dustylense
Veteran
But maybe that guy was wrong because this cinestyle looks quite good. http://vimeo.com/groups/eos/videos/39074047
Less aliasing - More noise
- Thread starter Chris Santucci
- Start date
EIREHotspur
Well-known member
I want to break a trend for a highly tech forum and bring things back to simplicity with this offering.
How is it possible for a huge organization like Canon ( with thousands of Tech people to call on ) to make a camera that is inferior to the Mark III ?
Within a few hours of getting my 5D3 I simply refuse to believe this.
How is it possible for a huge organization like Canon ( with thousands of Tech people to call on ) to make a camera that is inferior to the Mark III ?
Within a few hours of getting my 5D3 I simply refuse to believe this.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Thanks Chris, after waiting 3 years for the MK3, I'll be picking up an MK2 and a Canon 24mm f1.4L for about the same money. I might even keep my 60D for a b cam.
Last edited:
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I was testing with CineStyle but then went to Neutral.
It's all there in the camera footage file. I'd hate to think what it would turn into after transcoding, etc. All I'm doing is looking at the camera files.
Now I'm testing with a neutral grey instead of the orangey brown wall I was testing on. It seems the sensor does not like that yellow/red color, especially down bellow 35 IRE.
These are short IPB clips both at 640 ISO with (contrast and sharpening all the way down), with ALL in-camera enhancements disabled and the NR on "standard" (which apparently has no effect at the lower ISO's):
Neutral picture setting:
www.santucci-cinematographer.com/MISC/640ISO_Neutral.MOV
CineStyle picture setting:
www.santucci-cinematographer.com/MISC/640ISO_CineStyle.MOV
I'm starting to fear that I'm looking too close. :-Dum(DBG):
Last edited:
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I've been asking myself the same question. The MKIII is great at the very high ISO's with the NR they added, and they added some other features that I guess are improvements, BUT, they obviously did something to reign in the aliasing that results in a less sharp image (and maybe more noise?) AND, I'm seeing ugly noise that I'm not used to seeing from my MKII (or even my 7D) even at the lower ISO's.
Regarding the softer image, some can say "Just sharpen in post," BUT, if you're shooting and not posting - who knows what someone will do or not do in post.
Last edited:
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I've been looking at some of my MKII footage and I'm not seeing the offensive noise that I'm seeing from the MKIII or even my 7D. Unless you need or want the features Canon added, in my opinion - it's not at all worth the $1000+ over the MKII.
I admit, the noise might be the same as with the MKII, but if it is - why do I want a softer image when the aliasing was never a major problem (for me)?
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
Well, it seems you answered your own question. Return the camera.
squig
Veteran
So far nobody else has noticed this so maybe you got a dud. I'd take it to the store and compare it to another or go to Canon pro services. Is there the same noise in jpeg stills?
Samuel H
Major Contributor
I've been working on Flaat v2 for the 5D3 today...
first, some more bad news: compared with my old APS-C canon, dynamic range in video mode is basically the same; there's more headroom in RAW stills, but it's all crushed in video mode, no matter how hard you fight against the PSE; I've measured a bit over 11 stops, maybe 11.5
and then: here is version 2.0 of my suite of Flaat picture styles:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html
maybe using Flaat_09 (low-DR), or shooting Flaat_12 (high-DR) and then crushing in post could produce a bit less noise (actually, I doubt it, but you know: might be worth a shot before you start getting medieval on that camera...)
first, some more bad news: compared with my old APS-C canon, dynamic range in video mode is basically the same; there's more headroom in RAW stills, but it's all crushed in video mode, no matter how hard you fight against the PSE; I've measured a bit over 11 stops, maybe 11.5
and then: here is version 2.0 of my suite of Flaat picture styles:
http://www.similaar.com/foto/flaat-picture-styles/index.html
maybe using Flaat_09 (low-DR), or shooting Flaat_12 (high-DR) and then crushing in post could produce a bit less noise (actually, I doubt it, but you know: might be worth a shot before you start getting medieval on that camera...)
ROCKMORE
Veteran
Have you ever called Canon help line. They just read it right from the corporate manual. Canon is a profit minded corporation and obsolescence is planned into every product. In this case the Mk3 is way short of what it should have been after 3 years. Maybe they plan another 3 to get it right.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
I've seen mention of the noise in the lower ranges and to me it looks uglier than the noise I saw from the MKII. The softness seems to be universally noticed and then there's the useless "improvements" that I don't feel warrant the price tag, but that's just me. I really enjoyed working with the MKII and I get that it was never meant to be a video camera, but they managed (in my opinion) to marginally if at all improve the camera (mostly with useless bells & whistles) and charge a lot more for it which offends me as a consumer.
I'm returning the MKIII and resuming with the 7D and MKII (with the addition of a VAF-5D2). If it is a dud, I just hope that whomever ends up with that body next doesn't need to do much more than shoot their kids at the beach with it.
dustylense
Veteran
Dude,
It's you or you got a DUD. I am seeing NO NOISE either I-frame or IBP. All the way up to 6400 ISO.
squig
Veteran
Yeah I reckon it's a dud. That spike in the histogram looked nasty. It's DOA, just grab another one. ALL-I definitely has issues that Canon can easily fix with a CBR. If they don't perhaps magic lantern will. IPB looks pretty solid so far except in Chris's case. The only other issue I'm aware of is an ALL-I gamma shift. I'm wondering whether ALL-I could be 4:2:2 and IPB 4:2:0. I don't know how to check, none of my software can anyway.
I found 'noise' in I-only but not IPB. It's not clearly visible until sharpen is turned way up, though. Looking at it more closely, it looks like aliasing on the DCT macroblock edges. Could be also be a decoder issue with PPro CS5.5 (not applying a deblocking filter). In any case, I can get IPB looking sharper and with less artifacts than I-only in PPro CS5.5.
Chris Santucci
Veteran
Series number? Beats me. It was bought from Beach Camera in New Jersey where it's headed back too now.
Last edited: