Canon Adds Uncompressed HDMI output to 5DMK3

I knew it when the D800 had clean HDMI output. Glad I got that Hyperdeck two months ago :) But why wait until April 2013?
 
Supposedly these features aren't coming until April 2013 though...

"The new firmware update will be available, at no charge, in April 2013 from the Canon U.S.A. website and can be downloaded by end users or through Canon Factory Service Centers."
 
refocusedmedia said:
So that just again proves they intentionally cripple their hardware. Ugh.
Click to expand...
Exactly!
I really don't like the approach of leaving features out on purpose and only add them once their competitors force it to happen. Makes no sense why they are waiting till April as it is something that should have been there on launch like the D800.

For those that already have a 5D3 it is a great addition to a camera that already met the needs for them but I wouldn't be thanking Canon as it should have been available out of the box on day 1.
 
Yep, they have been living in dream land, thinking the 5d2 success would just carry on even if they brought the basic minimum. I think the recent rebates tell you how much they are selling compared to the Nikon D800 and now D600. To price the 5d3 $500 more than the Nikon D800 is just out of this world. Now they even have to face the $ 2k D600 which is more than a match to it for image quality. With all the competition from Nikon and Sony coming out with clean hdmi out and even the BMC, they were forced to react. But in the mean time they tell us how they consider there customer.
 
how will this compare to the bmcc? Which recorder would be recommended? Is the sensor the limiting factor in dynamic range, or the codec? Is 8bit vs 12bit much of a difference (not doing any keying work).
 
iunknown said:
how will this compare to the bmcc? Which recorder would be recommended? Is the sensor the limiting factor in dynamic range, or the codec? Is 8bit vs 12bit much of a difference (not doing any keying work).
Click to expand...

Uncompressed of the same image out of the 5D MKIII isn't going to make the image itself any "better" really. Grading will be far easier of course, but don't expect it to work like the GH2 hack where there's an obvious boost in perceived detail. I expect the image to look basically the same, and only look different when someone grabs a curves filter and drags it all over the place.
 
Well, they had to do something: BH is selling the kit for $3750 now (down from $4300 originally), I guess the 5D3s aren't exactly flying off the shelves...
 
KyleProhaska said:
Uncompressed of the same image out of the 5D MKIII isn't going to make the image itself any "better" really. Grading will be far easier of course, but don't expect it to work like the GH2 hack where there's an obvious boost in perceived detail. I expect the image to look basically the same, and only look different when someone grabs a curves filter and drags it all over the place.
Click to expand...

Yes, the image will be better.
It will be cleaner. Less compression artifacts.
Especially where motion is involved.

Dynamic range will not change as that is inherent to the sensor. However, that can be manipulated in some circumstances with log curves.
In fact with a Cinestyle log curve a lot of that noise we found in the Mk II low-mids will go away with the uncompressed HDMI out.
Grading will also be easier as the codec will not fall apart as easily with the extra headroom.
 
yoclay said:
Yes, the image will be better.
It will be cleaner. Less compression artifacts.
Especially where motion is involved.

Dynamic range will not change as that is inherent to the sensor. However, that can be manipulated in some circumstances with log curves.
In fact with a Cinestyle log curve a lot of that noise we found in the Mk II low-mids will go away with the uncompressed HDMI out.
Grading will also be easier as the codec will not fall apart as easily with the extra headroom.
Click to expand...

Isn't that really close to what I said? Also it's unlikely that uncompressed it's going to look any cleaner. It might have less compression artifacts but any noise hidden by the in-camera compression will now be seen for what it really is. Uncompressed is almost always noisier, because there's nothing to muddy up what the camera's giving you. I'm sure it'll still be really clean since the MKIII's ISO performance is awesome, but I don't think it'll actually look cleaner to the eye but rather the other way around.
 
^

Yes.

I agree with what Kyle's saying. If it's any better, I highly doubt it will be by any great margin, and likely up to the shooter if it's worth adding the cost of external recording and rigging for such a tiny gain.
 
I think it's largely inconsequential.
Add the fact that they're actually announcing it 6 months out and it becomes nothing more than a "look at me" ploy from a company behind the curve in many ways in a rapidly developing market.
 
They are doing now what I supposed they would be going to do since the MKIII came out - basically the same they did with the MKII: keeping the product fresh with updates. There is still so much leeway and processing power inside that camera that they can go that way easily into 2014. Internal codec improvements, better in camera sharping. They just need to look what Magic Lantern is doing and pic the basic improvements. From a marketing point of view I can understand that they do this. Though I surely would like to have it all NOW. But all that marketing trickery aside, summing up the qualities of the MKIII it's still the most workable full frame video DSLR for the money because it's the only one that doesn't have major flaws. (D800: aliasing, 1DX: no earphone jack, price)
 
We have just ordered a 5DIII and this news is a welcome addition.

Personally, I'm not too fussed about the so called crippling. It's a truly amazing DSLR camera anyway... it just got that little bit better (well, next year). If it is Nikon forcing Canon's hand... Who cares, we benefit.

People rave when someone like RED adds a feature a year after launch (even things that were in the spec sheet!).

I'm just thankful that Canon are finally listening and being pro-active.
 
I also applaud Canon for updating but at the same time am disappointed in their limiting approach. My big issue with the MKIII is it still puts out low resolution video. The chip is 22MP and the video image is barely HD! If Canon wants to make this camera more relevant they need the camera to put out 900-1000 lines of video resolution. 4:2:2 is great but many other cameras will still have a lot more detail.
 
All in all, it's a win for the consumer. But yeah, shame they waited for a reason to give this out when it's already there with other manufacturers.

It's still only 8 bit though correct? That to me seems like the biggest limiting factor.
 
Kholi said:
^

Yes.

I agree with what Kyle's saying. If it's any better, I highly doubt it will be by any great margin, and likely up to the shooter if it's worth adding the cost of external recording and rigging for such a tiny gain.
Click to expand...

Ok so it's not raw it's not 4k it's not 14 stops and it's not even 1080p but it's uncompressed which is a big gain on an already very nice image. Converting compressed MKIII footage to prores 422 actually adds more compression artifacts when you really push the codec hard. Prores 4444 is cleaner. Recording straight to prores 422 from the camera will not only be a great time saver but will be much more robust in the grade. I've heard a lot of people comment on the difference between grading compressed and prores FS100 footage and it had me crying for an uncompressed output.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top