Like most of these discussions here, it's just selective reasoning. If we were talking about the C300 or Red... then film is sharp and resolute. But since we're talking about the new 5DIII, film is soft with pastel colors. It's just how people argue.
5D MKIII specs
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
Like most of these discussions here, it's just selective reasoning. If we were talking about the C300 or Red... then film is sharp and resolute. But since we're talking about the new 5DIII, film is soft with pastel colors. It's just how people argue.
dustylense
Veteran
As a stills camera, it's a 100% upgrade. Period.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
Dusty, I completely agree...just trying to make a pros/cons list for those who are actually interested in the camera. For those who aren't, then no need for further "bashing" of the MK3. "It's not the droid you are looking for" as you said...lol
I will edit my original post to reflect the stills side
I will edit my original post to reflect the stills side
KahL
Well-known member
Reid isn't an authority on it. Simple common sense in this case is. He just so happens to be the loudest voice on the GH2 subject, which tends to make more sense nowadays. Before that, as I've said earlier, I wasn't too fond of his posts for the most part.
Keep in mind, I'm not the one comparing Canons to film. It's the supporters who are doing it, while using the soft image work it produces as some sort of connection to the way film looks. Which just is not true.
And the video image, after all of this, still looks shoddy and outdated. The body mechanics may have improved, but the end result is fairly poor by today's standards and that's just hard to deny.
The rest that I keep seeing are excuses and resolution charts with guessimations based on POST SHARPENING, which is odd unto itself.
Yes, it's a stills camera, but so is the GH2.
I believe I already stated that it may be better to wait for the C-DSLR. Numerous times.
In high ISOs, yes it IS cleaner, and mushy. Lower ISO levels, it's actually SOFTER than the MKII and we've seen side by side comparisons on this thread already. So how is this an upgrade? I don't understand.
Or the better question someone asked already: Why would you even buy a MKIII when you can have similar (and better) results with an ML modded MKII using the moire filter?
I think that's a good one as well.
Canon built the division for the large Hollywood clout, exposure and money making the C300 could potentially delve into. Last I checked, none of us were Scorcese on their promotional stage and even he doesn't use the camera (ironically, it's the Alexa he uses). The people who got Canon to where they are in this division in the first place were small filmmakers, not large ones.
What does that even have to do with this?
If we want our work to look like film, then we have plenty of options for it, don't we? My point wasn't to instead use an Epic, but delving on the odd excuse that Canon's MKIII looks poorly mushy due to being similar to film, which is obviously untrue. What we're suspecting (and more than likely to be true) is that it looks poor so they can protect their C300 and EOS C division.
I agree, like many others who don't appear to be sticking their head in the sand, that the video was purposely hamstrung and this isn't some sort of artistic endeavor after all.
Apologies for any miscommunication there.
I see.
Last edited:
Danielvilliers
Veteran
I would like to see the level of sharpening that has been used here applied to human being. My guess it will look horrible. Eoshd himself who started a post on his blog about sharpening, stated the it would work for some things but fall apart for others. I am no fanboy, nikon shooter for my photography, who bought a 7d for video before moving to a hacked gh2. My pre ordered d800 should come next month, but I am going to do all sort of convoluted post processing to say that it does not moire or alias. From what I has seen it does. It is a bit unfortunate because it is damn good. The DR and the rolling shutter seems very very good. The rez also seems good and with an external recorder it could have been perfect except for the aliasing. Now I am sure that many Canon shooter will see the d800 unusable because of the aliasing/moire (much more controlled than the original 5d2) while they have been clamoring that it did not bother them before with the mark2.
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Film looks soft when it gets to theaters, of which I have been to 8 different theaters locally and I can tell you, they are not sharp. BluRays on my home 1080p projection system are WAY sharper.
In fact, I tend to only go to IMAX now locally (which would be theatre 9) because the image quality is actually worth making the drive to see.
That said, I've still gone here and there to see if any of the theaters have upgraded their delivery systems in ANY way and that is a big ZERO.
Now, I'm not saying this justifies soft images, but at least where I live, this is what people see when they go to the theater. After going BluRay/1080p I was quite shocked at how much better my home system looks, and it was NOT the best projector money could buy. (And I project 125 inches and view from 7 feet)
KahL
Well-known member
Yeah that was my suspicion as well. It may be a case of the projectors rather than the medium itself.
