5D MKIII specs

dustylense said:
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.
Click to expand...

Mnn, nah, I'm not missing a point. Sitting in the middle of a large theater is the equivalent of sitting optimal distance away from your television, or up close to your computer screen. I'm definitely not missing anything at all, man.

And why would I have to imagine not being a filmmaker? I've got no issues using the tools that are here today. I [personally] don't need encouragement to go out and shoot, I already do that. I know MKiii can be "good enough" to do what people need to do. DVX was good enough, HVX was good enough, MKii was good enough... so if it's good enough for you then no need to convince others is my guess? But, it's not good enough for me. And, apparently, it's not good enough for a lot of people in 2012.

I don't shoot stills, most of the members here don't either, so that's a different story. If you're happy with it, then get 'r done. I only commented on the idea that people need to "step away" to appreciate footage, and that I think is very wayside.

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...

So, you ask me if something looks good then tell me I need to stop staring at the screen? Well, okay! Where's the guy that got on my case about responding to people? LoL

I didn't tell you not to buy it. If using the camera will get you three million dollars to shoot a feature then I think you know what you must do!

Lammy said:
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.
Click to expand...

You and me both, man. But, I guess we're not normal or something.
 
HansSteinert said:
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?
Click to expand...

And 60p. You have to consider the ISO performance not just in terms of low light but also in terms of more DOF flexibility. 1250 ISO has never been enough for me.
 
squig said:
And 60p. You have to consider the ISO performance not just in terms of low light but also in terms of more DOF flexibility. 1250 ISO has never been enough for me.
Click to expand...
Yep. The ISO performance opens up the ability to close down on the aperture in lower light.

I'm getting fantastic results at 6400 on the mk3 that is cleaner than 1250 on my mk2. I won't go over 640 on the gh2 and won't push 1250 on my af100. After applying a tad bit of post sharpen to the mk3, I can say the image is as sharp as my gh2 running whatever hack. Maybe it's just me. I have yet to see any color moire and have only seen slight contrast aliasing. My ultimate moire test is shooting a spaghetti strainer. The mk2 fails miserably and the mk3 passes with ease. The files are grading wonderfully as I'm pushing them to the max and not seeing much falloff. This video confirms my findings (not mine) http://vimeo.com/38994156

Sorry doubters. It just looks good, especially if you like the FF look. And with the ISO performance, it's easy to go from 2.0 @ 400 to 5.6 @3200 (then f8 @6400 if need and still get away with it) with the same set and have it look basically the same in noise. levels.
 
dustylense said:
Yep. The ISO performance opens up the ability to close down on the aperture in lower light.

I'm getting fantastic results at 6400 on the mk3 that is cleaner than 1250 on my mk2.
Click to expand...

You running it with NR on or off?

Is there less chroma noise @ 6400 than the MKII at 1250?

Have you noticed whether the native ISOs are cleaner 6400 vs 5000 for example?
 
dustylense said:
After applying a tad bit of post sharpen to the mk3, I can say the image is as sharp as my gh2 running whatever hack. Maybe it's just me.
Click to expand...

Please show me your footage to back up this statement. And I'll buy 2 Canon 5D MKIII right now.
 
squig said:
You running it with NR on or off?

Is there less chroma noise @ 6400 than the MKII at 1250?

Have you noticed whether the native ISOs are cleaner 6400 vs 5000 for example?
Click to expand...

Not running any NR. So far I'm not playing the 160 320 640 game, just shooting. mk3 6400 to me looks like mk2 1250. SHooting both ibp and i frame. Neutral for a cinema look and shot standard for crisp look. In camera sharp set a 2. Post sharpen as I desire. Haven't seen any moire yet.
 
Lammy said:
Please show me your footage to back up this statement. And I'll buy 2 Canon 5D MKIII right now.
Click to expand...
Why would you buy 2. Look, I have the gh2 and I know it can resolve. But with some post sharpening I'm getting clean detailed images at VERY HIGH iso's. I will not go past 1250 on a gh2 if you paid me. 5dmk3 case.jpgShot at f/2.8 on 16-35 @6400 I Frame. (Not sure how the jpeg will convey. Just a pinch of sharpening.
 
I know you own a GH2, because you said.

Why is that image 1000x563? Please show me your Canon 5DMkIII post sharpened footage at 1920x1080 please with maximum bitrate depth rendered, and at least a Target Bitrate of 8 Mbps h264 (or better DNxHD/Prores)

And I'd need 2 because it's always safe to have a spare. A life saver on many shoots I learnt, phew.
 
But it's not fair to compare a post-sharpened 5DMkIII to a non-post-sharpened GH2. Sharpen both the same amount and then we're talkin'...
 
Jaime Valles said:
But it's not fair to compare a post-sharpened 5DMkIII to a non-post-sharpened GH2. Sharpen both the same amount and then we're talkin'...
Click to expand...

Fair? What has fair got to do with the price of fish? And why would you want to sharpen a GH2 image? To make it look more video like? We're comparing cameras to find which one suits particular needs and which has the most pleasing filmic look at a certain price point. It's not a race.

