5D MKIII specs

Well, today is about getting used to the camera. Playing with I vrs IBP and so on. Canon may have missed the mark with the I-frame codec. VBR? I'm seeing jumps from 27mbits to 87mbits. Hey Canon, I think we would all like a CBR Iframe. WHy not? Still though, the images are pleasing. But update the firmware and implement some way to have CBR I-frame.
 
dustylense said:
OK guys. First, set your monitor up to view 1080P (no Imacs at 2560x1440). Now, by no means is this a work of art. But watch this video full screen and back off your monitor no less than 7 feet. BACK UP!
Click to expand...

Why would I back up no less than seven feet to use my computer? You're saying that the footage looks bad at optimal viewing range even for a large television set?

Because, I've got a 52" Set and my optimal viewing range is five feet. My Laptop LCD sure as heck isn't over seven feet.

If it doesn't look good at optimal viewing range then what's it good for????? And, what difference does distance matter if the tool doesn't matter??? I know the answer to these questions already, though.

If people like the footage, cool, use it. Now the thread's veering into purchase justification territory (defense). Not looking forward to the NAB threads... whew boy, it's bad now... just wait.
 
Last edited:
KahL said:
Well all things considered:
- 5DMKII image is sharper with sharpening options either high OR low. MKIII's image is either soft and or muddy, even with sharpening in post
- ML improves the codec substantially beyond even what ALL-I does
- ML adds headphone and sound monitoring functionality
- At most, the 5DIII seems to add better low light (w/ a muddy image) and HD out HDMI when recording

Beyond that, what exactly is "...best..." about the MKIII thus far? It's more expensive as well, considering that the image is a downgrade from the last version and minor, overdue functionality updates, when you think about it.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkFmhKoUEv4 soft? muddy?
ALL-I is flawed but IPB looks pretty good. I haven't personally tested it yet but it has b-frames so potentially it could blow magic lantern CBR away.
 
Kholi said:
Why would I back up no less than seven feet to use my computer? You're saying that the footage looks bad at optimal viewing range even for a large television set?

Because, I've got a 52" Set and my optimal viewing range is five feet. My Laptop LCD sure as heck isn't over seven feet.

If it doesn't look good at optimal viewing range then what's it good for????? And, what difference does distance matter if the tool doesn't matter??? I know the answer to these questions already, though.

If people like the footage, cool, use it. Now the thread's veering into purchase justification territory (defense). Not looking forward to the NAB threads... whew boy, it's bad now... just wait.
Click to expand...
Kholi,
You post useful stuff and are informative. But really? You sit 5 feet from a 52in. set? You're gonna go blind. I have an 73in and a 200in projection system. Most "normal" people with a +40in screen sit at least 8-12 feet away from the set (judging by the usual size of a den). I'm conveying to people on here to get used to pressing their noses against their Imacs. SO far, the footage played back on the 73in at 11 feet viewing distance looks quite delicious. Organic just like the 5dmk2, but without all the rainbows in eyebrows. SO far I am very pleased with the MK3.

To everyone but Kholi, just try it, back up a bit and stop the mirco pixel peeping and be normal.
 
dustylense said:
Face it, the Gh2 is a crap stills camera when stacked up against the 5d series.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's crap in comparison... sure it's not as good, but the GH2 can do pretty nice stills. ...you just need the right glass. Lieca, Canon, or Nikon lenses all look great on the GH2. It's the Panny lenses that are crap. Color/Contrast is pretty abysmal.
 
squig said:
He is a bit blind, that's why everything but 4k looks so soft to him and he has to sit so close. :cheesy:

I reckon Kholi's gonna flip flop on the MKIII.
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm leaving the flip flopping and waiting up to you, Squig. xD That's allll your territory.

