5D MKIII specs

Peter J. DeCrescenzo said:
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.
Click to expand...


Yeah some of us were toying with the idea when magic lantern was just VBR. A couple of brave souls cut out some black card. Doesn't really work for me because I use a mix of prime and anamorphic glass. A magic lantern bit-rate hack is the best option but it could be a while coming, that's if Canon haven't made it hack-proof.
An ALL-I CBR firmware update would be good too.
 
dustylense said:
I play this Kholi peeping game on my 73.
Click to expand...

I actually went ahead and opened my laptop to respond to this, kudos to you.

Let's clear this up, though. I don't HAVE to pixel peep this footage to know that it's not up to par. That's how bad it is. I told you and eevvverrryyyone else in this darned thread earlier on that those Sample videos Canon released were post sharpened. I didn't HAVE to watch it fullscreen to see that, I know what post sharpening looks like.

And now what are you doing? WHat's EVERYONE else doing? Well, what do you know...

post sharpening.

If I weren't the only one of my close friends and co-workers that pays attention to this stuff, I'd call 'em to the stand. Just ask Matty_G how I spotted an entire left quadrant of Epic 3K Slow Mo footage that had been shifted ONE pixel down from the entire right third of the image... four-to-five feet away from a Dreamcolor monitor. I wasn't pixel peeping, it was horribly obvious that something was wrong.

Clearly, everyone in this thread pro MKiii acknowledges that it's soft as baby poop, and you need to sharpen it to get it to any sort of acceptable standard. I just happened to catch it day one. Sue me.
 
Lammy said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

"Dusts off awards and lines them up in front of the webcam"

I liked my D90, it was a pain in the arse but had some magic fairy dust.

I'm getting too old to listen to people who want to have a whinge...I do enough of it myself....not pointing the finger at anyone in particular but yeah I'd like to stay focused on what the MKIII is capable of and finding workarounds for its weaknesses.
 
Lammy said:
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 ;)
Click to expand...

Go-To Filmmaker Diatribe #24 is mandatory in camera discussions.
 
Kholi said:
Just ask Matty_G how I spotted an entire left quadrant of Epic 3K Slow Mo footage that had been shifted ONE pixel down from the entire right third of the image... four-to-five feet away from a Dreamcolor monitor. I wasn't pixel peeping, it was horribly obvious that something was wrong.
Sue me.
Click to expand...

Pixel peeping...guilty as charged.

Yeah you were right about the post sharpening "presents peeper award" but what digital image doesn't require post for 35mm transfer or 2k output? The proof in the pudding will be when someone shoots some really nice work and sends it to post and we see it blown up. Are you saying that you're certain that there's no way it can be cleaned up?
 
squig said:
Pixel peeping...guilty as charged.

Yeah you were right about the post sharpening "presents peeper award" but what digital image doesn't require post for 35mm transfer or 2k output? The proof in the pudding will be when someone shoots some really nice work and sends it to post and we see it blown up. Are you saying that you're certain that there's no way it can be cleaned up?
Click to expand...

You can't magically make detail appear that isn't there. Period.

It's just going to look like you sharpened the footage, nothing more, nothing less.

And what are you TALKING about? What digital image doesnt' require post sharpening for a 2K output? I can't even tell if you're being serious now. lol.

Back to Scramble with the girl, she's killing me.
 
Kholi said:
You can't magically make detail appear that isn't there. Period.

It's just going to look like you sharpened the footage, nothing more, nothing less.

And what are you TALKING about? What digital image doesnt' require post sharpening for a 2K output? I can't even tell if you're being serious now. lol.

Back to Scramble with the girl, she's killing me.
Click to expand...

I didn't say post sharpening I said post.

jcs said:
Hi dcloud, you're right, straight out of camera looks excellent, very filmic. However many folks who are used to extremely sharp content feel the 5D3 isn't sharp enough. For example, many feel the GH2, FS100, etc., are sharper and are unhappy that their 5D3 (in their hands or on order) isn't sharper. The above post is to help them realize that the 5D3 imagery contains a great deal more spectral information than is apparent straight out of the camera. It's possible to narrow the frequency content using a convolution sharpen filter to get the look they want. Convolution sharpening doesn't add fine details: it pulls up high frequency information that is already present. Unsharp Masking removes low frequency information.

