5D MKIII specs

Just to get back on topic, we have got a Fizz and Mosquito buzzing thread going on over at Cinema5d, and I think it is a topic worth discussing. Not only is All-i weak as VBR, but it appears to be broken. Furher, lots of noise issues in low ISO's. This is more of an issue to me than resolution at this point. We have one character (Pablov) who is a specialist at guerrila harassment of Canon who is definitely suiting up on this.

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39829

DVXuser equivalent:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278314-Less-aliasing-More-noise
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
More good 2.7 D4 shots. This is a great look.

http://vimeo.com/39168418
Click to expand...

There is no definition in her dress anymore. None. The DR is still not where I like it. The skin tones on Nikons are great though.
The question then will be how the codec will hold up once the sensor doesn´t get enough light and crushes the blacks. And by using a flat scene file it will still show the blocks of the codec.

Edit: the LOOK you talk about can be done with Curves easily after. But if the clients want a different "look" you are baked in with this.
 
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...

? In my experience the Canons have always been pretty ok at dynamic range. Definitely no crushed blacks here and I'm just using the Neutral profile. Some people have been having problems with quicktime gammas and how they can clip 16 levels of black and white. That would definitely crush a lot of detail.
 
alpi69 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well that's the thing! Not everyone shoots the same way. Some like the DSLR form factor. Some do ENG-work and thus hate it. Some shoot for a profession. When you need to capture hours of footage per day, suddenly the DSLR's don't look so good. But all of these cameras do have their niche.
 
yoclay said:
Just to get back on topic, we have got a Fizz and Mosquito buzzing thread going on over at Cinema5d, and I think it is a topic worth discussing. Not only is All-i weak as VBR, but it appears to be broken. Furher, lots of noise issues in low ISO's. This is more of an issue to me than resolution at this point. We have one character (Pablov) who is a specialist at guerrila harassment of Canon who is definitely suiting up on this.

http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39829

DVXuser equivalent:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?278314-Less-aliasing-More-noise
Click to expand...
YoClay,
I have read that forum too and sorry man, I'm just not seeing that. I'm pushing 8000 Iso's that look cleaner than my af100 at 640. Remember when the Af100 hit and there was this whole "I see excessive noise" hubbub? Turns out as a hardware problem in graphics cards for most people, and Barry proved that. I've e-mailed lots of guys having positive response to the Mk3 and they too are just not seeing these reports.

I'm enjoying the I-frame with success but I do think Canon or magic lantern needs to secure a CBR ability for it. Or maybe there are some dud cameras floating around?

I've stacked the mk3 up against crap around the house that I've shot with my AF100, Mk2, gh2, Xf105, my HVX200, hell even my Iphone 4s. The Mk3, too me is topping them all at noise, aliasing, and resolution (yes the hacked gh2 does perceptively come off more resolute). It's defiantly pulling crisper and more detailed images than my Af100. If the Af100 is 800 lines and the gh2 is 1000, I feel this camera at 900-950. But its by applying a touch of post sharpening. And I'm out in pleanty of light for 1250 wide open and shooting stuff at 3200's hitting f8 or 11. Thats a pretty valuable flexibility considering you have a sensor 4 times the size of 4/3's. But yet 5.6 and 8's are still crazy shallow on FF. I'm liking the ability to stop down a bit in lower light with the FF.

Rest assured, Canon will update this camera. How it stands today will most surely improve. It's still really early in the hands of the vast. I again point you at this video. Shoot all I-frame and at 3200. http://vimeo.com/39153996 and this in Cinestyle all I-frame http://vimeo.com/groups/eos/videos/39074047

Just reporting what I'm seeing and feeling, and seeing from others.
 
dustylense said:
Koholi,
But then you start posting Scary Door videos and I see no call for it.
Click to expand...

