5D MKIII specs

[Kenneth Fisher]

I know pixel-peeping is a sport around here, but I am scratching my head at the expectations for video on the 5D MK III.

As noted earlier, it is primarily a stills camera. If the quality of the stills is not dramatically improved over the 5D MK II, why would the video be a night and day improvement?


The 5D MK III does not contain an absolutely new, video-specific sensor like the C300.

In my understanding, the difference in the image processors on the MK II vs. the MK III, ( Digic 4 vs. Digic V) is the speed at which it can process the image, and noise reduction.

It appears to me that those benefits have made it over to the video functions, no?

Maybe I am still an amateur peeper, but the more recent 5D MK III video examples look a lot like the 5D MK II video, but with improvements to the most common user complaints, including: moire, jello, and clip length.

But dramatically improved quality and resolution? I just don't think that is in the cards for Canon's large sensor DSLR line. For that matter, doesn't Nikon's full-frame offering appear to have the same limitation of image softness? It could be the nature of the beast for full-Frame DSLR video, at least for another generation or two.

 

[Danielvilliers]

LOL, perhaps try watching in 1080p? Do you have a link to a sharper GH2 video on youtube? Not sure where the idea that a defense is in play, I'm posting solutions to help folks get the most out of their hardware. I have Canon lenses, dig the look of full frame, as well as the low light performance. This camera can provide an alias- and moire-free video for very difficult material. The GH2 has aliasing, is a crop sensor, and cannot come close to low light performance. I did extensive analysis of the GH2 and 5D3 and found that the alias-free 5D3 frames could be sharpened with a convolution filter, removing some of the anti-aliasing, and can match the GH2 (along with a slightly aliased image). Andrew at EOSHD replicated these results. The GH2 does not have a resolution advantage, but it does have an aliasing disadvantage. The 5D3 can be made to alias and look like the GH2 by sharpening, however the GH2 cannot be fully anti-aliased to match the 5D3. Some folks like the oversharpened, aliased look and others prefer the anti-aliased filmic look: film is alias-free and grain increases the perception of sharpness. The 5D3 can provide both looks. Here's the 5D3 sharpened to match the GH2 (doesn't matter where the sharpening occurs in-camera or in post- the images look similar):

View attachment 50562
(image created by Andrew from EOSHD)

Our goal is to get the best performance out of our cameras- we're not interested in the GH2 given the differences in functionality, though it is interesting as a resolution benchmark. Speaking of resolution, I tested 5D3 and FS100 frames from P.Bloom's forum and the 5D3 matched very close to the FS100 (could easily be intercut).

I don't know if I a wearing a different pair of of lens, sorry eyes, but these two are not close at all. Just look at the eyes, you can see so much more in the gh2 image (detail and sharpness) and the hairs is the same difference. If this is a sharpen 5d3 vs an unsharped gh2 then what the difference would be if the gh2 was post sharpen also.

 

[Kholi]

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.

Did your AC constantly miss focus? Was back focus off? Because there is no other explanation as to why you would ever have to sharpen any footage coming off of Epic at any resolution.

This is straight up misinformation.

 

[Danielvilliers]

I am all with Kholi here. As a pro (photographer for now) I don't give heck that my mother cannot distinguish between HD and SD on the 40 inch screen, or that 4.3 signal is being stretch to fit the 16.9 aspect ratio. As a pro I have to have certain standard in image quality that is beyond Joe sitting in his couch. I work to the level and appreciation of who I consider as my peers in my business. So unfortunately I am not going to get back 4 feet from my 24 inch monitor. I think if it was not the successor of the 5d2 this camera image quality would have been trashed or left in anonymity like the countless of nikon/sony etc. dslr like for the Nikon D4 which has a broken/ugly full frame and 1.5 crop, while the 2.7 (1.1) crop is very very good!!!

For me the first generation dslr like the 5d2 was a revolution for what it brought as a large sensor camera at this price point even with its flaws. But we are years latter and the standard has been raised. If someone is doing just video, I can't understand why they would not invest in a FS-100 for only $ 1000 more. It has some proper profile now to extend the DR (which seemed to be the only gripe) not too mentioned true 1080p resolution in 24 and 60p, very low rolling shutter, 444 uncompressed output and very very good low-light and proper xlr audio. If I have a real need fora dedicated video camera at the $ 3000/4000, I would not hesitate.

 

[vision_filmz]

The day Panasonic Dslr lineup can have even half of the amount of accessories as the Canon then I would jump ship..... There's a lot more that goes into make videos. Yes the presented Gh2 footage looks sharper than the 5d, but in my personal opinion that does not make it better. Canon dslr is widely accepted and used on sets everyday, so for a the same name brand dslr camera to be better just means they really nailed the coffin on Panasonic....