I have no interest in doing anything with the MKIII and no amount of sharpening is going to change how poor that image is to me.

dustylense said:
Kholi,
You post useful stuff and are informative. But really? You sit 5 feet from a 52in. set? You're gonna go blind. I have an 73in and a 200in projection system. Most "normal" people with a +40in screen sit at least 8-12 feet away from the set (judging by the usual size of a den). I'm conveying to people on here to get used to pressing their noses against their Imacs. SO far, the footage played back on the 73in at 11 feet viewing distance looks quite delicious. Organic just like the 5dmk2, but without all the rainbows in eyebrows. SO far I am very pleased with the MK3.

To everyone but Kholi, just try it, back up a bit and stop the mirco pixel peeping and be normal.
Click to expand...

Okay, good, you like it, it's great to find a tool that you like and nobody's saying not to...... don't you think it's a little backward to sell the 5D MK II as great for a large screen since it's used in major productions, but the MKIII I've got to sit across the room to appreciate it?

What happened?
 
Last edited:
Danielvilliers said:
For the price of a 5d3 you could get the best of the two world a D800 and a gh2 ;-) That will be my dslr setup. I am looking at this video http://vimeo.com/39097915 it is very very encouraging compared to the last one that he posted that had a lot of stair stepping . I am thinking if there was a workflow problem for the first one as the difference is staggering. The first one seamed to really lack a field in vertical plane and every straight line had some ugly aliasing. For one moment I was thinking if nikon had not done the line problem in the initial d90.

What seems good also is the DR and rolling shutter. Just crossing my finger.
Click to expand...

Better stroke your bunny paw and hope it doesn't overheat too.

It looks like the D800 sensor might have a stop of latitude over the MKIII BUT we are spoiled with profiles like cinestyle that will probably more than make up for the latitude the D800 throws away with its profiles. THe HDMI out is a big plus but the sharpening/aliasing in camera concerns me. Mark Tierney wrote- "They obviously went for crispness over moire (and did the same photographically with the E model). I'm ok with that." http://vimeo.com/39111417 I'm not ok with that. Digital sharpening isn't something I want burnt into my images, there's no jaggies in film.
 
I have a 52" screen, and my viewing distance is about 9-10 feet - it feels small for movies
I'd like to go 86" (distance=diagonal*1.5) but that will have to wait (among other things, for manufacturers to implement a "use only the center of my screen" function: 86" would be great for movies, but the news would look dead scary!)

as Squig said, DR comparisons in stills mode don't mean much: with the Canons we can use picture styles to get as much DR in movie mode as in stills mode, with the Nikons a big chunk of the DR is usually crushed (on the D7000, around 3.5 stops!)

also: new D800 video tests are looking better than the first ones did:
http://vimeo.com/39097915
http://vimeo.com/38912704
 
Last edited:
Kholi said:
Nah. I'm leaving the flip flopping and waiting up to you, Squig. xD That's allll your territory.

I have no interest in doing anything with the MKIII and no amount of sharpening is going to change how poor that image is to me.



Okay, good, you like it, it's great to find a tool that you like and nobody's saying not to...... don't you think it's a little backward to sell the 5D MK II as great for a large screen since it's used in major productions, but the MKIII I've got to sit across the room to appreciate it?

What happened?
Click to expand...

This doesn't look good to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkFmhKoUEv4

Until the C-DSLR surfaces the MKIII is a go, I'm putting the money down tomorrow and shooting some teaser stuff for the feature over easter.

I have 32" and sit 10 feet away like a "normal" person. Sometimes I even turn the lights off.
 
Samuel H said:
I have a 52" screen, and my viewing distance is about 9-10 feet - it feels small for movies
I'd like to go 86" (distance=diagonal*1.5) but that will have to wait (among other things, for manufacturers to implement a "use only the center of my screen" function: 86" would be great for movies, but the news would look dead scary!)
Click to expand...

I'm definitely going bigger for my next set. Don't want to sit so crazy close.
 
squig said:
This doesn't look good to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkFmhKoUEv4

Until the C-DSLR surfaces the MKIII is a go, I'm putting the money down tomorrow and shooting some teaser stuff for the feature over easter.