A DCT or FFT can do something similar in the frequency domain. Consider the DCT-II (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_cosine_transform), after converting to the frequency domain, we can change spectral coefficients before converting back to the spatial domain. So when you talk about fine detail, you are talking about high-frequency information. If such information is present in the signal, but also accompanied with lower frequency information, we can improve perceived sharpness by effectively increasing the intensity difference between pixels, relative to interpixel derivatives, which is what a convolution filter and USM perform (the results are different, but the concept is the same). I have implemented DCT-II code and have used it to remove high-frequency information for work projects; it could also be used to remove low frequency information, thus performing a sharpen function. When the necessary high-frequency information is not present in the image (signal), it cannot be enhanced with relatively simple filtering. This is why 5D2 and 7D footage cannot be sharpened to get the same results as the 5D3: the high frequency information of the source signal has been lost. Interestingly, aliased signals can provide sufficient information to reconstruct a higher frequency signal, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-resolution. Fractals can also be used to increase resolution: http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite/perfect-resize/?ind.

I hope this information is useful in helping folks get the most out of their cameras.
Click to expand...
 
Kholi said:
You can't magically make detail appear that isn't there. Period.

It's just going to look like you sharpened the footage, nothing more, nothing less.

And what are you TALKING about? What digital image doesnt' require post sharpening for a 2K output? I can't even tell if you're being serious now. lol.

Back to Scramble with the girl, she's killing me.
Click to expand...

SUre you can. As a stills guy that has post produced over 100,000 published raw digital photographs and gigabyte drum scans, I can tell you that there are all sorts of hidden goodies in a digital file. Guess what, I always apply a bit of sharpening to them after the edit of the photograph. No matter what the file is, there is always some sharpening. That is why in nearly every bit of image software you can find, there is a sharpening tool. EVERY ONE OF THEM. I pull details out of video clips all the time. AVCHD ones, not just redcode. You would be surprised at what you think is totally blown out how one can pull back some substance. Yes, even out of avchd. Ya just have to know how.
 
Sigh... then it was already there. It just means you sharpened what existed already... you didn't create detail in something that was already captured without that detail...

I don't understand what's going on right now.
 
dustylense said:
SUre you can. As a stills guy that has post produced over 100,000 published raw digital photographs and gigabyte drum scans, I can tell you that there are all sorts of hidden goodies in a digital file. Guess what, I always apply a bit of sharpening to them after the edit of the photograph. No matter what the file is, there is always some sharpening. That is why in nearly every bit of image software you can find, there is a sharpening tool. EVERY ONE OF THEM. I pull details out of video clips all the time. AVCHD ones, not just redcode. You would be surprised at what you think is totally blown out how one can pull back some substance. Yes, even out of avchd. Ya just have to know how.
Click to expand...

I concur Captain
 
Kholi said:
Sigh... then it was already there. It just means you sharpened what existed already... you didn't create detail in something that was already captured without that detail...

I don't understand what's going on right now.
Click to expand...

it's the old jedi mind trick....read what John (jcs) wrote...better still meet him for a beer and have a play with his MKIII.
 
Kholi said:
I don't understand what's going on right now.
Click to expand...

LOL. Your not alone. I figured it out Kholi, this place is.......
the-twilight-zonejpeg.jpg



Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
Last edited:
Haha this is getting hilarious! Why are so many people trying to defend the MKIII with all this "post sharpening" and "revealing hidden details" nonsense? This is nuts! The 5DIII makes a poor image by 2012 standards... period. I know people are upset that they just blew all that cash on pre-orders, and are trying desperately to justify it... but c'mon, canon really just dropped the ball on the 5DIII. Time to move on.
 
squig said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the heck is this? Is this supposed to make things better? A heavily blurry Bugatti Veyron? Oh, that's right, I have to back up from my computer screen by 7ft, correct?
This looks I'm wearing Vaseline laced goggles, man. Sharpening in post is supposed to help as an option, not become a REQUIREMENT. What you guys are doing is seriously going berserk with justification of an inferior product, and I'm not sure why, honestly. Maybe it's brand fandom, maybe it's an inability to admit you were wrong.... as these are the only real reasons I could muster up.

