Andrew Reid

Interesting test. Might blog this after I've tried it myself. Well done guys.

[quote author=johnnymossville link=topic=902.msg6539#msg6539 date=1340740246] Those are really nice.  I like the retro look of the welterwerk one. Here's one I heard about last week that's really well done.  On a GH2 as well. [/quote] That in particular Johnny is stunningly beautiful. The lighting is almost as good as the camera. ;) Thanks for posting everyone and keep em coming.

No Simco, not lack of 'sharpness' but a lack of detail. Soft detail is nice. Learn to know the difference between soft vintage optics and a smeary image which is the result of an electronic process, and I'll forgive you for that comment!!

That comment above is extremely short sighted to say the least. There's no excuse for not improving existing features, be it stills or video. Convergence is happening. Do Apple sit by and not improve their graphics chip on an iPhone because it is primarily a phone not a games console? The size of the market Canon is pissing off with lacklustre DSLR video modes is sizeable.

[html][url="http://www.vimeo.com/43188144"]http://www.vimeo.com/43188144[/url] [url="http://www.vimeo.com/42592241"]http://www.vimeo.com/42592241[/url] I hope these inspire some shooting action. I sometimes get a accused of being a bit of a GH2 cheerleader, with pom poms. But the results from a $700 consumer camera speak for themselves. To me it will always be big news that aspiring filmmakers have access to this kind of image quality for $700, regardless of how much effort and money is required for good content. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/8280/two-great-low-budget-music-videos-shot-on-the-gh2/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

Nice rig  ;D

[quote author=TC link=topic=884.msg6476#msg6476 date=1340614073] Why don't they just go the whole way, and watermark the video output from every Canon DSLR with the words, "NOT FOR VIDEO USE. PLEASE PURCHASE THE C300. ONLY $16,000 BODY ONLY." [/quote] Haha!!

Not confirmed 100% but it matches the specs precisely down to the last detail of the particular Fairchild / BA sensor in question.

I hope so. That many people shooting anamorphic is certainly preferable to 10,000 tests in 16:9.

I pulled the trigger on release day. Not very sensible but I wanted to support them and cover it on the site. I'm expecting the image will be superb. So far looking good. I'm expecting a nice smooth roll off in the highlights, great shadow detail, great resolution and of course raw for under $3000 which is a unique selling point. I'd say go for it. If it turns out it isn't for you, you can easily sell it without taking too much of a hit, as I'm expecting them to sell out for a good few months.

[quote author=Tzedekh link=topic=895.msg6490#msg6490 date=1340644899] The aspect ratio of 2,560 x 2,160 is 1.185:1 -- which is very close to 1.2:1, ideal for 2.4:1 anamorphic. Also, the 16.64 x 14.04-mm area of the BAE/Fairchild CIS2051 yields a diagonal of 21.8 mm, which is almost exactly the diagonal of the m4/3 format. Cropping the sensor's "area of interest" would reduce the effective sensor size and wring even more tears out of all the big-sensor fetishists. [/quote] Ideally yes this would be wonderful. But it would be a significantly greater data rate to handle and probably not just a firmware tweak at this late stage. V2 - yes would love to see this. Or even a V1.5 'Studio' version aka Alexa Studio.

My comment about TV was tongue in cheek. Regardless, it is a Cinema Camera not a TV camera so it should shoot in the cinema aspect ratio! I prefer the wider look.

[html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/blackmagic-cinema-camera.jpg[/img] [url="https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.398258513557700.106898.118532781530276&type=1"]Above: the BMD Cinema Camera pictured in a photo from PhotoCineRent in France. I have pre-ordered mine.[/url] The Blackmagic Cinema Camera is nearing release and final sensor calibration / firmware adjustments are taking place. When I last spoke to beta shooter John Brawley about his involvement with the camera, he had this to say on an anamorphic mode… “We have discussed the possibility of doing anamorphic. They’re aware that it’s a potential market. I don’t think you’ll see it on this version.” This feature would increase vertical resolution by nearly 800 lines and allow for the wider, more cinematic aspect ratios of 2.39:1 and 2.66:1 aspect ratios when used with an anamorphic lens. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/8265/how-blackmagic-can-add-anamorphic-recording-mode-to-their-cinema-camera-the-easy-way/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

The jump to full frame depends on if you really need a shallower depth of field (but less manageable focus) better stills and a larger viewfinder for stills. That full frame look brings you a larger amount of bokeh and background blur on the same lens as would the T4i and the rendering of the lens especially towards the edges is different, with a greater curving of bokeh and a greater vignette. The full frame sensor is more demanding on lenses and you can't use T4i EFS glass with it. Do you have a lot of Canon EF / EFS lenses? If not then the camera choice is a no brainer. Get the GH2.

