MatthewP

From what I've seen (I've not used one), the 5DIII lacks texture retention in video... which is something the D800 seems to excel at. The D800's picture seems more like the GH2 than anything else out there, if you ask me. AND it's full frame!

Yet another reason to use a PC ;P

It's all psychological. If you showed someone from before the video-era a film shot at 48fps vs 24fps, they'd choose the former. Thankfully, with all these smooth motion modes on TVs, that psychological effect is going away, as more and more people are getting used to smoother lifelike motion... though lower framerates suit fantasy films, I think. Now if James Bond was shot at a high framerate... it would probably look awesome.

[quote author=garypayton link=topic=596.msg4101#msg4101 date=1334626065][quote] Perhaps some post work is needed but those test videos are extremely soft. [/quote] so i'm not the only one that notices... [/quote] I don't think you have much experience with RAW stuff ;) RAW is naturally soft, because no sharpening has been applied AT ALL. No sharpening = softer image, no matter how good the sensor. It does NOT mean that it's not detailed, however, and the actual resolution (the important part) is very good. Every camera you've used that spits out processed encoded files (movs or mts, for example), will have had sharpness applied somewhere along the processing run. Because the processing is in post with a RAW camera, sharpening is obviously one of the steps that must be taken.

[quote author=jtography link=topic=579.msg3959#msg3959 date=1334411457]Of all the brands you mentioned they have another market segment to protect (except red and arri) so I really see Nikon (who have finally caught up) as being the one best positioned to advance the dslr format. [/quote] My thoughts exactly.

Wow, I'm impressed. Pretty good for inter-cutting.

[quote author=Vlad3D link=topic=501.msg3321#msg3321 date=1333270282] ... "It does seem like a particularly strong optical low pass filter on this camera, which produces very soft results in video mode." This AA filter is designed to blur image down to 22 MP. It will never affect softness off low-res 2 MP video frame. [/quote] I thought that too, but there might be an increase in perceived sharpness if the edges are harder. For the AA filter to affect video mode, it would have to sacrifice the stills sharpness, which just isn't the case. To my eye, there's not a massive improvement. Not enough to warrant taking the camera to bits, at any rate. Still, the 5DIII seems fine resolution wise for most things.

Isn't 2k only 80 pixels larger than 1080p? (1920 vs 2000).

I expect that in a few years Nikon will have some excellent video capabilities on their DSLRs - they have no video division to protect, so they'll not hold back! No point speculating on what they might come up with, but if they just sort out their downscaling, and maybe provide a better codec/resolution, they're in for a lot of sales. They just currently don't have the expertise available - that's their limiter (whereas Canon's limiter is the marketing department, making them slow developments down on purpose).

Wow, that's the future, right there.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=369.msg2387#msg2387 date=1331333799] [quote author=MatthewP link=topic=369.msg2373#msg2373 date=1331295289] [quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=369.msg2362#msg2362 date=1331250014] [quote author=MatthewP link=topic=369.msg2356#msg2356 date=1331243153] Hmm, there's a 1080p version of Mario & Nette on YouTube. The beginning shots look a bit fuzzy, but I think they must have been shot at 720p because the rest is absolutely stunning! The softness isn't noticeable at all - it looks wonderful. [/quote] If it was the same one I saw, it was simply the 540p clip from the Canon site upscaled to 1080p by the YouTube Idiot. It was very misleading! [/quote] This is the one I watched: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrDHEi3z-sY#ws]Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Mario and Nette (original short film)[/url] Definitely not 540p. Look at the details on his sweater. You can tell that it's from the original source at the end as well, where the lenses are shown (too sharp for anything else). It's certainly not as "sharp" as a GH2, maybe not even as detailed either, but it looks VERY cinematic if you ask me, and that's what people want, on the whole, I think. So Canon is delivering on that. [/quote] Dude, it is NOT 1080p. Look at the wide shots and titles. A fine fabric at macro looks detailed no matter what the resolution, be it 540p or 1080p! [/quote] Aye, you're right there. Just checked by downscaling a few screen grabs to 720 and then upscaling them back to 1080 - there's no difference in fidelity. There's a massive difference between 540 and 720 though, so it's 720 at the very least. The question is, however, whether that's an upscaled 720 encoding, or whether the 5DIII's 1080p holds no more detail than can be contained in 1280x720 pixels.

