Panasonic GH2 vs 5D Mark III

[Per Lichtman]

@Axel So far, the comparisons are showing the compression on the 5DMkIII as being lower quality than on the GH2, even when compared to GH2 720 50P at high bitrates vs 1080 24P 5DMkIII. If you have comparisons that show the reverse, I would strongly urge you to share them with others so that they can benefit from them as well.

The GH2 was limited by the factory codec and has been hacked to exceed every consumer DSLRs native codec so far, as shown in comparisons to date. If the 5DMkIII is similarly hacked, it may also benefit greatly. It seems odd to rely on "updates" rather than hacks in this respect, however, since no official update for any DSLR or EVIL camera has added even so much as 10mbps to the codec bitrate while hacks have added over 120 mbps.

If the hack were to unlock better codec performance for the 5DMkIII, then the primary issue would be the rescaling algorithim. The camera has a lot of poetential and I think what people want is to see more of the power it evidences on the stills side unlocked on the video side. I hope that this happens soon and in particular for unlocking higher ISOs in video mode. :)

In short, until comparisons show otherwise, the 5DMkIII is not demonstrating codec parity against a hacked GH2.

[Per Lichtman]

@Axel I neglected to ask. What is the reason that you believe that the 5DmkIII i-frame codec is superior? I am always intrigued by codec differences and while the current implementation clearly does not  demonstrate advantages, I would be intrigued by the reasons a hacked version could.

[cameraboy]

in theory canon only I frame codec should be similar as gh2 hacked on same bitrate ....
they both are h264 without cabac implementation ....

[alexwgreen]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=469.msg3063#msg3063 date=1332866287]
Monsal head in Derbyshire, near Matlock.
[/quote]

Thought I recognised it. I grew up on the other side of Matlock. I'd love to fish there.

[Axel]

[quote author=Per Lichtman link=topic=469.msg3072#msg3072 date=1332872343]
@Axel I neglected to ask. What is the reason that you believe that the 5DmkIII i-frame codec is superior? I am always intrigued by codec differences and while the current implementation clearly does not  demonstrate advantages, I would be intrigued by the reasons a hacked version could.
[/quote]

Not a Canon hack. I hope if Canon implemented a native intra codec, the freed processor power (temporal compression, now gone, is the stressiest thing) was directed to reading out and pre-processing information faster. Bigger mouth that swallowes faster. The GH2 hacks come too late for that, they only affect the digesting process, changing the look of the outcome, blow up the shit (I like the higher bitrates too, they just cannot preserve any more real detail, where from?).

Of course all that Canon intra cannot help the spatial detail, called resolution, and it is plain to see that the Mark III, as the Mark II, doesn't reach the GH2. Having seen higher film resolution than 99% of all people will ever see in their life (digital projectionist since 2000), I also find resolution to be the most tragically overestimated video-parameter of the last years. It is all about quantity, not quality. Very sad. So, once you accept the lower resolution ...

My friend owns a 5D. He played with it for years and he loves it. He became a typical 5D-filmmaker. He tried to become as good as Shane Hurlbut, while not having the resources. He sold lenses and bought different ones. His skills rose. He likes to portray people, Andrew doesn't seem to. And then watch ten 5D clips on YouTube, randomly. Look all graded beautifully (almost all). Only that they are not graded, they are out-of-the-box (well, almost). That warm glow in the skintones. So Andrews comparison brings not enough evidence to conclude anything ...

Maybe you are right, and the intra is not good. I prefer to wait. Both hypes and condemnations are hysterical.

EDIT: Meanwhile, the Bloom review showed post-sharpening to subjectively improve the image a lot. One of the improvements an official Canon update could provide is a picture style that does'nt need to be "developed" (for the lazy) . I bet it's just a matter of weeks. Will the resolution reach or surpass that of the GH2? I don't think so, because the EX-Tele-mode in the GH2 is hypothetically pure and real FullHD, no dirty tricks with skipping, shifting, interpolation. The normal mode also was tested as very good. This is grey theory, because the resolution is handicapped by many factors, starting with Iso and internal sharpening, followed by a too unsharp or a too sharp lens, by unperfect focussing, by changing a lot in post, by the viewing device, by the not optimized distance to the display, by your own eyes. Combined, all these handicaps make it not only improbable, but impossible, that more but a few people ever saw a geniune 1080p image in the first place. So everything is subjective. How does it look?

Our perception prefers easily recognizable forms in comparison to a chaotic mass of fine detail. That makes a better 5D a possible winner in a future shootout.

[Cfreak]

Andrew have you seen this got reposted here:
[url=http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/could-the-panasonic-gh2-has-better-video-than-the-5d-mk-iii-well-hang-on/]http://news.doddleme.com/equipment/could-the-panasonic-gh2-has-better-video-than-the-5d-mk-iii-well-hang-on/[/url]