Dustylense, Kholi was responding to my joking twilight zone pic. I've been on DVXuser, as well Kholi since the early days and consider him a friend- pics etc have been used to illustrate a mood, tone, joke, you name it- this is synonymous with DVXuser. Kholi definitely doesn't need I to defend him, however he's passionate and voices it. More power to him! I'm glad he voices his opinion, instead of acting like a stone, and adds nothing to the conversation ( that goes for everyone as well ). I've noticed this attacking more and more here. Not that it hasn't happen in the past, just the frequency seems to be more. We are all on the same playing field here to a certain degree. Maybe we don't all play the same positions, however we're all more similar than not.

Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
http://twitter.com/pappasarts
 
It's off to the bank tomorrow for some more debt servitude I go hi ho.

Hopefully we'll get to the bottom of Chris's issues. I suspect it's something in the transcode.

Well between Canon and magic lantern surely it can be fixed.

Now back to building the alien spacecraft.
 
PappasArts said:
A few of us were talking about that yesterday. Isn't funny how the marionette short as well the other short canon films looked sharper than what people are getting out of the shipping camera.
Click to expand...

Kholi reckons they were post sharpened. They spent some money on them so they probably went to a post house.
 
Brian Russell said:
This whole sharpening issue seems crazy to me. I've been using the camera for the past few days. You can here about it and read my thoughts on sharpening here: http://vimeo.com/39103929
Click to expand...

Film isn't soft and mushy looking. Why people even try to make this out to be a reality is beyond me.
Just what films (not on DVD) have this soft, muddy look? I'm a bit of a Blu Ray whore and even the older stocks from the 50's and 70's don't look this way.
 
KahL said:
Film isn't soft and mushy looking. Why people even try to make this out to be a reality is beyond me.
Just what films (not on DVD) have this soft, muddy look? I'm a bit of a Blu Ray whore and even the older stocks from the 50's and 70's don't look this way.
Click to expand...

I used to run a theatre and the 35mm films projected here in Finland are usually surprisingly soft. Anamorphic films are almost sharp at the center but the edges are rubbish. Spherical 35mm is almost always soft. When they do blurays they tend to use the original masters and offcourse add some sharpening afterwards. A lot of the earlier blurays are actually quite soft and some still are. There are also quite a lot of bluray discs with huge sharpening halos and unbelievable amounts of NR resulting in plasticky skins. They are improving though, year by year.

There is quite a lot of mastering going on behind the scenes. For Aliens BLURAY they removed a lot of grain then added it back in with sharpening. It looks good! But it's not just transferred as is.

When our theatre went the "digital route" I did some screenings of my own material in dcp packages, some shot with the 5d mark II, some with the 7d, some with a JVC hdv cam and a 35mm adapter. They all looked surprisingly good.
 
Last edited:
maarek said:
I used to run a theatre and the 35mm films projected here in Finland are usually surprisingly soft. Anamorphic films are almost sharp at the center but the edges are rubbish. Spherical 35mm is almost always soft. When they do blurays they tend to use the original masters and offcourse add some sharpening afterwards. A lot of the earlier blurays are actually quite soft and some still are. There are also quite a lot of bluray discs with huge sharpening halos and unbelievable amounts of NR resulting in plasticky skins. They are improving though, year by year.

There is quite a lot of mastering going on behind the scenes. For Aliens BLURAY they removed a lot of grain then added it back in with sharpening. It looks good! But it's not just transferred as is.

When our theatre went the "digital route" I did some screenings of my own material in dcp packages, some shot with the 5d mark II, some with the 7d, some with a JVC hdv cam and a 35mm adapter. They all looked surprisingly good.
Click to expand...
That also depends on the resolution output of the projector and the source materials' resolution also, wouldn't it? If the projector's output is fairly low, then the image will display that way. The later standards being 2k res improved upon this, but the source still has to compensate for the higher resolution, I believe. These days, the actual resolving detail of film has been discovered to be upwards of 5-6k, with older films being re-scanned and tested.