I have 32" and sit 10 feet away like a "normal" person. Sometimes I even turn the lights off.
Click to expand...

It looks good in the way that good looked in 2008/9. Since you asked, I mean. There's nothing about the Mark that's enticing aside from the huge sensor, and that isn't enough for me to even want to rent it. although I might just for the blog hits, that's worth the rental price.

If you like it, get to it. Not telling you to dislike, too each their own!
 
Kholi said:
Nah. I'm leaving the flip flopping and waiting up to you, Squig. xD That's allll your territory.





Okay, good, you like it, it's great to find a tool that you like and nobody's saying not to...... don't you think it's a little backward to sell the 5D MK II as great for a large screen since it's used in major productions, but the MKIII I've got to sit across the room to appreciate it?

What happened?
Click to expand...

Kholi you're missing the whole point. The average viewer of a television or a theatre movie does not sit on top of the screen. You can sense this by logic. Imagine your moms couch and where her TV is. Imagine your friends couch and where their TV is. People don't watch a majority of motion content sitting 1.5 feet from the screen. SO, to get a feel of how your audience might perceive an image, you should watch your edit at a comparable distance.
Instead of over thinking it, just fill your computer screen at 1080 res and back up accordingly. Theres no right or wrong. If you have a 30in monitor, back up about 6-8 feet. If your have a 17in, back up maybe 4-5 feet. I don't care if it's a gopro footage or Epic footage. View it as if you did not have any filmmaking experience at all.
Just TRY it.
 
squig said:
This doesn't look good to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkFmhKoUEv4

Until the C-DSLR surfaces the MKIII is a go, I'm putting the money down tomorrow and shooting some teaser stuff for the feature over easter.

I have 32" and sit 10 feet away like a "normal" person. Sometimes I even turndown the lights off.
Click to expand...
I think the sharpening used in this video would not look good on skin. I don't see much here that I couldn't accomplish with my 5dii and AA filter.
 
Kholi said:
It looks good in the way that good looked in 2008/9.
Click to expand...

Hehe you crack me up. I'm betting it looks good enough to raise $3 million and that should be good enough for everyone. You gotta stop staring at that screen Kholi, the radiation is messing with your head. Granted it's a little softer out of the box but mild post sharpening isn't degrading the image just enhancing it.
 
squig said:
Hehe you crack me up. I'm betting it looks good enough to raise $3 million and that should be good enough for everyone. You gotta stop staring at that screen Kholi, the radiation is messing with your head. Granted it's a little softer out of the box but mild post sharpening isn't degrading the image just enhancing it.
Click to expand...
I hate what post sharpening does to skin. I only like it on inorganic textures. Like a car engine.
 
HansSteinert said:
I think the sharpening used in this video would not look good on skin. I don't see much here that I couldn't accomplish with my 5dii and AA filter.
Click to expand...

Well it's all done in post so you can apply as much as you want.

There's so much the MKIII can do that the MKII can't and nothing the MKII can do that the MKIII can't. But sure you can still do a lot with a MKII.
 
I agree with Kholi on this, professionally that looked good 3 years ago. It's still OK now despite being pretty soft and somewhere sub-720p realm.

We live in Full 1080 HD/2K and 4K realm now heh. We had been years ago but the majority of us consumers are just making the proper transition.

And I watch most things on my laptop, 15" matte display roughly 2 feet away. Or about 4 feet away from my 24". I can tell the difference wherever.
 
squig said:
Well it's all done in post so you can apply as much as you want.

There's so much the MKIII can do that the MKII can't and nothing the MKII can do that the MKIII can't. But sure you can still do a lot with a MKII.
Click to expand...
Yes but I'm not seeing enough benefit in the upgrade to warrant the price. Unless you need the iso performance, I don't see the point. Increased sharpening works the same way with 5d ii and aa filter. But I've never liked how digital sharpening renders organic objects. Unless you have a need to shoot at over 3200, why upgrade when you can just buy the filter, and have over a grand left over?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top