5D Mark III isn't selling as well as the chief rival, Nikon D800. Stills guys are mostly as underwhelmed by the incremental steps as we are. C300 is renting well. It doesn't however sell in great quantities, like a DSLR. It is a professional niche cam. The high value niche market is what Canon seem more intent on opening up, to the expense of a gaping giant hole called sub $15,000 video market - that includes pro, prosumer, consumer and enthusiast. Not a small group to piss on. The rental industry as a whole is on a downward trend BTW, exactly because of DSLRs and it is a trend that will only accelerate when the Blackmagic Cinema Camera comes out. The internal battery of the BMCC certainly does not make it useless 'except as a test bed'. You connect an external battery, as you would on any serious camera rig be it a FS100, GH2, 5D or BMCC. Resolution charts - name the last time you saw one on EOSHD. I think I've blogged one in 12 months!! However I do agree with you that the 5D Mark III is possibly just 'not very good' rather than crippled.

I agree with that, Canon are running a business and a large part of that business is video under $15,000. That is what they're lacking, majorly, at the moment. What about the small studios, small content producer, the kind I see a lot here in Berlin - the type of guy who walks into a shop with $10,000 and buys 3 or 4 5Ds for video? This is the kind of important customer Canon is letting down. The guy who needs and can afford 3 or 4 C300's is NOT a small studio, they're a niche, a rarity, a rental house maybe. Since the convergence of pro stills and video happened, due to the web and the cheaper cost of doing pro video, a new demand for pro video at $3000 has opened up. Canon wouldn't neglect their pro photographers at $3000, I have no idea why they feel the need to neglect pro video at $3000. They think it doesn't exist. I have news for you, it does. Massive new market! The stills guy who does video as well... Multimedia content, web designers, small to medium size business content producers, etc. etc. So many of them use DSLRs for video and have been left out in the cold by Canon focussing on a tiny but very high margin band of Hollywood twits. And don't get me started on video enthusiasts. They've been majorly, majorly shafted. Not important? Well there's tens of thousands of us with nothing to buy, nothing compelling. Surely this is a neglected market if ever I saw one. Blackmagic must be happy. Anyway, let's please try and get back to the 1D X as it is a different topic and very political!

[quote author=jcs link=topic=884.msg6423#msg6423 date=1340486867] Examining the full clip in detail, the 1DX has more resolution, however its antialiasing is weaker. It appears to be antialiased more on the vertical axis than the horizontal axis, giving it a more digital look vs. film. Ideally, the image is high resolution and antialiased. The 5D3 image looks more like film, even though it is lower resolution. Both images were noisy, and the ALL-I codec did not work very well for this shot (low motion): IPB would likely do better in this case with more detail and less block artifacts. 5D3 image sharpened at 33 + minor curve adjust, 1DX sharpened at 16, both Neat Video noise reduced. After processing, during playback and full screen, hard to see much of a difference in quality. [/quote] Good spot, it certainly does seem like there's a change to the anti-aliasing filter(s). From what I understood about the 5D Mark III it has a two-part filter, one to blur the horizontal and one vertical. However I'd say the gain here is due to reading more pixels, rather than anything in the optical path.

[quote author=amband link=topic=884.msg6447#msg6447 date=1340549759] [quote author=Junius link=topic=884.msg6445#msg6445 date=1340548611] Still looks like shit. Canon is shit. I hope they suffer for their greed and lack of innovation. With the imminent release of the Blackmagic Camera, C300′s, and virtually every other EF mount “cinema” camera are about to lose a shitload of value. 13 stops of dynamic-range, 2.5K resolution, 10bit 4:2:2 ProRes/12bit RAW with a base ISO of 800 for $3000? The downfall of the greedy bastards has begun. When Blackmagic releases an APS-C version, hypothetically speaking, in 12 – 18 months for $6000, with better low-light ability and all of the current features of the Blackmagic camera, what is Canon going to do? Drop their C500 to $6000? HELL NO! Canon’s glory-days are behind them – if only they would snap out of their arrogance and realise it! [/quote] I got news for you.  Canon is a fine still camera.  It is not a motion camera, as Canon will tell you.  All this DSLR nonsense has been driven by indie ( read penniless without knowledge ) movie makers looking to do things on the cheap The " lack of innovation " for DSLR is intentional, as they have never had any intention of threatening their own camcorder line.  Canon are running a profit making business, not a charity for movie directors, and if everyone recognized this simple fact ( not opinion ) in the first place we all would have saved ourselves problems The blackmagic should do well, even if it is CMOS and not CCD, like the Bolex digital.  God knows how that will go? [/quote] Please do not bring this off topic by saying unrelated to 1D X rubbish, such as "DSLR filmmaking is driven by penniless filmmakers without knowledge". We all know it is driven by penniless filmmakers WITH knowledge 8) You would have said the same about Super 8 yet that had a market of millions in the 70's, and gave many a great filmmaker his or her break. By the way, you're trolling.

