key limitations the 5DII threw up.

 

[Bassman2003]

Well, sort of. The GH2 costs 1/3 the price. The AF-100 costs 1/4 more. At what point do the DSLR excuses end? After 4 years I think the expectations were pretty high. For the most part I would guess improvements have been made but the HDMI output is just kind of a slap in the face for the professional acceptance of DSLRs. Just kind of keeps it more in the consumer side of things imho.

 

[maranfilms]

I thought politics wasn't done here at DVXuser. Or, is this just more hypocrisy from the moderators?

I'd love to run into you sometime, "Squig."

Why, do you want to take a picture of him.

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

This is not a cynical question. Actually just curious. Is there a tern for when a company intentionally leaves out features/functions that could have been included at the product price point but that weren't to protect the higher end line of products. Term meaning something in the vein of 'planned obsolescence.'

 

[Guest]

I thought politics wasn't done here at DVXuser. Or, is this just more hypocrisy from the moderators?

I'd love to run into you sometime, "Squig."

Why, do you want to take a picture of him.

I hear he is quite the looker.

 

[Guest]

This is not a cynical question. Actually just curious. Is there a tern for when a company intentionally leaves out features/functions that could have been included at the product price point but that weren't to protect the higher end line of products. Term meaning something in the vein of 'planned obsolescence.'

If anything the success of these threads is a good indicator of how well these companies are at holding back just enough. There is a certain amount of debate that makes sense to upgrade or not. Would Canon make a profit selling a camera that we want? Probably. But they make a lot more doing it in the 'planned obsolescence' method. Many who not being happy with the new model, will still upgrade. And then the next cycle will be the same.

I think it an unfortunate way of things. Stills cameras have been good enough since the Nikon D40, but people are still upgrading. But we have yet to get an HD video camera that fits that mark, unless you are into 1/3" video cameras with mediocre lowlight performance and a sh*ty codec.

Technology has outpaced the reasoning that goes into video camera codec price tiering. Despite most photographers needs peaking with 12MP, 12stop DR, iso3200, RAW DSLR's, they still find many reasons to upgrade.

Obsolescence is inherent in modern technology. No real need to have it built in.

---

"Planned obsolescence" became Brooks Stevens' catchphrase. By his definition, planned obsolescence was "Instilling in the buyer the desire to own something a little newer, a little better, a little sooner than is necessary."[SUP][3][/SUP]

 

[mico]

I can promise you, 100%, with total conviction, that the 5D is not going to have 91Mbit/s 4:2:2, and it's not going to be 10-bit. It just won't, not with the C300 in existence and a 'cinema-DSLR' on the way, and not without clean 4:2:2 HDMI output - it's simply not going to happen.

I don't understand why so many people feel let down though.

Even through the horrible compression on the sample videos, it seems pretty clear that moire isn't going to be an issue any more, rolling shutter isn't going to be an issue any more, resolution will be notably better than before, and we'll have a highly detail intraframe codec to work with (albeit 8-bit and 4:2:0)... am I missing something here, or is that not a great combination of features for $3500?

It basically addresses ALL of the key limitations the 5DII threw up.

Yes. 100% yes. But haven't you realized that this is Dvxuser and that every camera released in the last two years has been bloodily dragged through gravel paved forum threads because it disappointed. Disappointed always on six basic levels.

1) Every new cameras price performance value is now weighed against the price of the GH2

2) There is no mic jack

3) I want high bitrate 4:2:2 10 bit and I want it for the price of a GH2 or a little more.

4) Expectations not based on reality. (Canon has a cinema division now)

5) One feature missing but that feature is ever changing because each missing feature is the preference of hundreds of single posters who hammer their want of a particular missing feature to death

6) nothing released is ever good enough, ever

 

[Barry_Green]

But we have yet to get a video camera that fits that mark, unless you are into 1/3" video cameras with mediocre lowlight performance and a sh*ty codec.

