5D MKIII specs

For one, they're from the original Vimeo link that states they're MKIII ALL-I files. Secondly, they wouldn't render onto Vimeo's output, but merely only served as a download link. And lastly, the bitrate gave it away as well, including how simple they were to scrub through in the NLE.

squig said:
The original shot is very warm, saturated, and contrasty. Not exactly the best source material for grading. Cinestyle should work a lot better on the MKIII because there's a lot less noise in the shadows. My theory is that cinestyle was developed for a MKIII prototype.

The look reminds of the D90 m-jpeg, a bit soft with some colour bleed. I actually really liked that look, not good for everything but it works well for my narrative style. For the clean/sharp look there's always the FS100 or GH2. The intra codec, 2 stops more high ISO, 60p, moire/aliasing, and rolling shutter improvements are enough for me to upgrade. Hopefully there will be a magic lantern hack that can push the bit-rate into driftwood territory. :p...
Click to expand...

Working w/ Cinestyle and Canon's codec for quite a long while now, I'd have to say that this wouldn't be an improvement at all.
This codec doesn't appear to have any differences from the original MKII's whatsoever and would just introduce the same heavy artifacting in the blacks (or lack thereof due to Cinestyle's method of eliminating that region altogether). Cinestyle creates very ugly, muddy blends from the darks to mids and only seems strong in high key shots. The problem isn't noise in the blacks, it's Canon's god-awful compression methods.

Again, this codec quality is NOT better in any fashion and these low light shots give it away. They're simply intra-frames instead of inter. The frame quality remains almost exactly the same from what this experience tells me.

If you're going to go with a log-like profile, I'd stick with Marvels 3.4. Gains the exact same high and low capabilities, only without eliminating your blacks completely.
 
Last edited:
KahL said:
Again, this codec quality is NOT better in any fashion and these low light shots give it away. They're simply intra-frames instead of inter. The frame quality remains almost exactly the same from what this experience tells me.
Click to expand...

I think it could be more useable in terms of lower noise off the sensor. The problem is Canon went with VBR rather than CBR so we'll only get 91Mbit/s in highly detailed or noisy shots. Just crossing my fingers this thing can be hacked.
 
KahL said:
Again, this codec quality is NOT better in any fashion and these low light shots give it away. They're simply intra-frames instead of inter. The frame quality remains almost exactly the same from what this experience tells me.
Click to expand...

Some people can't see the difference between 35mbps MPEG2 codec on the EX cameras compared to prores capture. But the difference is there. Is this the same case? The shadows should be considerably better without any long-gop issues.

http://prepostconsulting.com/en/blog/

I will wait until I can test it myself. Cinestyle was never my cup of tea anyway.
 
I just got an invite to a MKIII demo night at a store on Thursday so I'm going to go and have a play. I'll post something up on vimeo when I get home.
 
to make a version of my Flaat picture styles custom-tailored for the 5D3, I need a bunch of very particular but easy to shoot RAW stills taken with it - would you mind taking those for me? it would only take about 2 minutes of your time with the camra (plus maybe about 10 minutes to read the instructions, and another 10 to send me the files) - as a bonus, you'd get a number of exactly how many stops of DR the camera has, and a picture style that captures all of that DR in video mode
 
(I'd also need versions of DPP and PSE that work with 5D3 files, but I guess I should be able to download those from the canon site later this week)
 
NormanBates said:
to make a version of my Flaat picture styles custom-tailored for the 5D3, I need a bunch of very particular but easy to shoot RAW stills taken with it - would you mind taking those for me? it would only take about 2 minutes of your time with the camra (plus maybe about 10 minutes to read the instructions, and another 10 to send me the files) - as a bonus, you'd get a number of exactly how many stops of DR the camera has, and a picture style that captures all of that DR in video mode
Click to expand...

Yeah sure no problem.
 
Thanks for posting. The Vimeo graded footage still has the tell-tale 'heavy on the low end' look of DSLR footage. I would have hoped this would have improved as well as the red color tint out the camera.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
My lord, I want to like this thing, but these clips truly look dreadful! There is NO freaking detail.
Click to expand...

You and me both.

Every time a new clip comes around it pushes me further away from even thinking about it.

Hope the EOS-C Full frame DSLR is much better... I really do want full frame.
 
This is where Kholi says "See I told ya so". It doesn't look great. :violin:Grass is always a good test. The codec looks noisy even at 88Mbit/s and not any better than magic lantern CBR. And there's still some aliasing. I like how it looks in low light but in bright sunshine it's a no brainer GH2. I'm considering the FS100 now and I want to see some uncompressed D4 footage. And yeah the C-DSLR is the one to watch.

I just noticed the settings and a few things like NR etc could be degrading the image-

[TABLE="class: tborder, width: 100%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="class: alt1, bgcolor: #EEEEED"]Picture Style Standard
Sharpness 3
Contrast 0
Saturation 0
Color tone 0
Color Space sRGB
Long exposure noise reduction Off
High ISO speed noise reduction Standard
Highlight tone priority Disable
Auto Lighting Optimizer Standard
Peripheral illumination correction Enable
Chromatic aberration correction Enable
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Still looks like the MKIII is lineskipping though. :nads:
 
Last edited:
Some info on eoshd (I know that he is not too much liked here). but I think it comforts the idea of the low resolution and detail of the 5d mark 3. In the end I am thinking if the Nikon will not win this round. The resolution might not be too different, but with the clean hdmi at least you will have much better colour and detail. Looking at eoshd even detail is not present in the all-i mode. I think the codec is what Canon stated, it is good for better editing, nothing more.



I do not want to put any Canon vs Nikon fanboy war in this post. But for the info. Personally I am a bit disappointed by Canon but not at all surprise since the launch of the C300. We will have to see what the 4k slr will do.
 
Danielvilliers said:
Some info on eoshd (I know that he is not too much liked here). but I think it comforts the idea of the low resolution and detail of the 5d mark 3. In the end I am thinking if the Nikon will not win this round. The resolution might not be too different, but with the clean hdmi at least you will have much better colour and detail. Looking at eoshd even detail is not present in the all-i mode. I think the codec is what Canon stated, it is good for better editing, nothing more.

I do not want to put any Canon vs Nikon fanboy war in this post. But for the info. Personally I am a bit disappointed by Canon but not at all surprise since the launch of the C300. We will have to see what the 4k slr will do.
Click to expand...

The sensor score is off the chart http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Publications/DxOMark-Reviews/Nikon-D4-review/Sensor-performance The question is will the C-DSLR be in the price range of a D4+ninja or will it be priced closer to an F3 or C300?
 
the D800 is selling A LOT better than the 5D3: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941
it seems that higher pixel count and lower price are driving the stills shooters to the Nikon camp
on the video side, the D800 seems to have very awful aliasing/moire issues, but this lack of detail on the 5D3 won't help it either, specially given that its price puts it in close competition with the AF100 and FS100


RE: D4 dxomark results
to put it in perspective... http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/Cameras/Camera-Sensor-Ratings
if you forget about the medium format cameras, and don't look at DR tests at ISO 100 but at 400 and over, the D4 is the king (or basically tied for the title) in every single dxomark test
 
Last edited:
NormanBates said:
the D800 is selling A LOT better than the 5D3: http://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Camera-Photo-Digital-SLR-Cameras/zgbs/photo/3017941
it seems that higher pixel count and lower price are driving the stills shooters to the Nikon camp
on the video side, the D800 seems to have very awful aliasing/moire issues, but this lack of detail on the 5D3 won't help it either, specially given that its price puts it in close competition with the AF100 and FS100
Click to expand...

Basically we're back to where we started years ago!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top