New 5D MarkIII, is this what we've been waiting for?
- Thread starter eco_bach
- Start date
If you have to collect pro-quality sound you will not very likely be recording into the camera. However, no headphone jack does have a workaround, it comes in the form of a $26 splitter cable from SESCOM with a boostaroo headphone amplifier or a Juicedlink box with mixing pots, clean gain and an integrated jack. Further, having that jack on the new camera doesnt change much, you will still need an external box or recorder if you want clean gain and decent dynamic range. Pro sound does not come from a headphone jack, it comes from good microphone positioning (usually not on-camera), decent equipment (at least a good pre-ampli) and for the most part staying on top of the levels.
Using the headphone jack you are monitoring what is being recorded while using a splitter cable you are merely monitoring the microphone & what is being sent to the camera. There are no guarantees that what you hear is what is being recorded for example the cable may be bad or the mic jack may not be plugged fully home in the socket.
I'm in no hurry so I'll hold fire until I see straight-from-camera I-Frame footage at ISO 100 (Forget about crazy high ISO stuff, I don't film black cats in coal cellars at midnight), and yes, zone plates to show exactly what is going on.
I'm thinking that the Cine-DSLR will be waaay out of my reach, but if it came in at £4k? I don't know, perhaps another invitation to bankruptcy?
Since I'll be upgrading from a 5DI and 550D, and want one cam to do-it all (*Deep sinister voice* One Cam to Rule Them All....), the 5DIII may, just may be it. I have a gut feeling that the Cine-DSLR may not be so good for stills.
I'm thinking that the Cine-DSLR will be waaay out of my reach, but if it came in at £4k? I don't know, perhaps another invitation to bankruptcy?
Since I'll be upgrading from a 5DI and 550D, and want one cam to do-it all (*Deep sinister voice* One Cam to Rule Them All....), the 5DIII may, just may be it. I have a gut feeling that the Cine-DSLR may not be so good for stills.
Wet Rag incoming... you were warned....
Honestly, that so-called number one movie shows you what the 5D can do... when there's plenty of money to throw at it in post. THe image you see on that screen probably isn't going to be anything near what a lowly broke filmmaker is going to get. There wont' be post software to correct rolling shutter, an expensive DI process to sharpen footage or reduce noise.
Yeah, that movie was shot mostly on a DSLR, but it probably went through a major motion picture process to become what you see on that screen.
These guys have the raw assets to polish poop. Most of us here do not. THIS is why we fight about pixels so much. Because if we had all the money in the world then we wouldn't really care. Maybe I"m speaking out of turn, but I feel like every last one of us is searching for one thing in a camera: Peace of mind. And clearly most of us don't have it, so the cycle keeps repeating.
I'm right there with the rest.
I agree with you. When it all boils down to it making a decent film comes down to 1 of two things 1. money 2. strong resources (and money buys more resources). Trying to find peace of mind in a camera body is a lost cause in my opinion. You've expressed that you love your GH2 and the image is incredible and comparable to red and c300 footage and is light years away from canon dslr footage and you have access to an Epic and C300 and a myriad of other cameras so shouldn't you have already found your peace of mind?
Last edited:
klas
Active member
Well, I'm not sure I agree. Everybody has the power to do some sharpening and reduce noise with the right know how. And regarding rollingshutter. That is not so much of a problem. If you have the camera on a shoulder rig you barely get any. I've shot a lot of action stuff with a shoulder rig that got pretty shaky at times with no skewing. The only time I encountered real rolling shutter problems was when I was shooting handheld through a 400mm lens to get the feeling of looking through a rifle scope.
And what do you, Kholi, mean by "so-called" number one movie. Was it not number one? It seems to be third now.
That said, resolution is not a bad thing either. I am absolutely looking at that gh2 cam. But I just kind of do not like the look. I will probably end up testing one though as the human behind the camera affects the look more than the actual camera.
Link to a fun thread that can give you a little perspective on resolution. Most people seems to chose the wrong one.
The main problem I've had with the 5DMii is compression on wide shots where a lot of detail are in focus.
And what do you, Kholi, mean by "so-called" number one movie. Was it not number one? It seems to be third now.
That said, resolution is not a bad thing either. I am absolutely looking at that gh2 cam. But I just kind of do not like the look. I will probably end up testing one though as the human behind the camera affects the look more than the actual camera.