Yeah, because that lousy DVX with its lousy 1/3" chips, horrible lowlight performance, and terrible codec was so bad that nobody did anything useful with it. Like, say, get multiple Oscar nominations, or win Best Cinematography awards at Sundance. Twice.

Cameras are good enough today. You do realize that at the time that you wrote that post, complaining about how "awful" it is that we have such horrible cameras, at this exact moment the #1 film in the country was shot on the PRIOR generation of the camera you're complaining about in this thread, right?

If you can't find a camera on the market today that is more than good enough for any reasonable shooting scenario, it ain't the camera's fault, either you're not looking hard enough or your expectations are ridiculous.

An AF100 puts out a better image than the Varicam that shot "Planet Earth" -- and costs 1/15th what that Varicam cost. An F3 beats the hell out of the F900 that shot innumerable movies (including Star Wars: The Phantom Menace) and costs about 1/8th what that F900 cost. The 5D puts out lousy video, but apparently good enough to serve the purposes of the #1 box office film in the country, and it cost - what, $2800? The hacked GH2 puts out an image that embarrasses the reigning Betacam SP cameras that dominated broadcast video for years and years, and it costs under $1,000. The HPX250 has a codec on it that's as good as the HDCAM SR system used to shoot Star Wars: AOTC and Star Wars: ROTJ and costs what, maybe 1/50th what that system cost.

Yeah, the manufacturers are really punishing us, aren't they?

Sorry, no sympathy here. Anyone griping about today's tools should spend more time looking in the mirror and pointing the finger at themselves, rather than at the evil "planned obsolescence" greedy corporations who continue to provide utterly amazing products for relative pennies.

In the old days (circa 2004) we here at DVXUser used to say "hey, wow, thanks manufacturers for giving us new amazing products, now we can go out and do wonderful things with them." And it was a great time and a great place.

Today the manufacturers give you a damn STILLS CAMERA that turns out footage good enough to be used in the #1 movie in America, and when they turn out an updated/even better model we hear "whine, gripe, it's awful, how dare they, these manufacturers are horrible to us." Really? Seriously?

 

[Emanuel]

My hat, Barry!

(you knew you'd have it ;-)

 

[mico]

Barry, that was like a window was opened and fresh air came rushing in.

 

[Emanuel]

Barry, that was like a window was opened and fresh air came rushing in.

Barry is world class expert. I have no idea how he still has patience to post over these pages. But we('d) miss him too much, fair enough then

 

[Doctor Wu]

I own a Scarlet and FS100 and I will probably still buy the MKIII. My reasons:

-Full Frame has it own look, mostly because of the shallow depth of field that comes from using longer focal lengths in general. Very similar to Vistavision films.
-Easier entry point for low low budget filmmakers. Sometimes you want to build relationships with people who you think have talent, but don't necessarily want to bring out a $35,000 camera package for people who cant or don't want to purchase production insurance or pay anything more than bottom dollar.
-The 5D will be more of a draw than the FS100. Catch phrases and sound bites are powerful. Lots of people know what a 5D is and what look they're going to get. When I tell people I have an FS100, they're like "Huh? What?" If I say I have a better, newer 5D then they'll get it.
-I like the build quality and heft of the 5D more than the GH2.

 

[Kenneth Fisher]

The 5D III has better video than its predecessor that took the video world by storm and has been used in very serious work. But it is a stills camera foremost to be sold mainly to photographers. I wouldn't expect it to turn the current state of digital cinematography on its head.

Canon has already announced the Cinema DSLR line that is to be sold mainly to digital cinematographers. I think that is what everyone around here should be looking toward as the "next step" in the evolution of video in this form factor.

The C series will probably be the first camera of its kind. (Unless you count the C300 etc.)

I would expect the video quality of the C-series cameras to be significantly better than the 5D MK III, with many more video features. And perhaps it will produce still images with "good enough" quality as a side feature, similar to the 5D and its little brothers.

