5D MKIII specs

squig said:
Haven't heard from Kholi for a while. Either he's collapsed or he's holding up a liquor store. Or perhaps he's just comatose in front of that big screen of his...hehe. If you go back about 50 pages you'll see that nostrasquig did predict his MKIII purchase.
Click to expand...
LOL! I'm not going there. Kholi and I have smoked the peace pipe. :Drogar-Evil(DBG):
 
That video most definitely changed my perception to a certain point about the MKIII. I have to admit, I don't see it as a complete waste any longer, although it still would've benefited heavily from a real resolution boost and codec improvement. HOWEVER, it really is a strong tool for cinematography, I'm seeing more now.
 
dustylense said:
It's not the same. I too have a projector going to a 200in screen out of a mac. You're still relying on the graphic card to decode. But the hardware in lets say a DLP or a LCD TV out of the Apple TV gives me a nice broadcast look. Another way is to play footage back on a Playstaion 3 using the SD card slot. I thought the projector method was good until I went the other route. The projector is still fun though! 200 inches!
Click to expand...

Well I do have a PS3, but I can say, the things I've watched through the Mac Mini have been fine to me. I've compared streaming content from both that was decent quality and I felt the color reproduction was fine. Thought I have not used the Apple TV so I can't comment on how much better! :)

I am doing 125 inches at about 7 feet. If I REALLY want to pixel peep, I just use my 30 inch cinema displays at 2560x1600. :)
 
Agreed on the PS3 note. I tend to display just about all of my work on it from the SD card slot and sometimes via PS3 Media Server.
 
Rick Burnett said:
Well I do have a PS3, but I can say, the things I've watched through the Mac Mini have been fine to me. I've compared streaming content from both that was decent quality and I felt the color reproduction was fine. Thought I have not used the Apple TV so I can't comment on how much better! :)

I am doing 125 inches at about 7 feet. If I REALLY want to pixel peep, I just use my 30 inch cinema displays at 2560x1600. :)
Click to expand...

Rick, try the PS3. It's really amazing when you load full 1080p of your stuff though it. Like Blueray beauty!
 
Here's the I-only vs. IPB detail test with post sharpening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTEV6_os4gY&hd=1
To my eyes, IPB has more detail/information. In some areas I-only can look sharper, however I suspect that's due to macroblock edge aliasing. Would be good to know if others replicate these findings with respect to I-only and IPB quality.

Note the first few seconds of the first couple scenes are static. They are downsampled still frames, showing what should be possible with the lens and camera to provide max detail. This also shows the scene was in focus.

Sounds like the quality issues of the 5D3 are now understood (and what to do to make it look good); time to get back to finishing the script and shooting the movie.
 
HOLY BALLS...so found out some more techniques with using USM tool.
The default on Premiere is AMOUNT: 50 RADIUS: 1
So just reading more on the tool's functions, I've come up with a formula that is resolving an OBSCENE amount of detail
AMOUNT: 350
RADIUS: .5

I'm seeing detail in hair, eye lashes, micro-contrasts in skin, all types of craziness. Sure, it's not as resolute as 1000 lines, but it's looking damn close. You can gain even more by boosting
AMOUNT: 450
RADIUS: .3

The only side effects are that the image becomes grainy which, from a film lover, more than likely would be a benefit than a problem.
 
KahL said:
HOLY BALLS...so found out some more techniques with using USM tool.
The default on Premiere is AMOUNT: 50 RADIUS: 1
So just reading more on the tool's functions, I've come up with a formula that is resolving an OBSCENE amount of detail
AMOUNT: 350
RADIUS: .5

I'm seeing detail in hair, eye lashes, micro-contrasts in skin, all types of craziness. Sure, it's not as resolute as 1000 lines, but it's looking damn close. You can gain even more by boosting
AMOUNT: 450
RADIUS: .3
Click to expand...
Welcome to the world of digital detail!
 
jcs said:
Here's the I-only vs. IPB detail test with post sharpening:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTEV6_os4gY&hd=1
To my eyes, IPB has more detail/information. In some areas I-only can look sharper, however I suspect that's due to macroblock edge aliasing. Would be good to know if others replicate these findings with respect to I-only and IPB quality.