Canon dslr is being taught in Universities around the Country......

 

[KahL]

I am all with Kholi here. As a pro (photographer for now) I don't give heck that my mother cannot distinguish between HD and SD on the 40 inch screen, or that 4.3 signal is being stretch to fit the 16.9 aspect ratio. As a pro I have to have certain standard in image quality that is beyond Joe sitting in his couch. I work to the level and appreciation of who I consider as my peers in my business. So unfortunately I am not going to get back 4 feet from my 24 inch monitor. I think if it was not the successor of the 5d2 this camera image quality would have been trashed or left in anonymity like the countless of nikon/sony etc. dslr like for the Nikon D4 which has a broken/ugly full frame and 1.5 crop, while the 2.7 (1.1) crop is very very good!!!

For me the first generation dslr like the 5d2 was a revolution for what it brought as a large sensor camera at this price point even with its flaws. But we are years latter and the standard has been raised. If someone is doing just video, I can't understand why they would not invest in a FS-100 for only $ 1000 more. It has some proper profile now to extend the DR (which seemed to be the only gripe) not too mentioned true 1080p resolution in 24 and 60p, very low rolling shutter, 444 uncompressed output and very very good low-light and proper xlr audio. If I have a real need fora dedicated video camera at the $ 3000/4000, I would not hesitate.

Preach on!!! x-D

 

[joe 1008]

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.

A must read and a must watch!!!

 

[KahL]

A must read and a must watch!!!

I think we've gone over this bit already.
It's very obvious that no matter how much sharpening you use, low res is low res.
It's even more apparent with the Bugatti's grill. Sharpening helps some, but it doesn't compare to having an actual base high resolution image.

 

[maarek]

Yeah, I'm gonna have to call BS on this statement. Particularly because I WORK with Red Epic footage on a daily basis at 4k resolution. Recode RAW on Premiere CS5.5, to be exact. It doesn't look anywhere near as soft as the MKIII does. Not even remotely close on any particular level.

Hmm. At 100% the Red image is quite soft.

 

[maarek]

This is straight up misinformation.

I have never seen a SHARP 5k 100% image out of the Epic. Also if you use it at 2k mode shooting high-speed stuff it will be as soft as 5k at 100% because it just crops the sensor. Offcourse when you start scaling down to 2k from 5k, it looks brilliant.

 

[maarek]

I think we've gone over this bit already.
It's very obvious that no matter how much sharpening you use, low res is low res.

What's the big deal in being low res?

And that statement is wrong. A lot of cameras employ sophisticated sharpening methods and look normally quite soft when you disable their internal sharpening. For example the Canon XF100. Soft.

Also I am dumbfounded at the amount of anger flowing from you. Calm down.

 

[dustylense]

You seriously HAVE to be kidding about this and I'm not even sure if it's a troll post or not.

The comparison image you have there is based off an OVER-SHARPENED 5DIII image set next to a dramatically UNDER-SHARPENED GH2 image. And, even then, it still doesn't hold up. Maybe at first glance, until you actually begin paying attention. The 5DIII image looks artificially sharpened because, well, it IS. It looks chunky and it looks blocky. While the GH2 looks like an actual resolution increase, where you can make out the details of the teddy's fur individually. There's a large difference between sharpening pixels and actual 1000-line resolution. It cannot be faked and unless you're deluding yourself, I don't even understand how this basic concept is even an argument.

The sharpening method has been used extensively on the Digic IV sensor video before as well 3-4yrs ago. It just hasn't been a requirement nearly as much as it has with this sensor thus far, which is why we're even in this discussion regarding sharpening in the first place.Now as far as low light is concerned, yes we all know the 5DIII excels at it... at the expense of a soft, muddy looking image. The GH2 doesn't excel as well as it, but it doesn't suck at it either (that's what having a good lens is for also). The most I've ever pushed was at 1600ISO personally, and that's with very dark lighting. And if we're talking about the GH2, I'm almost positive that shooting at 2000ISO with 140Mbps MJPEG leaves quite a bit of room for lifting a clean image in post.

Besides, why are you even shooting at 20,000ISO anyhow? Has using a supplementary light become a foreign concept suddenly? Are you guys having trouble with placing even a simple practical in frame? Even if shooting on the street, you can stand next to a store window as a key. Why are you shooting in the darkest of dark conditions?For the record with the cynical laugh of yours: I own TWO 1080p monitors (one as my desktop and one 40" one) and all of our films are worked on them both.Not all of us want to be deluded into believing a $3500 camera is doing what it really is NOT doing.