I agree that some blu ray movies do involve quite a bit of sharpening. But, there are just as many that do not. A good example of the film scan ordeal is Bob Primes, ASC's tests from 2009-2010 where he compares film to the Red, Alexa, Genesis and other cameras.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
Rest assured, Canon will update this camera. How it stands today will most surely improve. It's still really early in the hands of the vast. I again point you at this video. Shoot all I-frame and at 3200. http://vimeo.com/39153996 and this in Cinestyle all I-frame http://vimeo.com/groups/eos/videos/39074047

Just reporting what I'm seeing and feeling, and seeing from others.
Click to expand...

I think the Seussical Promo is quite amazing for ISO 3200 It did have some nice detail but the first thing that jumps out at me are the blacks. Not as bad in this video but they still sort of dominate the spectrum. I guess with the low noise you can lift them with success but it would be nice to not have them so heavy to begin with. (same with the GH2) Yes you can use the Cinestyle but then you are starting with milk everywhere.

It is good to see quality examples coming from the MKIII and the D800.
 
dustylense said:
YoClay,
Remember when the Af100 hit and there was this whole "I see excessive noise" hubbub? Turns out as a hardware problem in graphics cards for most people, and Barry proved that. I've e-mailed lots of guys having positive response to the Mk3 and they too are just not seeing these reports.
Click to expand...


Actually, that's not entirely true. The problem is also with the sharpening in camera and it pops out the noise on the AF100 to levels I just DID NOT like. I spent A LOT of time with the camera and never ran with sharpness above -4.
 
KahL said:
Film isn't soft and mushy looking. Why people even try to make this out to be a reality is beyond me.
Just what films (not on DVD) have this soft, muddy look? I'm a bit of a Blu Ray whore and even the older stocks from the 50's and 70's don't look this way.
Click to expand...

Well first, the mk3 isn't film now is it? Neither was the mk2, or the mk1, or the rebel. You want film? Then shoot film!
It's getting out of hand now. Some guys referencing Andrew Reid as authority. The guy claimed that the C300 was a 4.2.0. color camera. He's wrong all the time. Maybe he took a marketing class and they told him to be the guy that disapproves so he gets forced hits to his blog so users can see why.

It's not like canon took a step backwards. The camera is straight up a better camera, as a camera. It's built better. Its upgraded in every feature on it. 61 point AF up from 9. Weather sealed. ISO performance. Better buttons. Better grip. 6 frames/sec. Quiet shutter mode. A digital bubble level (which I love). More processors and with the latest and greatest. Dual card slots. HDR mode. Great lock buttons. Bigger better LCD. Did I mention ISO performance? Thats just the stills side of the camera, what it's built for.
You guys know the specs. Video is upgraded as well. No need to list them. As another anonymous user said "it's not the second coming". But it's a definite upgrade. On all fronts. Every single feature. And here's the kicker. You don't have to buy it. Keep your mk2's and buy a FS100. Maybe even a used one. Buy a Scarlet, an F3, or a AF100. They are perfect for video usage. Or, get the Nikon D4, the D800, or a Sony. OOOORRRR, maybe wait and see what the EOS C SLR is all about?

You can't fight the fact that the Mk3 video is cleaner and just better for what it is and how Canon decided to include it. THey built a whole division for you guys, which includes the C300 and a line of lenses with a marketing release of "the story continues". Those are the droids you are looking for. None of those cameras will have what it takes to compete with the Mk3 on a stills front. THey will be designed as a motion capture device.

"Film isn't soft and mushy looking"? Buy an Epic then.
 
Wow, what a long crazy thread. Just came from Mr Blooms blog....he was seeing softness as well in his initial 48hr review, but after having more time he said a bit of post sharpening is making the footage come to life. Seems like that may be the go to workflow for the MK3, as seen here as well. So for a potential purchase vs an MK2/sticking with the MK2 it seems to boil down to..
1. Is the great reduction of aliasing and moire important
2. Is very improved high iso/ low light important
3. Are the headphone jack/audio meters important
4. Is HD monitoring important
5. Are the VAST stills improvements and better build quality in any way important

or does the softer out of camera image (and extra steps needed to bring it to life) nullify these improvements and make the cheaper(esp if you have one already!) MK2 a better buy.
Seems like a simple way for a buyer to weigh it all out
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top