jlev23

the RED Scarlet is cheaper, i actually think the new canon will be a great camera, but people like to go with what works outs cheaper. you can get the scarlet pkg that included a monitor, batteries, drives, for about the same price. they have to make the new canon cinema body cheaper then the scarlet body, then i would buy one in a second. for this type of market its all about making your money back as fast as you can. on more shoot on my 5DMKIII and ill make my body price back!

they should just sell us a $5000 upgrade to the MK3 that lets us shoot 4k, or even just 1080 at 60p!

i think even you andrew say you use A-I from your settings suggestions: Menu settings SHOOT 4 Movie rec. size: 1920 24/25p, ALL I SHOOT3 High ISO speed NR – OFF Highlight tone priority (HTC, D+) – OFF SHOOT2 Auto Lighting Optimiser – OFF C.Fn2 Disp./Operation In Custom Controls set the SET button to Mag/Reduce for your focus assist but this person says this: "(I work with these codecs at the software level in my day job). My low level analysis of video frames shows artifacts present in ALL-I but not in IPB (part of the issue is PPro CS5.5.2). Thus, my findings show IPB is higher quality vs. ALL-I (especially lower noise, and less macroblock artifacts). ALL-I is useful for editing on slower computers; IPB provides higher quality (please post images from video frames if you find otherwise). I understand it's counter-intuitive, however I have tested it. You too can test it. More info here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?279229-Canon-5D-Mark-III-IPB-contains-more-detail-and-has-less-artifacts-than-ALL-I/page3" but everything on the internet i see that says this, actually comes from him, so i don't know whether to believe it or not, I've already done two professional shoots in A-I mode and all seemed good, but if IPB is better, which canon says the opposite, then id love to know your opinion, also I've stayed away from 160 iso because of your first review, shooting everything in 320 or 640. and canon says this: "The edit friendly intraframe ALl-I only compresses information in the current frame and does not use any temporal processing. Meaning the compression algorithm is not doing any type of comparison between frames. Think of it as a continuous series of still images that are each individually compressed. Intraframe compression is easier to edit with because the computer does not need to interpolate any data between each frame. With intraframe ALL-I, quality is higher, file size is larger, and the video files will use less computer processing power. The file size conscious intraframe IPB uses some complex algorithms to compare neighboring frames and tries to find similarities from one frame to another. It can then achieve higher compression rates because it deals less with the parts of the image that stay the same from frame to frame. With interframe IPB, quality is lower (although Canon says not by much), file size is smaller, and the video files will use more computer processing power."

i wish there was a place we could post native files straight from the camera, i don't know how anyone can tell anything once its compressed to vimeo. andrew, can you explain why canon says that A-I is superior quality and then other are saying IPB is? it doesn't make sense to me. thanks!

and that tokyo video, i see way more detail in my 5d footage, and there is horrible haloing around all the lights!

hahaha, that's soft and the blacks are muddy? whoa. ok man. i admit its not as sharp as the native file, but thats compression and vimeo for you, but those blacks are rich nice blacks. dont get me wrong, i really lobbied to use my gh2 on professional jobs but it's just not acceptable. there are horrible banding issues in the blacks and moire like crazy, and the blends from highlights to shadows look horrible, and I'm talking about well lit sets, not just shooting outside. the epic is my far the sharpest camera, but its too sharp for lifestyle and beauty without using some sort of diffusion, great for vfx and green screen shoots. the alexa is softer and far more pleasing cinematically. the professionals i work with all agreed that the new 5D is the first nice match to the alexa footage. and yes, though software is software, nothing compares to being in a telecine room with a colorist that has 30 years experience and does major motion pictures, thats the difference.