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=369.msg2362#msg2362 date=1331250014] [quote author=MatthewP link=topic=369.msg2356#msg2356 date=1331243153] Hmm, there's a 1080p version of Mario & Nette on YouTube. The beginning shots look a bit fuzzy, but I think they must have been shot at 720p because the rest is absolutely stunning! The softness isn't noticeable at all - it looks wonderful. [/quote] If it was the same one I saw, it was simply the 540p clip from the Canon site upscaled to 1080p by the YouTube Idiot. It was very misleading! [/quote] This is the one I watched: [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrDHEi3z-sY#ws]Canon EOS 5D Mark III: Mario and Nette (original short film)[/url] Definitely not 540p. Look at the details on his sweater. You can tell that it's from the original source at the end as well, where the lenses are shown (too sharp for anything else). It's certainly not as "sharp" as a GH2, maybe not even as detailed either, but it looks VERY cinematic if you ask me, and that's what people want, on the whole, I think. So Canon is delivering on that.

Hmm, there's a 1080p version of Mario & Nette on YouTube. The beginning shots look a bit fuzzy, but I think they must have been shot at 720p because the rest is absolutely stunning! The softness isn't noticeable at all - it looks wonderful.

Looks like the video's now private. Someone at Canon doesn't want people to see the low resolution, perhaps? Or maybe it's not representing the non-beta camera well.

You sure it's not the camera's 720p mode?  ???

The bitrate is closer to 30, so it must be VBR or not intra recording at all. Rolling shutter seems improved significantly. It's still there, of course, but closer (perhaps even better than) the GH2's mjpeg recording (which scans much faster than its 24p mode, so skew is considerably less). The GH2's mjpeg mode is probably similar in terms of detail, too (which is unfortunate for the 5DIII). Still, Canon have the C300 to protect now, so the resolution kind of makes sense. They've fixed the major gripes that the 5DII had in video mode, and it will be a success because of its heritage (the 5DII being a "legend"), and the fact that it's full frame; something that's still a rarity. At the very least, the footage looks "solid" now, and that's major news indeed.

Funny how they say that there's not enough processing power for the camera to do both intra recording (which technically should require LESS processing power), and 1080p over HDMI. I mean, the GH2 does it, and that's older and much much much cheaper hardware. Consumer-level equipment moves so much faster, it seems. Maybe it's because consumers aren't afraid of change in workflow, or something. So far the only major improvement for video is much less rolling shutter. To be fair, though, that's a significant improvement!

Regarding rolling shutter... this camera could actually beat the GH2 quite easily I expect (for PAL users anyway), and it will be pretty much a none issue. Rolling shutter depends on the framerate. Film at 1080p50 and boom... most of the rolling shutter will be gone. It's just like filming in 50i or 720p50 on the GH2, where rolling shutter basically ceases to exist.

Hehe, thanks very much.  :D That train idea sounds great! You should let us know how it goes and share some samples. Are the tracks those blue ones, by any chance?

Okay, so this is not a particularly clever invention, but it actually works and is quite useful, which makes it worth sharing. :) Now, I've had an idea in my head for quite a while now; remotely controlling a DSLR's lens' focus ring using (I don't know the proper word) 'motor mirroring'. Basically using one motor as the "generator", and the other to control the focus. So it happens that I found my LEGO and made my idea! Really pleased with how it turned out, so I thought I'd make a video demonstrating it and to show it to everyone here (and I've posted this on other forums too, like DVXUser), as I think it's of interest to the people who browse these forums. [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tedA3DEcFio#ws]DIY Remote Manual Focus Controller for DSLRs (LEGO!)[/url] It's pretty useful for me personally, because of my shooting style. If you have LEGO, try and build yourself one. Mine took an hour, but I'm sure if one was to invest more time a better device could be created!

Has anyone considered that these inconsistencies in quality between sources might be down to the camera's crop modes?

Hehe, in the article you said... "It [4k] may even give you eye fatigue like 3D does." Which made me laugh. Everyone knows that nothing gives you eye fatigue like looking at bushes rustle in the breeze all day. One's retinas just can't cope with all the detail.  :P So of [i]course[/i] 4k is going to give you a headache!

[quote]This is probably controversial in these parts, but to be honest, I couldn't care less about a film being "artful" or not. Films are a form of entertainment, and as long as people come away from the film saying "wow, that was lovely/awesome/hilarious/amazing, I'm glad I saw it!", then it's a good film! But, in my experience, "arty" films NEVER leave you feeling happy that you've spent your time watching them. The annoying thing for me is that British films always seem to be of the "arty" kind. Thankfully Americans make plenty of awesome films, so that fills the gap.[/quote]