[html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/cinematics-compact-prime-ct2.jpg[/img] Spot the difference! Those crafty Chinese are at it again! [url="http://rover.ebay.com/rover/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?icep_ff3=10&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&icep_uq=film+lens&icep_sellerId=roking2008&icep_ex_kw=&icep_sortBy=12&icep_catId=&icep_minPrice=&icep_maxPrice=&ipn=psmain&icep_vectorid=229466&kwid=902099&mtid=824&kw=lg"]See the lenses on eBay here[/url][img]http://rover.ebay.com/roverimp/1/711-53200-19255-0/1?ff3=10&pub=5574929666&toolid=10001&campid=5336727214&customid=&uq=film+lens&mpt=[CACHEBUSTER][/img] Cinematics have started offering ‘film lenses’ which are Zeiss Compact Prime copies – cinema modified Zeiss ZE (Canon mount) full frame lenses at up to one quarter of the price of a real Compact Prime. Optically they remain the same as standard ZE but as you can see from the image above a CP.2 style housing is added (left) to create a “CT.2″. This includes gearing for a follow focus, T-stop marks instead of F-stop, cinema standard front thread size as well as a stepless aperture ring. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/8266/zeiss-cp-2-without-the-price-tag-a-look-at-cinema-modified-ze-lenses/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

First of all I'm not a journalist. I'm a filmmaker. The GH2 is currently my greatest point of reference for the other cameras, since it is the one I have most experience with. Second, you're missing the whole point I was trying to make about the processing cores. It isn't a boast. It would only be a boast I designed and made the GH2 myself! That the GH2 has 3 + dedicated encoder chip for such a low price and the Canon 5D Mark III has only 1 core and no dedicated encoder (probably does it in software) is relevant. Canon should have delivered more for the $3500.

[quote author=miseducation link=topic=884.msg6416#msg6416 date=1340479932] Wishful thinking I know, but maybe updated firmware has something to do with it. Canon Rumors guy has said that new features are coming with the next firmware update. After the fiasco with the 650D clean HDMI time limit, its hard to believe the 5DIII's soft image is a technical limitation instead of a forced disadvantage. [/quote] Not just a time limit, the 650D doesn't actually even have clean HDMI, it has a blinking red dot at the top corner and a big black frame around the edge. I think Johnnie has pre-production firmware. Pre-crippled.

[quote author=christianhubbard link=topic=884.msg6418#msg6418 date=1340480931] Your random plug for the Gh2 was rather unnecessary I think. Also the bit about the 1Dx and the 1Dc using "similar hardware" was a bit misleading. Only if by that you mean that they are in the same body, and they arguably have the exact same hardware, but separate firmware. [/quote] You seem to be having a small fight with the facts here. The GH2 info was not a plug at all, when it comes to processing power the GH2's LSI has 3 cores and the 5D Mark III has 1. That means 1 core has to juggle more tasks and it does not have a dedicated encoder chip like the GH2 either. All relevant info when considering your purchase, me thinks. The 1D X and 1D C do share similar hardware. It isn't misleading in the least to say so! Always provide reasons behind a point of view.

Next up, notice how much more detail there is in the lows. Blacks far less crushed. Note the crushed black in the girl's hair on the 5D3 shot. 1D X (right side) looks flatter, even though the same picture profile settings were at play. Seems to be a more gradual roll off too - in both the shadows and highlights. Although the sun light outside the shutters to the right was varying, I captured what I think are two very close exposures here and the 1D X definitely has a significant advantages in the highlights in terms of both detail and roll off.

Not close to GH2 / C300? It looks much closer to me, and here's why... Resolution similar to FS100. Hair 2x... 5D3 left, 1D X right.

[html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/5d3-vs-1dx.jpg[/img] Above: notice the detail on the girl’s hair and shirt collar in the 1D X shot [url="http://www.adorama.com/ICA1DX.html?KBID=66885"]Pre-order the 1D X at Adorama[/url]Â - the camera is now shipping in limited quantities – more stock expected soon [url="https://vimeo.com/44496874"]Dan Chung (watch the comparison video)[/url] has had a play with the long delayed Canon 1D X, the flagship pro full frame DSLR which was announced last year. Dan’s find is worth paying close attention to because it seems the 1D X’s image quality in video mode is exactly what we were hoping for from the 5D Mark III. Below is my technical analysis of what is going on. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/?p=8259/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]