But, if you're satisfied, then so be it. Just don't try to BS people who don't know any better just because you want to BS yourself, huh.

Lastly, for the record for a $700 camera, the resolution isn't even comparable for a 5DIII

Khal,

I'm gonna ask you if you have a mk3 in your hands have recorded more than a minutes worth of footage of it at the camera store? Or maybe you downloaded some 12 sec clip off vimeo? I'm not sure. But you're attacking guys that have the camera that are here reporting their findings. Kinda what this forum is all about. Sharing, not slandering. Twilight zone video posts really aren't constructive to the discussion.

SO, let me ask you this. If the gh2 were the best camera you can get, then why aren't there any videos posted from some big shots? Like LaForet, bloom, hurlbet, Gale Tattersall, Ron Howard, bui brothers, on so on? How many academy award nominee's or winners have had gh2's on set.

How many pro's use the Gh2 as a stills camera to shoot for covers of magazines?

I'll type again, I won the Gh2 and adapt all sorts of glass to it. I'm not going to sell it because it has a certain niche and use with the hacks. However, it is finicky. Just to connect sound to it is hard to do with its weird RCA jack. You can set the thing to "ALL Zero" and it still aliases the most fine pattern (not just specular highlights). To me a good camera has vast control over images settings. Ever dug into the menus of a Canon XF or the C300? You can spend a month playing with settings because they have so much control.

Not sure how this thread became a gh2 vrs mk3 piss off? THey are just vastly different (One has a sensor 4 times as big!). But where JCS is saying is exactly what I'm finding and I found that out before reading any of his posts. Last night I loaded all sorts of test clips up on my DLP TV and saw that the 5dmk3 is not as soft as is being reported. It's just a fact once you have one and start playing with post workflow. Out of the box, yes I could say the camera looks soft. On Youtube, you can find uploads that look soft. But after some playing with it in my NLE, I have gotten the camera to look very darn pleasing, and I haven't even loaded any custom looks in it yet (can't do that with the gh2). But I'll say this. One can shoot at 6400 with complete confidence. That doesn't mean that you can sell all your lights. You can now under the same lighting close down your iris and obtain more DOF on a shot that is set up say for F/2 at 800 ISo. I'm beginning to think you can get away shooting 12500 with confidence, but 6400 is quite a lot.
I can also point this camera at nearly everything the mk2 was afraid of. It's liberating, just a fact.

But, try not to misinterpret what some are here trying to share. I'm not here to say the Mk3 is better than the gh2 or the fs100. Every single camera has it's strengths and it's weakness. That, is just another fact. But please, tone down on calling members trolls. Especially ones that are here to share their findings. We're trying to be a community here and learn the latest and greatest so that all our material looks better. Join us.

 

[dustylense]

What's the big deal in being low res?

And that statement is wrong. A lot of cameras employ sophisticad sharpening methods and look normally quite soft when you disable their internal sharpening. For example the Canon XF100. Soft.

Also I am dumbfounded at the amount of anger flowing from you. Calm down.

I have the the xf105. and yes, you can make it soft or very very sharp. That's the beauty. It has control. THe same can be done with the C300 because it shares nearly the same menu controls.
But lets get back to the truth. The 5dmk3 is a STILLS camera first. It's a STILLS camera of TOP NOTCH quality. It just so happens that the video end of it is very very very clean and with NO moire and very very little aliasing.

 

[jcs]

Kahl, as stated before I am doing what I can to help fellow 5D3 owners get the most out of their cameras. I work with code to do image processing every day. I have posted analysis images of GH2 and 5D3, including a resolution chart shot for the 5D3. Do you have a resolution chart shot for the GH2 for comparison?

If you believe those videos you posted are sharper than the Veyron shots, then this isn't an issue having to do with technology. Math was invented and refined to allow people with different perceptions and opinions to agree on difficult subject matter. If some part of the spectral encoding doesn't make sense to you regarding anti-aliasing, please let me know and I'll try to explain it better or find a relevant link.

How we conduct ourselves in public can affect our livelihoods; more can be lost beyond being banned on a forum. You have made a suggestion that the GH2 can be a useful tool for a low cost- that might be helpful to someone looking for a crop sensor camera. Can you provide information to help 5D3 owners better use their cameras?