One small theater near me projects on 35mm still (happily I might add!!!) and I had a chance to see "A Dangerous Method" there. Then I bought the Blu Ray and it was like night and day. Much more resolution and much sharper.
So maybe this is indeed the case after all.
Last edited:
TrueIndigo
Well-known member
Wow, no posts for nearly 10 minutes - everyone ok?
Reminds me, really must get down to writing that modern horror script idea which, seemingly, everyone can identify with: the sheer terror of buying the wrong camera!
Reminds me, really must get down to writing that modern horror script idea which, seemingly, everyone can identify with: the sheer terror of buying the wrong camera!
+1 :thumbsup:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
It's kind of sad really. When I went and watched Predators when it came out at a newer theatre, I was AMAZED at the softness, and this was on release day so I figured the film itself was quite new.
A friend of mine who does IMAX work told me that by the time films get to the theatre, their resolution is close to 720p level in testing of random theaters. (At least, this is what i think he told me!)
Now, something VERY important to consider is this. You KNOW that film starts with a higher resolution before it gets to the theater. That process of going from high res to low res, what is it going to do with something that starts at a lower resolution? And granted, there are steps film goes through that digital doesn't have to, but I think this is a point that gets lost a lot. Some people want higher quality so it can survive the journey. Some people are taking their journey right to the web (me) so we have different needs.
pulpfiction007
Veteran
http://vimeo.com/10570139 A reminder of what the camera is capable of for those so intent on pixel peeping. This is the MK2, the MK3 will handle those first low light scenes even better and without moire/aliasing. Either it's good enough for your needs or it isn't. End of story.
I'm surprised that I actually preferred the GH2 footage. But I know the Mark II is capable of some gorgeous video and I'm sure the Mark III will be as well.
GioCanales
Active member
Thanks for remind me, "the critics come from my brain, cause my soul just wants to go outside and shoot".
KahL
Well-known member
That's more of a testament to how great Shane and his team are at cinematography and storytelling. Not the capabilities of the camera necessarily. He could've shot that on an old SD cam and it would've still been awesome (albeit aesthetic differences of course).
You wouldn't say that a person's cooking is great because they have awesome pots and pans, now would you?
Awesome vid. Thought this was interesting:
"As William's life unfolds from present day to the past, we shot with the Canon 5D at 30fps and pulled it in at 24fps to give it a slightly dreamy feel."
I can attest to that. I don't know what it was with our 35mm copies but they were never that sharp. When we went digital 2k the sharpness had an apparent increase from. And 2k is basically HD. So yeah, 720p is pretty much right. There were some darn good looking copies here and the (anamorphically shot) but the problem was focusing. In Finland we have subtitles and when I focused the text so that it was sharp, the center of image was slightly blurry. When I focused the center sharp, the text and outlines were blurry.
Though I still really love the old projectors and the look they give. Eventhough by modern standards, it's kinda crap.
You know what's funny? I was going through youtube looking for XF300 material and everything I could find looked horrible. And that's supposed to be one sharp cam. So looking for material in youtube isn't always the best way.
dustylense
Veteran
Been playing with the cam since I got it. For the past year I been shooting m4/3's (af100 and gh2) and rarely used my mk2. It dawned on me that the FF way of seeing was kinda forgotten while filming with the m4/3. That narrow DOF look, ya know? I have suspicion there are others in here who's eyes have been use to the smaller frame sizes over the last year. Add that to the fact that in the past few months (and year) we saw the C300, Epic, Scarlet, F3, Fs100 all make it's entrance and then the Gh2 hack. Your eyes have just adjusted to those smaller formats. You're now trained to see 3 feet of DOF instead of 8 inches and sometimes less with that FF. You're used to studying films like The girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Hurt Locker (16mm), and Black Swan. Gh2 hack footage with 4 times the DOF. Because before the Mk2, you were use to seeing DOF adapter footage shot on HVX200's and such. A still cam 35mm FOV, but not resolving true 1080p due to the adapter and it's nuisance. And now were are seeing "affordable" 4k solutions from RED.
Some may have just lost what the FF look with that 3in DOF is. Mk3 soft? Sure, there is soft mk3 footage. I can tell you my Leica R glass smokes my 24-105 Eos. It's twice the optic and they are 20 years old. Lot's are judging mk3 footage on youtube and vimeo (I'd say most are on this thread. I have the mk3, do you?) What glass are they shooting through. THe 24-105 is a fine lens, but it's not perfect. The 50 1.4 Eos is good, but my Leica 50 kills it. Lots of variables out there to consider before passing judgement. I see comments elsewhere of users treating the Mk3 like the Mk2. Turn sharpness all the way down and use marvels or cinestyle. Toto, this ain't Kansas anymore. It's a different camera. I bet around 90% of the footage you've seen is folks just got the camera and set it up like the Mk2 and went out and shot.