Link to a fun thread that can give you a little perspective on resolution. Most people seems to chose the wrong one.
The main problem I've had with the 5DMii is compression on wide shots where a lot of detail are in focus.
C-Mac
Well-known member
I personally am excited about the prospect of no aliasing and moire. Everything else is icing in my mind. I recently used the 5D Mark II on a music video that I DP'ed and Directed. I was cutting out the back grounds for the set and was nervous about these issues. I ended up getting a Red 1 on the performance day for the video. All the forward and back dolly movement and slow motion is Red 1 there are some other shots that are Red 1 during the performance, but not many. All hand held is shot 5DMKII, side close up and side to side rising dolly shot is 5DMKII. After seeing the footage for this day I was comfortable shooting the rest on the 5DMKII. The night before I began to get worried about aliasing on the actress' outfit. I tried to get a Red 1 in for a couple slow motion shots and safety... It did not happen. So almost all the story line footage is 5DMKII. We did use a GoPro 2 for the Nails falling shots and the Coffin shot where the water ruses around the camera in a hurry. The coffin shots where the water trickles in and around camera are 7D footage. The ax striking the coffin, the hammer hitting the nails, the hand reaching into coffin are all 7D footage for slow motion 60p. No shots where processed for noise, shots received simple color correction. The Red 1 footage was raw and needed to be shifted in RedCine to match the 5DMKII as best as possible, pre FCP color correction. Minimal color correction was applied, maybe a little vignetting on shots, and a reduced magic bullet on a few. So no major processing beyond what most people are doing...
I have been working around the aliasing moire problem, by using a softening glass filter and being careful... It still shows up, but I have not had it ruin anything, but that fear is always present and is often a conversation with my clients who know... I am thrilled at not having this fear in the back of my mind on every single shoot. If cannon had offered a firmware upgrade that had fixed the aliasing and moire issues, I would have gladly dropped $500 per camera for it without a thought... and likely would have sprung a $1000 for it... not happily, but now I get a new camera with other perks...
When I was editing the video I honestly liked the aesthetic of the 5DMKII footage better than the Red 1... I did like the robust quality of the 4K RAW Red files and felt the room to shift the color correction in more drastic ways than the 5DMKII. So I had to find what I liked for the 5DMKII and match the RED 1 as best I could with the tools and time I had... Anyhow as far as I am concerned so many cameras today can "get you there" that it's just an exciting time to be a film maker... I remember buying my first real camcorder the Sony TRV900 and thinking this is amazing, but also thinking it looks nothing like a movie or film. Today we are talking about camera bodies from $1000 and up that can "get you there", it's really come down to just the talent, imagination, story, and craft.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think posting the video is warranted (If I was I would post the youtube link for the counts, LOL). Here's a vimeo link... the Canon 5D is likely 50% or more of the clips followed by the RED 1 with 45% ish and the 7D & GoPro filling the other %age.
http://vimeo.com/36781269
I think we should really be thankful to the guys on "House" and Shane Hurlbut for giving up films that we can point out to clients and say, "Hey they shot this film or TV show on the 5DMKII" so maybe it's good enough for your projection if we just find the best work arounds for the aliasing and moire issues. Guess what now it looks like don't even have to say that, I am crossing my fingers and hoping to be able to just say "aliasing and moire is a none issue".
Chris McGuinness
www.chrismcguinnessdp.com
www.pulsecinema.com
I have been working around the aliasing moire problem, by using a softening glass filter and being careful... It still shows up, but I have not had it ruin anything, but that fear is always present and is often a conversation with my clients who know... I am thrilled at not having this fear in the back of my mind on every single shoot. If cannon had offered a firmware upgrade that had fixed the aliasing and moire issues, I would have gladly dropped $500 per camera for it without a thought... and likely would have sprung a $1000 for it... not happily, but now I get a new camera with other perks...