[quote author=bwhitz link=topic=515.msg3539#msg3539 date=1333824069] [quote]"my gh2 is pretty sharp as well but noway looks as filmic as my 5d and when you try to grade it, it to all falls apart, as does the 7d."[/quote] Again, you've just got to use some good lenses. Part of "the Canon look" is just Canon lenses. I know what you're saying about the GH2 video look. It's the same thing I though when I first started watching GH2 footage. But, it really is the panny lenses to blame. They are terrible. And as far as grading... you really need to try a new patch then. The Intra-frame and low-GOP motion makes the GH2 look like a different camera. I was about to sell mine before the hack came out, but it really took it to another level. And yea, the stock GH2 image really can't take any grading at all. But when you've got 150mb/s Intra... well, it's pretty much uncompressed. I can do anything I want to the image now without losing fidelity or quality. It's great. BTW, the 5D and 7D both have identical compression. The 5D falls apart just as much as the 7D in grading. [quote]"its just funny that how people discuss things on this forum they should rename it the anti-eos forum."[/quote] Well to be fair, in the beginning, Andrew, as well as myself were huge canon fans. I was actually an original 5D shooter before manual controls and before people really knew about them. So I've been with canon from the beginning of this. But after no updates/upgrades in two years... then the C300 screw-over fest... and mediocre 5DIII upgrade... you start to jump ship. [quote]"To me, the Alexa is more pleasing and filmic (even though it might look 'soft' by comparison), and this goes for the 5DMKIII also. The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer."[/quote] But the detail in the Alexa is almost 2x the 5DIII. The Alexa isn't sharp, it's REALLY detailed. 5DIII isn't sharp either, but it lack the detail to make a 1080p finished product. [quote]"The 5D has the same type of unaliased image which i prefer. I find the C300 much more video (in fact i chose the 5DMKIII over the C300 for a recent drama project )."[/quote] yea, you might just prefer the softer look. Which is totally fine. I also find the C300 a little video like though. Overall, it has a filmic "feel" to it. But the detail looks really digital to me... like canon's other camcorders. This makes allot of sense though, because the C300 uses the same processing as the XF100. [/quote] I'm using PL mount cinema lenses on both, i rent a 7D with an optimo zoom and i put zeiss ultra primes on the gh2, the 5d has the canon L series MK2 70-200mm. so I'm using the best lenses, mainly because i have access to them on my shoots every week. as well the coloring and grading are all being done on professional telecine systems, not on a computer at home. i work with probably the best colorist in the country. as he stated on my last shoot where i did some tests. "the gh2 footage can't be graded it fell apart, the 7d held up a bit more but still couldn't push it as much as your new 5D, and the alexa footage was flawless." i also finally posted a short vimeo clip to show how sharp my 5DMK3 footage was during a night shoot in times square, but unfortunately its not native, vimeo makes you compress it to an mp4. but its still so sharp, you can actually read all the tiny wording on all the billboards, and wow, look how clean those blacks are! and this was shot with the 24-105mm kit lens! http://vimeo.com/39968542

exactly, the 5Dmk3 footage for me has been the first nice compliment to the alexa...and I'm not just going by my eye, I'm going by the word of the top colorist in the country. its just funny that how people discuss things on this forum they should rename it the anti-eos forum.

im trying to upload the file that comes straight from the camera as i stated, h264 1080p. i shoot with epics and alexas every week, i know the difference. but I'm not sure whats wrong with your camera but my 5dmk3 is sharp as hell. theres no comparison to epics 4k sharpness but thats not a good thing, i never shoot beauty our life style with it, only vfx. my gh2 is pretty sharp as well but noway looks as filmic as my 5d and when you try to grade it, it to all falls apart, as does the 7d. the 5d is the only dslr that can handle any sort of grading. i also was shooting a green screen shoot with two epics yesterday and did some green screen 5d tests and the vfx director did some post tests and told me he was surprised how well it handled keying compared to his 5dmk2. also we had a stills guy on set taking pictures with his nikon d800 he rented, i was able to check one thing, we both dialed in the same iso of 640, same shutter speed, he had a 2.8 wide open and i had my kit lens at a f4, and compared out lcds...his was so much darker! infact he had to adjust the shutter a stop and half worth of speed before we matched lcds.