I guess the question will then be price. If it is in the $3000 - $4500 range, Canon probably will have a runaway hit on their hands.

Me, I'll probably just wait for the C-series equivalent of the T4i or 60D.

 

[Guest]

Yeah, because that lousy DVX with its lousy 1/3" chips, horrible lowlight performance, and terrible codec was so bad that nobody did anything useful with it. Like, say, get multiple Oscar nominations, or win Best Cinematography awards at Sundance. Twice.

The DVX was a great camera for the time.

Cameras are good enough today. You do realize that at the time that you wrote that post, complaining about how "awful" it is that we have such horrible cameras, at this exact moment the #1 film in the country was shot on the PRIOR generation of the camera you're complaining about in this thread, right?

I will not discredit the DP and entire crew for that success.

If you can't find a camera on the market today that is more than good enough for any reasonable shooting scenario, it ain't the camera's fault, either you're not looking hard enough or your expectations are ridiculous.

My expectations are not ridiculous, merely unrealistic, given the corporate practices of today.

An AF100 puts out a better image than the Varicam that shot "Planet Earth" -- and costs 1/15th what that Varicam cost. An F3 beats the hell out of the F900 that shot innumerable movies (including Star Wars: The Phantom Menace) and costs about 1/8th what that F900 cost. The 5D puts out lousy video, but apparently good enough to serve the purposes of the #1 box office film in the country, and it cost - what, $2800? The hacked GH2 puts out an image that embarrasses the reigning Betacam SP cameras that dominated broadcast video for years and years, and it costs under $1,000. The HPX250 has a codec on it that's as good as the HDCAM SR system used to shoot Star Wars: AOTC and Star Wars: ROTJ and costs what, maybe 1/50th what that system cost.

Yes, technology has outpaced the video industry standards.

Yeah, the manufacturers are really punishing us, aren't they?

You are putting your own words here.

Sorry, no sympathy here. Anyone griping about today's tools should spend more time looking in the mirror and pointing the finger at themselves, rather than at the evil "planned obsolescence" greedy corporations who continue to provide utterly amazing products for relative pennies.

In the old days (circa 2004) we here at DVXUser used to say "hey, wow, thanks manufacturers for giving us new amazing products, now we can go out and do wonderful things with them." And it was a great time and a great place.

I insinuate that camera manufactures, like Canon, are intentionally limiting the codec in the 5DmkIII so that it doesn't compete with higher tier products, and am I ruining DVXuser?

Today the manufacturers give you a damn STILLS CAMERA that turns out footage good enough to be used in the #1 movie in America, and when they turn out an updated/even better model we hear "whine, gripe, it's awful, how dare they, these manufacturers are horrible to us." Really? Seriously?

Again, credit is due to the crew who put the movie together. But to be fair, there are generations of people that are indirectly credited. They all learned from previous generations of filmmakers, of course. And also, all of the decades of engineers that have put together amazing advances in technology - so many amazing advances, that in one generation, we can completely redefine expectations for digital camera products. That's pretty good!

A camera is a tool. Just like any tool that goes from low production quantities to high end users to mass production to all types of users, the prices drop. Just like the computer industry has made great advances in digital technology that has overflown into many other products and tools, including the camera industry, and has made prices drop. Should we still be thanking Bill Gates? Sure, I guess we should.

 

[J Davis]

Hey Ken, I'd say double your estimate. IMO the C series is going to be around the 7-8.5k range. Mainly because its 4k and I'll bet they uses the same sensor as the c300 or one from that family

 

[Cosimo Bullo]

A little hollow from you, Barry (and DVX user is still a great place btw) as you've bagged on the 5d so long and hard, and it must be a little tough to see it hoodwinking so many millions now!

But all of your points are real and valid, and we must remember, indeed, that the best way to make out cameras look better is to create as many good looking images as possible with them, not just talk about such things. Go out and shoot, all.

For many of us here, this is still a great time, still a great place. (now if I could just get my freakin mac to toggle through web pages like it used to!....)