When I was editing the video I honestly liked the aesthetic of the 5DMKII footage better than the Red 1... I did like the robust quality of the 4K RAW Red files and felt the room to shift the color correction in more drastic ways than the 5DMKII. So I had to find what I liked for the 5DMKII and match the RED 1 as best I could with the tools and time I had... Anyhow as far as I am concerned so many cameras today can "get you there" that it's just an exciting time to be a film maker... I remember buying my first real camcorder the Sony TRV900 and thinking this is amazing, but also thinking it looks nothing like a movie or film. Today we are talking about camera bodies from $1000 and up that can "get you there", it's really come down to just the talent, imagination, story, and craft.
I'm not trying to hijack the thread, but I think posting the video is warranted (If I was I would post the youtube link for the counts, LOL). Here's a vimeo link... the Canon 5D is likely 50% or more of the clips followed by the RED 1 with 45% ish and the 7D & GoPro filling the other %age.
http://vimeo.com/36781269
I think we should really be thankful to the guys on "House" and Shane Hurlbut for giving up films that we can point out to clients and say, "Hey they shot this film or TV show on the 5DMKII" so maybe it's good enough for your projection if we just find the best work arounds for the aliasing and moire issues. Guess what now it looks like don't even have to say that, I am crossing my fingers and hoping to be able to just say "aliasing and moire is a none issue".
Chris McGuinness
www.chrismcguinnessdp.com
www.pulsecinema.com
Last edited:
squig
Veteran
My mind will be at peace when I'm brain dead and not a moment sooner.
All of that MKII post processing would probably just result in an image similar to what the MKIII can produce in camera.
FrameFarmMedia
Veteran
Which brings us back to what everyone wants to see. I wish Canon would allow testers to release straight from camera footage from the MKIII.
Maybe its just me but when considering a new camera I could care less what a post processed image looks like and I don't want a slick commercial. I want to see what comes straight from camera.
vision_filmz
Carbonite Member
Truth be told I like the image of the 5d, and for whatever reason I really do not like the image of the GH2. I mean it's real sharp and has a lot of detail but something about it I just don't like. Like it's to sharp or something? Regardless I think we can all stop arguing and just enjoy the camera people.
Time to work
Time to work
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
And.... Amen.
Pretty simple, though. I don't own an Epic. I can get one when I need to, but I don't abuse that privilege. So, if I were shooting a feature and I didn't have enough money to support shooting Epic (at no cost, which still has a cost built into post and storage, time spent etc) then I need to find an alternative unless I really feel like I can show some love (read:money) afterward. I'm not gonna burn a C300 hook up on a low budget short, it'll probably be a GH2 Hack kind of gig since it's close enough with a little tender love and care.
IN the back of my mind, though, I know I'm not using the best out there. I've seen 5K on a large screen projected at 2K at least and it's insane. GH2 is great, but it isn't 5K.
So, yeah, I do have access to serious tech but I don't own it. Gh2, love it, sitting right here by my arm but it has its own set of issues that are annoying enough.
I encountered aliasing, moire, and jello nearly every time I went out shooting with 7Ds and 5Ds. The last serious job we did with a 5D, the client came back and had nothing but disdain for the 5D footage, and that's in comparison to some HDX900's that were also cut into the show. That was the end of canon DSLRs for us. I had to side by side screen GH2 Hack footage and 5D footage to convince everyone to shoot GH2 Hack, and it was an obvious no brainer.
There are a lot of things that major DI suites can do that filmmakers at our level cannot. Noise reduction algorithms have gotten better, but there are certain stations that do a job that's above what Neat Video can ever hope to be at its price point. Similarly, sharpening etc so on and so forth.
Let's definitely not forget the value of an experienced colorist, who's able to turn faults into non-issues.
I get the cry for better cameras, totally. That's all I'm saying.
Box Office doesn't determine how good a movie is, just how much money it made. xP That's another discussion, though.
G
Guest
Guest
I dislike the GH2 image when not done right*. What I dislike more is that an $800 GH2 shows some seriously good resolution, handles high bit rates, and nothing that Canon or Nikon or Sony has does that under $5K.
Canon gets called slow. You always hear the excuse that they are slow, but they sure pumped out a C300 very quickly. They sure designed a Quad HD sensor and slapped a $10,000 price tag and introduced $20,000 cine lenses fast.
We have been hearing, "That's just the way it is." But then a company like RED changes that. (The 4K s35 RED1 was introduced at $20K while the 720p 2/3" Varicam was $65K (don't even get one started about Sony)) GH2 with a Hack is one of those things that says, "it's not that it's expensive to put true 1080 in cameras, it's just that we want to keep it only in high price tag cameras."