At some point in your life you may realize that nothing is more important than helping other people once your basic life needs are met. Sometimes it takes losing most or all of your material wealth, sometimes you must lose even your health to the point of near death. We have limited time: helping people helps them with happiness; helping others helps you to be happy too. Letting go of the ego is really hard. However the first step is to be aware that the ego is causing you grief. There are many books and philosophies on this subject, I found this book by Ekhart Tolle to be an excellent tool: http://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Awa...9963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332704028&sr=8-1

Lammy- the perception of fine detail is enhanced due to the aliasing provided by the GH2. If you and your clients and/or customers prefer that look, makes perfect sense to keep using it. Other folks prefer a filmic look, sometimes to the point of zero aliasing: this is tough to do and the result will look less sharp. That's just the way the eye and brain work. However, the anti-aliased image actually carries more information. That's why it's possible to throw it away via filtering to increase the perception of sharpness. When we do that, we get an aliased image.

5D2 and 7D footage do not carry this extra information and sharpening them enhances existing aliasing artifacts (see Sebastian's footage on Cinema5D: it clearly shows the sharpened 5D3 footage much sharper and cleaner vs. sharpened 7D footage).

My goal with the Veyron and brick wall tests was to show that it's possible to tune 5D3 footage to have a nice balance of low aliasing and sufficient sharpness. My tests and posted images show the sharpened 5D3 closely matches the GH2, while having less aliasing. The images and videos speak for themselves. It's OK if you prefer the GH2 footage: it's an excellent crop frame tool.

 

[Kholi]

I have never seen a SHARP 5k 100% image out of the Epic. Also if you use it at 2k mode shooting high-speed stuff it will be as soft as 5k at 100% because it just crops the sensor. Offcourse when you start scaling down to 2k from 5k, it looks brilliant.

Maybe you guys' definition of soft or "sharp" is completely different from my own, then. I have never seen a frame of 5K that's focused, shot at a normal stop with cinema glass (4), that was soft, and especially not to the point where you need to sharpen it.

I've got gobs of my own Epic footage, footage from commercials, so on and so forth. Again, maybe our definitions are different which is all well and good.

And, yeah, there's no way in hell you need to sharpen footage when delivering 2K from 5K.

 

[dustylense]

Kahl, as stated before I am doing what I can to help fellow 5D3 owners get the most out of their cameras. I work with code to do image processing every day. I have posted analysis images of GH2 and 5D3, including a resolution chart shot for the 5D3. Do you have a resolution chart shot for the GH2 for comparison?

If you believe those videos you posted are sharper than the Veyron shots, then this isn't an issue having to do with technology. Math was invented and refined to allow people with different perceptions and opinions to agree on difficult subject matter. If some part of the spectral encoding doesn't make sense to you regarding anti-aliasing, please let me know and I'll try to explain it better or find a relevant link.

How we conduct ourselves in public can affect our livelihoods; more can be lost beyond being banned on a forum. You have made a suggestion that the GH2 can be a useful tool for a low cost- that might be helpful to someone looking for a crop sensor camera. Can you provide information to help 5D3 owners better use their cameras?

At some point in your life you may realize that nothing is more important than helping other people once your basic life needs are met. Sometimes it takes losing most or all of your material wealth, sometimes you must lose even your health to the point of near death. We have limited time: helping people helps them with happiness; helping others helps you to be happy too. Letting go of the ego is really hard. However the first step is to be aware that the ego is causing you grief. There are many books and philosophies on this subject, I found this book by Ekhart Tolle to be an excellent tool: http://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Awa...9963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1332704028&sr=8-1

Lammy- the perception of fine detail is enhanced due to the aliasing provided by the GH2. If you and your clients and/or customers prefer that look, makes perfect sense to keep using it. Other folks prefer a filmic look, sometimes to the point of zero aliasing: this is tough to do and the result will look less sharp. That's just the way the eye and brain work. However, the anti-aliased image actually carries more information. That's why it's possible to throw it away via filtering to increase the perception of sharpness. When we do that, we get an aliased image.

5D2 and 7D footage do not carry this extra information and sharpening them enhances existing aliasing artifacts (see Sebastian's footage on Cinema5D: it clearly shows the sharpened 5D3 footage much sharper and cleaner vs. sharpened 7D footage).

My goal with the Veyron and brick wall tests was to show that it's possible to tune 5D3 footage to have a nice balance of low aliasing and sufficient sharpness. My tests and posted images show the sharpened 5D3 closely matches the GH2, while having less aliasing. The images and videos speak for themselves. It's OK if you prefer the GH2 footage: it's an excellent crop frame tool.