John gives a very well reasoned argument for post sharpening the "soft" MKIII image http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...Sharp-and-Still-Anti-aliased-(video-examples)

Call me stupid but I'm more inclined to listen to someone who knows about coding than pixel peepers.
 
Last edited:
squig said:
John's footage is a fine example http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=qkFmhKoUEv4 0 sharpening in camera with post sharpening.
Click to expand...

It's an NG that. It's a nice 720p though. Depending on my TV settings, things can look really ugly with those fine lines and edges.

Aah I remember the ole days of excessive post-sharpening... reminds me of early Film DVDs that had soft telecines so they post-sharpened the encode, urgh! Or old SD TV news, those ugly halos artefacts.
 
Last edited:
Lammy said:
It's an NG that. It's a nice 720p though. Depending on my TV settings, things can look really ugly with those fine lines and edges.
Click to expand...

What, you expect youtube compression to look like 35mm film?

Nobody is trying to sell you on it, we all have to do our homework. I still have some reservations about skin tones myself but I'm pleased with what I've seen so far.
 
squig said:
What, you expect youtube compression to look like 35mm film?

Nobody is trying to sell you on it, we all have to do our homework. I still have some reservations about skin tones myself but I'm pleased with what I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

I do expect to see comparative 1080p footage on Youtube. So show me anything (5D2, 5D3, GH2, or 35mm, whatever) with that same Youtube 4 Mbps (lol) h264 encode and I can get the gist. And that "1080p" footage still looks quite soft in comparison to other 1080p footage on Youtube.

Just sayin', I already said it does a good 720p, but I specifically asked for 1080p footage. I actually want to be sold on this thing, and actually you guys are selling it to me because I clearly asked for the footage when it was challenged to be as sharp as the GH2.

I'm well aware of JCS's post on http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39795&start=10 and in theory what he's saying about how the anti-aliased footage should look as detailed as the GH2, but so far I haven't seen any footage proving the case. Where is the footage?
 
squig said:
What, you expect youtube compression to look like 35mm film?

Nobody is trying to sell you on it, we all have to do our homework. I still have some reservations about skin tones myself but I'm pleased with what I've seen so far.
Click to expand...

It does when I play youtube on my apple tv3 (1080) version on my 73! LOL. Actually, it does look really nice. I play this Kholi peeping game on my 73. I'll watch a clip from youtube, then jump over to HBOHD and compare high end movies and "perceptual" sharpness and detail with the Youtube stuff. I've watched a few mk3 clips and I just see nice looking detailed alias free images. It's why I have let a bit of the resolution burden let lose out of my mind. I stopped judging video quality on any computer screen, especially off youtube or vimeo.
But whatever. I'll keep posting any findings and post some work one I've made something to look at off the Mk3. All I can say is I have it (ordered it Wednesday and had in my hands friday morning) and I really really like it. I do not have a fear of going up to 6400 ISO with confidence. 12,500 if I have to and it will still look pretty darn good. I'm keeping my gh2, af100, xf105, and mk2. They are all tools that can do something the other can't. But none of them can handle low light and that shallow dof like the Mk3.

I just want to point out. This thread in this section for DVXuser is sort of viral compared to all else in news&industry. How a camera can stir up so much interest. Must be that look eh?
 
Last edited:
Speaking of the Mosaic AA filter ...

I suggested to David Cubanski that he make an inexpensive device for the 5DM3 similar to his VAF-5D2 AA filter for the 5DM2, but without the optical AA filter -- just the black frame that snugs up to the sensor, with a smaller "aperture" so it crops (hard mattes) the exposed area of the sensor down to a wide aspect ratio such as 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.

The result would be black bars (top & bottom) being encoded into the video recorded by the camera. The camera's codec should result in higher-quality, or a smaller file for the same quality, for the motion-image area of the video because the solid black bars require few bits to encode.


In post you'd crop off the black bars to result in a final video aspect ratio of 1.85:1 or 2.39:1.

Since I live in Portland I have license to post weird ideas. ;-)

P.S.:

This idea has been kicking around for a while:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...e-aspect-ratio-amp-maybe-improved-compression
 
Last edited:
I shouldn't have to remind everyone that every digital camera needs a lot of tender loving care to look anything like film. Even the Alexa isn't there yet. But we're getting close and for only a mere $3500. If you can't make great a film with this the camera is not the problem. And keeping in mind that there are things the MKIII can do that 35mm, Epic etc can't. Candlelit Kubrick scene...no problemo....shooting it in 2 weeks (without the Kubrick lens).
 
Dude, I made award winning films shot on a Nikon D90 (Hahaha) with candle-lit scenes at probably 3200-6400 ISO. Sure, the resolution is terrible now but it was OK for standard def DVD and soft cinema projection viewing.

Nothing new about this feature. So pretty off topic to be talking about 'if yo cant make a great film its not the camera' when we're specifically talking in a camera tech spec thread ;)


Now pleeease dustylense, share your experiences and footage with the 5DIII when you have the time. Cheers, I'll also pop into the shops later this week to have my own lil technical recce.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top