Note the first few seconds of the first couple scenes are static. They are downsampled still frames, showing what should be possible with the lens and camera to provide max detail. This also shows the scene was in focus.

Sounds like the quality issues of the 5D3 are now understood (and what to do to make it look good); time to get back to finishing the script and shooting the movie.
Click to expand...

Looks good. Dump that lens though. Use it when you have to. Stick a prime on it! It's a good zoom, but it's nothing like a decent prime.
 
dustylense said:
Welcome to the world of digital detail!
Click to expand...
This is even making my 60D footage look insane.
I have a film short that's still going through the ADR motions right now. So I'll go beat up on that to see how it turns out (shot on the 5DII).
I may have to downgrade the grain a bit now, as this method introduces its own pretty looking native grain structure.
 
dustylense said:
Hans, name the clip you want to see in that dropbox and I'll add it to the link.
Click to expand...
I want to play around with post-sharpening techniques, so I'm looking for clips that have no in-camera sharpening. Did you shoot those shots with in-camera sharpening or was it all post?
 
HansSteinert said:
I want to play around with post-sharpening techniques, so I'm looking for clips that have no in-camera sharpening. Did you shoot those shots with in-camera sharpening or was it all post?
Click to expand...

I shot with cam sharpen at 2. I am uploading a close up of my daughter just in case you want to see it. Might take about 20 minutes or so.

EDIT: To all those that hit up my dropbox, I updated the folder with a shot of my daughter close up in I-frame raw footage.
 
Last edited:
dustylense said:
Nice little read on still lenses for cinema: http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/02/still-lenses/
Click to expand...

I met Shane on the old Warner lot in Hollywood a couple years ago; so cool that he shares his knowledge with everyone. Thanks for the link. I bought all L zooms for flexibility. I have only one prime, the 50 1.4. For up close video work, the 24-105 looks better to me (except in very low light). The 70-200 F2.8L II is really sharp, everywhere. According to reviews, not many primes can beat it (except perhaps in speed). Guess I need to try out a few Zeiss ZE and/or Compact Primes & similar to see for myself how they perform. My philosophical documentary is mostly closeups, but will also contain wide nature shots- renting high-quality primes might make sense (Panavision Primo? :tongue:)
 
jcs said:
I met Shane on the old Warner lot in Hollywood a couple years ago; so cool that he shares his knowledge with everyone. Thanks for the link. I bought all L zooms for flexibility. I have only one prime, the 50 1.4. For up close video work, the 24-105 looks better to me (except in very low light). The 70-200 F2.8L II is really sharp, everywhere. According to reviews, not many primes can beat it (except perhaps in speed). Guess I need to try out a few Zeiss ZE and/or Compact Primes & similar to see for myself how they perform. My philosophical documentary is mostly closeups, but will also contain wide nature shots- renting high-quality primes might make sense (Panavision Primo? :tongue:)
Click to expand...

It would probably be cheaper to just buy 3 vintage Leica's. You could pick up a wide, normal, and tele for around $1200. I've never used the pannys but I would imagine they are huge...kinda silly on a DSLR. The Leica's will last a lifetime, some of mine are older than me!
 
KahL said:
I'm seeing detail in hair, eye lashes, micro-contrasts in skin, all types of craziness. Sure, it's not as resolute as 1000 lines, but it's looking damn close. You can gain even more by boosting
AMOUNT: 450
RADIUS: .3

The only side effects are that the image becomes grainy which, from a film lover, more than likely would be a benefit than a problem.
Click to expand...

Sub 1.0 radius USM can look very similar to a convolution sharpen. You can also stack convolution and USM to cover more frequencies. Try a USM of 30, 50, 100, etc.: this will allow you to try Local Contrast Enhancement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQxxx2mkRgw
 
squig said:
It would probably be cheaper to just buy 3 vintage Leica's. You could pick up a wide, normal, and tele for around $1200. I've never used the pannys but I would imagine they are huge...kinda silly on a DSLR. The Leica's will last a lifetime, some of mine are older than me!
Click to expand...

What's the best adapter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top