+1 with the philosophy and +2 with your posts concerning the helping and searching about the 5dmk3 image. Page 106 guys. And not one post saying, GO BUY THIS CAMERA. Thanks JCS. The things you have posted here are exactly what I am finding playing with this camera.

 

[maarek]

Maybe you guys' definition of soft or "sharp" is completely different from my own. I have never seen a frame of 5K that's focused, shot at a normal stop with cinema glass (4), that was soft, and especially not to the point where you need to sharpen it.

And I've never seen (in 4 years working at a post house) a sharp 5k image from the Epic. They look sharp when you start to scale them down.

I've got gobs of my own Epic footage, footage from commercials, so on and so forth. Again, maybe our definitions are different which is all well and good.

I've got gobs of other peoples Epics footage. Only shot with it myself twice, but done lets of edits and vfx for others. Have you even looked at them at 100%?

And, yeah, there's no way in hell you need to sharpen footage when delivering 2K from 5K.

You don't NEED to do anything. Sharpening a scaled image afterwards does slightly help though, no matter the starting res. As in stills, you scale an 18mp image to 2mp. Then add a smidgeon of sharpening. It does help. Lanczos3 which is one the best scalers around, always adds some sharpening after scaling down. There is a reason for that,

 

[dustylense]

Maybe you guys' definition of soft or "sharp" is completely different from my own, then. I have never seen a frame of 5K that's focused, shot at a normal stop with cinema glass (4), that was soft, and especially not to the point where you need to sharpen it.

I've got gobs of my own Epic footage, footage from commercials, so on and so forth. Again, maybe our definitions are different which is all well and good.

And, yeah, there's no way in hell you need to sharpen footage when delivering 2K from 5K.

WHy even bring the Epic into this discussion? If the the Mk3 is a apple, the Epic is a hot air ballon. And the Alexa is a space station. But Kholi, can I ask you this? In Reds software, is there a sharpening and noise adjustment slider? I say this because if you state that Epic is natively sharp and thus requires no adjustment, there wouldn't be those sliders in the program. Can the sharpening slider be adjusted negatively? Can you set sharpening in camera to sharpen the RAW? I said it earlier. Every digital imaging program has a sharpening tool.

 

[Kholi]

And I've never seen (in 4 years working at a post house) a sharp 5k image from the Epic. They look sharp when you start to scale them down.





I've got gobs of other peoples Epics footage. Only shot with it myself twice, but done lets of edits and vfx for others. Have you even looked at them at 100%?



You don't NEED to do anything. Sharpening a scaled image afterwards does slightly help though, no matter the starting res. As in stills, you scale an 18mp image to 2mp. Then add a smidgeon of sharpening. It does help. Lanczos3 which is one the best scalers around, always adds some sharpening after scaling down. There is a reason for that,

Epic hasn't been out for four years. Unless we just hit a time warp? Lol

Of course I've done my share of pixel peeping 5K. Countless hours in countless ways.

We disagree (as usual), that's cool. Still stands that the claim to have to sharpen epic footage is wrong.

(iPhone posting is bad news)

 

[KahL]

Khal,

I'm gonna ask you if you have a mk3 in your hands have recorded more than a minutes worth of footage of it at the camera store? Or maybe you downloaded some 12 sec clip off vimeo? I'm not sure. But you're attacking guys that have the camera that are here reporting their findings. Kinda what this forum is all about. Sharing, not slandering. Twilight zone video posts really aren't constructive to the discussion.

1. Already downloaded and graded raw files from the MKIII. I even posted it a week ago with 3 different grade types, +1 w/ film grain
2. I didn't post a Twilight Zone video post....though it does make sense when you look at the situation.
3. I asked if it was a troll post and stated it once. I didn't call someone a troll, nor did I do it more than once.

Toward the other statement, what's the big deal about low res? Well, let me think....*looks at box stating camera is "1080p video"*

Yeah, I think that may be it. Unless I'm still recording in 720x480, that is. But, if I'm mistaken, and I do hope that I'm not, 1080p pretty much means high resolution. And if I'm not mistaken again, the base limit for high definition is 720p and last we checked, these cameras don't even meet beyond the 700-line limit. They have great sensors for color and depth of field, even dynamic range (for 4yrs ago). Just not great for resolution. And, even more so when we've seen what can and should be done for a 1080p frame- the tech and approach is simply outdated on the MKIII.

Of course this is coming from a non-techie, simpleton POV as I'm not a coder. Just an illustrator and cinematographer.

Lastly, I'm not angry. I just don't enjoy justifying and celebrating mediocrity. Which appears to be a prevalent trend more and more these days (going beyond cameras really). But, that's another subject for another time