so, i have some super sharp and amazing quality night time video i shot in time square for a job, i tried posting it for you all to see on vimeo, but i keep getting a failure to convert message, anyone else know whats going on with that or how else i can show you guys. if you saw this footage you would see there is nothing soft about it in the least.

i guess its all depends what you are looking to use the camera for, if you are a cinematographer shooting films or commercials you are going to love it the way it is. if you are someone shooting reality shows or news and interviews maybe you'd want it sharper. maybe you should try shooting 30p as well. i for one, never owning a 5D before but have shot about 20-30 commercials with it, usually as a b or c camera, knows how much work it too for them to match it and make it acceptable. my friend has colored almost all the bigger indie films that were shot on 5D as well and says the same thing. one look at the footage from this new MK3 and he was like wow, finally! its beautiful and seems sharp to me, i can't understand these muddy pictures some people post, mine looks nothing like that, but again i don't take a still grab and blow it up and then compress it for posting, ever. also you know that any still grab of moving pictures you take has natural motion blur, you can not even begin to judge anything by that.

i agree with most, i have both cameras as well, intact I'm now selling my GH2. sharpness is highly over rated, infact any time we are shooting with an Alexa and 5DmkII, we have to soften the 5D footage to match the film look that the alexa gives. now with the 5DMKIII we have an almost matched look and we love it. unless you want super sharp "news" looking footage, we now have a dslr that matches closest to the alexa and red cameras, with no moire! i just did a night shoot in times square and the clients, as well as i, were astonished how great the footage looked, its just amazing. thank you canon for taking the video out of video.

[quote author=TC link=topic=456.msg2955#msg2955 date=1332686850] Of course Canon is a business.  But they are abusing their dominant market position and I think we in the photographic community need to challenge them more strongly in this, rather than just accepting it.  We need some solutions to the cartel of manufacturers which persistently withhold technology in order to maintain artificially high prices.  Panasonic have shown with the GH2 that sharp HD video can be obtained from a large sensor for $700.  Yet Canon want to charge us $16,000 for this.  That is more than 20 times more expensive.  This unjustified price premium of $15,000 leaves a lot of room for a new entrant to come into the market and give us the camera we all want for a reasonable price. [/quote] remember that the GH2 was not delivered to us with this higher resolution, i had the camera and it was a big disappointment, virtually unusable. until the hack came out, and the camera was initially $1000. also have you held one in your hands? compared to any 5D? it feels like a really cheap plastic camera. I'm gladly paying more for something as durable and weather resistant that you can use on real jobs. not to mention the stills from a GH2 are not much better then the current iPhone.

[quote author=TC link=topic=456.msg2948#msg2948 date=1332670145] Open a still image from the 5d3 in Photoshop.  Change the canvas size to 5,760x3,240 pixels.  That is 3x HD.  Then apply the filter -> pixellate -> mosaic.  Set the cell size to be 3 square.  View the full image on a HD capable monitor.  That is the level of sharpness the 5d3 is capable of in video mode.  Averaging the RGB values of 9 pixels is computationally trivial.  You wouldn't even need to de-bayer.  The fact that the actual video output is significantly softer than this tells us all we need to know - Canon have written the firmware to deliberately blur the image. We need to stop saying that it is a limitation of the current state of the hardware.  It isn't.  It is a deliberate decision on Canon's part. [/quote] yes they did, they deliberately did this to fix the huge moire problem that all dslrs give off which can instantly render a shot unusable. besides, in video mode, sharpness is highly over rated. as a cinematographer we strive to make the outcome smoother to the eye, most of our professional issues with matching a 5D into alexa footage is that its too sharp and "video like". i think it was nice job on canon's part, they just should of explained to everyone. now everyone i know puts an anti aliasing filter in to prevent moire, this causes the exact effect you see straight from the new 5DMK3. maybe there should of been two modes for those who want their video to be as sharp as news footage.