5D MKIII specs

Hmmmm.....

I'm only posting this here because I think some folks are looking at this as a potential option: (Wha-du-ya-tink?) :)

 
Shouldn't that be in the Nikon DSLR forum? I mean, i know there's a tendency to veer off topic, but this is a little ridiculous. If you're interested in the Nikon cameras, that's why there are Nikon threads.
 
Nevermind, I just skimmed through the last few pages. I have no idea what this thread is about anymore. I like aged cheddar, two years is usually a nice amount of time for great flavor. And Welsh.
 
KahL said:
(it's gotten to the point where people are trying to say it's a 4k image in some posts now even)
Click to expand...

Haha. This was a joke sorry. I was imitating the people who are making up convoluted workflows to somehow convince themselves that the 5DIII is performing better than it is...
 
Can't believe how much this thread is moving! 115 pages now, and it's drifted in and out of subject about half as many times, and back again.
 
While were at it. Let's just make the main topic about the MK3 but include some nikon samples too.
I think Nikon has entered the game, but the d800 still suffers from moire and aliasing. I'm not seeing any color moire and I very RARELY am seeing any aliasing on my mk3.
Here is a D800 filled with moire and aliasing (look at diagonals on trucks and car grills). http://vimeo.com/39073054
 
GH2user said:
Haha. This was a joke sorry. I was imitating the people who are making up convoluted workflows to somehow convince themselves that the 5DIII is performing better than it is...
Click to expand...

Oh no, I realize that heheh
But, I actually saw someone state something similar to this on a thread either here on another adjacent forum. So when you made the joke, I knew what you were getting at hahaha
 
I prefer the detail and the overall look of the D800 compared to the MKIII even with its worts. The Nikons have an open gamma look to them as opposed to the crushed black leaning of the Canons. More like a proper video camera imho.
 
Bassman2003 said:
I prefer the detail and the overall look of the D800 compared to the MKIII even with its worts. The Nikons have an open gamma look to them as opposed to the crushed black leaning of the Canons. More like a proper video camera imho.
Click to expand...
You can cure most, if not all of that with Picture Styles. Even easier considering that the PS from the last gen sensor are compatible w/ the Mark III. Check out stuff like Marvels Cine 3.4 for an excellent example.
 
dustylense said:
While were at it. Let's just make the main topic about the MK3 but include some nikon samples too.
I think Nikon has entered the game, but the d800 still suffers from moire and aliasing. I'm not seeing any color moire and I very RARELY am seeing any aliasing on my mk3.
Here is a D800 filled with moire and aliasing (look at diagonals on trucks and car grills). http://vimeo.com/39073054
Click to expand...


This video has clearly been destroyed in post. It has been interpreted as interlaced and the editing software has interpolated one of the two fields so it´s missing half of the vertical resolution.
 
macgregor said:
This video has clearly been destroyed in post. It has been interpreted as interlaced and the editing software has interpolated one of the two fields so it´s missing half of the vertical resolution.
Click to expand...

That's what it looks like to me as well. Went through this with the FS100 and Adobe CS5 interpreting the footage wrong. The Nikon uses a Sony sensor correct?
 
Rick Burnett said:
That's what it looks like to me as well. Went through this with the FS100 and Adobe CS5 interpreting the footage wrong. The Nikon uses a Sony sensor correct?
Click to expand...

yep.

I've seen a couple of D800 clips with interlacing issues. Funny thing is some people have looked at them and raved about them. Maybe interlacing is the new black.
 
Jay Rodriguez said:
The footage in this video looks awesome but I'll stand up and say that most of the recent cameras that have come out in the past 24 months+ can get pretty much the same image with two key factors in those images, awesome lighting and awesome locations.... Sure they'll be subtle (if any) differences for the VIEWERS naked eye to POSSIBLY pick up but 9.5 times out of 10 people watch things because of the story and not for the opportunity to press pause and scroll through frame by frame to look for aliasing, noise, or any of the digital imperfections that we nit pick over.

EDIT: I was refering to the video that Emanuel posted
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree. But there are two more factors that I keep throwing into the mix here: the CLIENT! not the end-viewer, but the client who pays for it: the network, the marketing manager, the agency´s creative director. They DO see aliasing and moire and soft-images; especially once they saw what "real cameras" can do for almost the same money: e.g. once they saw a F3 or C300.
And second: the workflow on set. I have done enough DSLR shooting the last 2,5 years to know how much "I can´t", "Wait a bit" and "I cross my fingers" is happening and also that there are many workarounds needed that are just a pain. Sure on a narrative set that is not much of an issue, because you rig 2-3 monitors and a secondary audio device anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top