In my mind, "pros" have consistently stated that they gladly pay $20,000 for cameras that have all the right ins and outs. They are generally talking about ruggedness, and HDSDI, and several other things. Well, if they are so willing to pay more for those things, than sell a camera with 1080p, a decent codec, and timecode, in the <$3k range, and give the "pros" their HDSDI for $20k.
*(majority of good shooters don't use GH2, so the lack of good and diverse content is not surprising. but this notion that is just doesn't feel right, is exclusively personal. I dislike the Canon default look, as well. I hate it's blocky codec, I hate it's skin tone rendering, need I go on? Suffice to say, everything that is not likable about the GH2, there is another thing to dislike about the Canons.)
Last edited:
gonzo_entertainment
Veteran
*(majority of good shooters don't use GH2, so the lack of good and diverse content is not surprising.)
This IS an issue. I mostly see camera tests, etc... Yet to really see a lot of narrative work by experienced people shot on one. It may be a better camera than I think it is.
This IS an issue. I mostly see camera tests, etc... Yet to really see a lot of narrative work by experienced people shot on one. It may be a better camera than I think it is.
Ian-T
Veteran
+1
....and there is a lot of that floating around. But then...I've seen 35mm film...not done right...and I hate that also.
The problem here is….just about every Tom, Dick and Harry has a GH-2 (not really) which means the ratio of good to bad films we’re going to see filmed on this camera will be lopsided on the “bad” end. Couple that with the “video looking” kit lens and you’ll get most of what we see on Vimeo etc.
Now if you change the dynamics a bit …like, for example, if Panasonic were to advertise their GH-Xs like Canon has been doing for the last few years and Canon were in Pana’s shoes….then I guarantee you there would be a lot more “professional” looking images from this camera. But that isn’t the case. The key here is marketing. Panasonic has missed the boat on that one.
There is no reason why the GH-2 can't look as good or better than the "X" camera while in capable hands.
But….what do I know.
I think the problem that GH2 users run into is a new patch comes out every day so there is no time to settle into a patch you like and film something. The story goes like this "Quantum X 3a drops and everyone goes crazy then an hour later Quantum X V3b with a new matrix drops 2 hours later, then 14 hours after that Quantum X 4 Orion comes out and with b frames and d frames and GOP 1+2*10 and everyone says "this is the best yet" and the cycle keeps going. I'm not knocking hacking at all. I fall into the trap everyday.
ROCKMORE
Veteran
For the extra grand I'd opt for a good mixer & Mic new or used.
Last edited:
PappasArts
Veteran
I don't think Panasonic missed the boat at all. That was a choice made by them, not to take that boat. Panasonic is not a stupid company that would over look an opportunity to make money on a product. There one of the technology leaders in the world from consumer to professional in all markets. They honestly put that camera in a position in the market, and that's where it's going to be.
Where as Canon is not a professional broadcast manufacture in the way Panasonic and Sony are. So they can afford to
market the way they do. Where as Panasonic is, and they see no reason to promote professional video possibilities ( hacked or not ) in consumer gear when their company has a professional/broadcast products division that makes production equipment form A to Z for the market already. So it makes smart sense from their position to do it that way.
Now if they wanted to take the GH2 or GH3- since many love the DSLR form factor and make a pro version, there would be a market for that. Though that's what the AF100 is. Who knows, they might do that. They have in the past taken consumer gear and professionalized them. Such as Sony too. That would be really cool if they did that with the GH line!
Totally agree!
Pappas
http://pappasarts.wordpress.com/
Ian-T
Veteran
Yeah that would be cool. And I guess you are right that some would argue that we already have this with the AF100. But then again we are talking stills vs a proper form camcorder. As a stills camera they (Panasonic) could easily market this as a pro tool. I mean...the selection of lenses are continually growing....and they are actually nice lenses. One of the things I've understood about Panasonic is that their stills and camcorder divisions are very seperate. So I can see their stills dept. taking this series of cameras and making a pro version of it. If you couple that with an aggressive marketing campaign like Canon has with their professional stills cameras then I think we would have a winner. It might not come anywhere close to Canon/Nikon popularity anytime soon but....hey...