I know, it's weird to use post sharpening to a digital file for most. I do it all the time with my stills. Unsharp mask? There are plenty of sharpening tools better than standard unsharp mask, although they are based from unsharp mask. But if I slap the 85 1.8 a camera, then hit the 24-105 for the same still photo, I'm gonna have to sharpen the 24-105 to match. Thats part of the reason every one of your digital file editors, be it FCP, photoshop, Lightroom, or whatever you have on your computer has a sharpening tool. ALL OF THEM! Lots of them have noise tools too.
Perceptually, without shooting any res charts and not scientifically testing, I'm seeing footage off the mk3 that either feels or is between 850-950 lines after I treat it on post (yes, with that tool every digital file edit program called sharpen). If you don't agree, buy a FS100 or keep using your gh2.
In essence, on a close up shot if you miss focus with say the 24-70 2.8 by even the smallest factor, your shot is going to look pretty soft on a FF camera. And if you're focusing in and out and in and out and in, one will have a hard time seeing "perceived" resolution.
Some may have just lost what the FF look with that 3in DOF is. Mk3 soft? Sure, there is soft mk3 footage. I can tell you my Leica R glass smokes my 24-105 Eos. It's twice the optic and they are 20 years old. Lot's are judging mk3 footage on youtube and vimeo (I'd say most are on this thread. I have the mk3, do you?) What glass are they shooting through. THe 24-105 is a fine lens, but it's not perfect. The 50 1.4 Eos is good, but my Leica 50 kills it. Lots of variables out there to consider before passing judgement. I see comments elsewhere of users treating the Mk3 like the Mk2. Turn sharpness all the way down and use marvels or cinestyle. Toto, this ain't Kansas anymore. It's a different camera. I bet around 90% of the footage you've seen is folks just got the camera and set it up like the Mk2 and went out and shot.
I know, it's weird to use post sharpening to a digital file for most. I do it all the time with my stills. Unsharp mask? There are plenty of sharpening tools better than standard unsharp mask, although they are based from unsharp mask. But if I slap the 85 1.8 a camera, then hit the 24-105 for the same still photo, I'm gonna have to sharpen the 24-105 to match. Thats part of the reason every one of your digital file editors, be it FCP, photoshop, Lightroom, or whatever you have on your computer has a sharpening tool. ALL OF THEM! Lots of them have noise tools too.
Perceptually, without shooting any res charts and not scientifically testing, I'm seeing footage off the mk3 that either feels or is between 850-950 lines after I treat it on post (yes, with that tool every digital file edit program called sharpen). If you don't agree, buy a FS100 or keep using your gh2.
In essence, on a close up shot if you miss focus with say the 24-70 2.8 by even the smallest factor, your shot is going to look pretty soft on a FF camera. And if you're focusing in and out and in and out and in, one will have a hard time seeing "perceived" resolution.
Last edited:
HansSteinert
Well-known member
Considering we're dealing with 1k and 2k resolutions, I highly doubt the lenses are the primary culprit in terms of sharpness. Those lenses are used professionally for 22mp photographs (I myself am one of these users), so the resolving power of lenses is not the issue of softness when shooting video on a 5D III. The resolving power for 1000 lines, let alone 700 lines, is there with Canon's L lenses. At under 2k resolution, the primary difference between lenses is color rendition, bokeh quality, focus breathing, legnth/smoothness of pulling focus, build quality, and performance wide open. Resolving power isn't a huge variable at under 2k resolution when comparing Canon L lenses (even the 24-105) and higher end film lenses.
Last edited:
joe 1008
Veteran
Yes, but contrast can vary a lot, even with sharp lenses. Low microcontrast can be perceived as soft. Though I agree that the softness we see on MK III out of camera footage is mostly based on in camera processing. What is right on the other hand is that the shallow DOF doesn't always help to match the subjective impression of sharpness comparing the footage to the GH2 for example. Bu I have the suspicion that the GH2, same with the MK II, produces a certain amount of false detail and therefore the impression of sharpness.