Okay, the camera is great at high ISOs. Wonderful. Now can we have something that represents the visual fidelity of a camera from at least 2yrs ago? Like say, a real 1080p image?
Going crazily overboard with post sharpening only helps but so much. It just makes a muddy looking image look like coarse sand. And after all this, the image STILL isn't clear, it's still low-res and it amazes me that you guys are going to such great lengths to make it seem like this BS is okay and acceptable. In reality it isn't, so why is it so hard for some of you guys to accept that we got a half-assed product and move on?

This is some bizarre, Twilight Zone 'ish, man.

Yes, the filmmaker makes the most of his/her tools. But what is so wrong with having sharp, higher grade tools even at an affordable price versus having low quality tools at Veblen prices?
Canon is not God, the FF look is indeed a novelty with crap resolution and it's alright to admit you wasted your time. No, seriously, it's okay.

As I said before, hopefully the EOS C DSLR will fare better. Though it IS a goddamn shame when a $700 GH2 beats this into the ground.

GH2user said:
Haha this is getting hilarious! Why are so many people trying to defend the MKIII with all this "post sharpening" and "revealing hidden details" nonsense? This is nuts! The 5DIII makes a poor image by 2012 standards... period. I know people are upset that they just blew all that cash on pre-orders, and are trying desperately to justify it... but c'mon, canon really just dropped the ball on the 5DIII. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

Christ, alright, so I'm NOT crazy after all. Thought I was the only one here.
 
c300 probaly use APS-C crop of canon 5dmark iii sensor ...
when u upscale c300 to full frame u got 22.3 MP...(2.14158238 * 8MP * 1.33 = 22.7864365)
all companies do that ...
design one sensor technology and the upscale or downscale size and deactivate some options for cheaper or photo cameras ...
image from 5d iii sensor is probably perfect 4 MP and then canon use some black magic to do worst possible downscaling to 1080p ...
c300 has huge profit margin ...
if canon does no line skipping and read whole sensor with pixel binning only way to get such low resolution HD is on purpose to protect video division...
 
KahL said:
What the heck is this? Is this supposed to make things better? A heavily blurry Bugatti Veyron? Oh, that's right, I have to back up from my computer screen by 7ft, correct?
This looks I'm wearing Vaseline laced goggles, man. Sharpening in post is supposed to help as an option, not become a REQUIREMENT. What you guys are doing is seriously going berserk with justification of an inferior product, and I'm not sure why, honestly. Maybe it's brand fandom, maybe it's an inability to admit you were wrong.... as these are the only real reasons I could muster up.

Okay, the camera is great at high ISOs. Wonderful. Now can we have something that represents the visual fidelity of a camera from at least 2yrs ago? Like say, a real 1080p image?
Going crazily overboard with post sharpening only helps but so much. It just makes a muddy looking image look like coarse sand. And after all this, the image STILL isn't clear, it's still low-res and it amazes me that you guys are going to such great lengths to make it seem like this BS is okay and acceptable. In reality it isn't, so why is it so hard for some of you guys to accept that we got a half-assed product and move on?

This is some bizarre, Twilight Zone 'ish, man.

Yes, the filmmaker makes the most of his/her tools. But what is so wrong with having sharp, higher grade tools even at an affordable price versus having low quality tools at Veblen prices?
Canon is not God, the FF look is indeed a novelty with crap resolution and it's alright to admit you wasted your time. No, seriously, it's okay.

As I said before, hopefully the EOS C DSLR will fare better. Though it IS a goddamn shame when a $700 GH2 beats this into the ground.



Christ, alright, so I'm NOT crazy after all. Thought I was the only one here.
Click to expand...


I just got off a shoot with a RED Epic and I can tell you that the raw image looks just as soft. It almost always requires sharpening. And I use some of the sharpest Zeiss glass out there. Even though it has a higher resolution. The point is that it has a ton of information to do whatever needs to be done.

You have missed the point. JCS has clearly demonstrated that the quality of the information coming off the new Mark III in terms of high frequency detail is better than it's predeccesor. More can be done with the image.

One thing I would like to point out to all the GH2 fanboys (I have two by the way) is that a good deal of what you attribute to resolution is in fact aliased detail as well.
 
gecko2010 said:
Right or wrong this is the best dslr pub in town....love it
Click to expand...

The only reason I'm not saying anything is because I'm busy rearming with photon torpedoes....the real battle is yet to come. Just you wait GH2 klingons!

"I'll be back" ....doh wrong movie
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top