5D Mark III vs GH2 vs NEX 7

[bwhitz]

[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.

[AndrewP]

I think I smirked in disbelief at how "under par" the NEX7 appeared by comparison. The really cool thing is that the GH2 can go from a super sharp highly detailed image that will essentially walk all over every DSLR + the FS100 / AF100 and then morph straight into a softer filmic image with the right lens / patch / filter combination, that will rival any digital camera under 20k outside of RED for producing a true cinematic image.

It's mind boggling how adaptable the GH2 really is, it can be anything you want it to be. Something about the motion rendering / blur between the frames that gives the GH2 a very filmic feel as well. Many people don't know how to unlock it's secrets and just go by what they see in videos made on lumix lenses... but they have no idea. It's truly a gem, that still very few people have discovered, let alone learned to use properly.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=AndrewP link=topic=515.msg3541#msg3541 date=1333825494]
I think I smirked in disbelief at how "under par" the NEX7 appeared by comparison. The really cool thing is that the GH2 can go from a super sharp highly detailed image that will essentially walk all over every DSLR + the FS100 / AF100 and then morph straight into a softer filmic image with the right lens / patch / filter combination, that will rival any digital camera under 20k outside of RED for producing a true cinematic image.

It's mind boggling how adaptable the GH2 really is, it can be anything you want it to be. Something about the motion rendering / blur between the frames that gives the GH2 a very filmic feel as well. Many people don't know how to unlock it's secrets and just go by what they see in videos made on lumix lenses... but they have no idea. It's truly a gem, that still very few people have discovered, let alone learned to use properly.
[/quote]

Very well put! It is underrated by the masses.

[katon]

[quote author=AndrewP link=topic=515.msg3541#msg3541 date=1333825494]
I think I smirked in disbelief at how "under par" the NEX7 appeared by comparison. The really cool thing is that the GH2 can go from a super sharp highly detailed image that will essentially walk all over every DSLR + the FS100 / AF100 and then morph straight into a softer filmic image with the right lens / patch / filter combination, that will rival any digital camera under 20k outside of RED for producing a true cinematic image.

It's mind boggling how adaptable the GH2 really is, it can be anything you want it to be. Something about the motion rendering / blur between the frames that gives the GH2 a very filmic feel as well. Many people don't know how to unlock it's secrets and just go by what they see in videos made on lumix lenses... but they have no idea. It's truly a gem, that still very few people have discovered, let alone learned to use properly.
[/quote]

Could you point to or show an example of the filmic look you reference. Interested. Thanks

[Andrew Reid]

I'll provide two, purely because I would love to see you argue that red is blue. It is entertaining.  ::)

[url=http://vimeo.com/33047750]http://vimeo.com/33047750[/url]

[url=http://vimeo.com/33025136]http://vimeo.com/33025136[/url]

[AndrewP]

[quote author=katon link=topic=515.msg3549#msg3549 date=1333841312]

Could you point to or show an example of the filmic look you reference. Interested. Thanks
[/quote]

There's quite a few out there, I find these to be pretty "filmic" >>

https://vimeo.com/39165961
https://vimeo.com/39151120
https://vimeo.com/36182092
https://vimeo.com/33016592
https://vimeo.com/37044086
https://vimeo.com/26818589

There are many more examples, much better than these, but the point is that if you want to, you can definitely get a pretty cinematic image out the gh2. What I find is that screen shots from the 5D3 are amazing, it just has a very unique look that you don't find anywhere else. But motion wise, something irks me, I can't put my finger on it, but it just doesn't approximate film as well as the gh2 can imo, but still an awesome camera and I would be proud to own one any day.

The only "true" video camera outside DSLRs that seems to be able to look extremely filmic when handled correctly is RED. Sony Cameras like the FS100 just scream video, it just has very sterile, plasticy slick look which I find very uncinematic. The camera is freakin amazing for professional video work, covering events and many other things... but for narrative type stuff, it makes me cringe... the strong "video look" just brings out the cheesiness in narrative drama. I feel bad, because I'm supposed to be drawn into the performance, the story etc, but seriously, the FS100 will suck the cinematic out of any scene despite the talent, grading, lenses used, lighting etc.

Between the GH2 & the 5D3 you really can't go wrong, either will give you some amazing results if you're after that elusive "filmic" look.

[Andrew Reid]

I've removed kanton's access to the forums because he's trolling. First one we've ever had. Had an eye on this guy for a few weeks now. His posts have added nothing but pointless argument and he was unpleasant to a number of people including myself, without anything positive to balance it!! Not a reflection on anyone else... You are all constructive and polite, please carry on.

[jlev23]

[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

[bwhitz]

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148]
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."
[/quote]

Well, I don't know what to tell you here... what patch were you using?

Regardless of if you're a "professional" grader or not... if you're seeing that 45mb/s Canon 7D footage is holding up better than 150mb/s intra-frame material... then you're doing something wrong. The Intra GH2 patches are easily the most gradable native images besides Red or an Alexa.

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148]
and grading are all being done on professional telecine systems, not on a computer at home.
[/quote]

This doesn't make any difference at all besides repeatable accuracy. Colors are colors. Pushing data is just pushing data. Nothing "magical" about professional systems any more. Software is software.

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=515.msg3564#msg3564 date=1333904148]
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!
[/quote]

Uhhh... it's still really really soft. It's good for a 720p finish, but it's still not 1080p. Respectfully, I don't know how you're working with Alexa and Red footage, and then still thinking this is sharp. Blacks are also still mushy. There's just not much tonality in the image still.

Download and Watch this EOSHD video at 1080p... it's similar in subject matter to your sample... but it's got about twice the detail. Much sharper defined blacks as well. This is how 1080p footage is supposed to look.
http://vimeo.com/32520456

[jlev23]

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.

[jlev23]

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

[AndrewP]

5D3 does have a pretty pleasing image, but I think in that video it does lack detail and could use a hint of sharpening. The great thing about gh2 footage is how far you can push it... other than cameras that do some form of raw, you'll never find anything else that has hacked gh2 level of gradability; it really is insane how well it holds up.

[FilmMan]

The above example "Zen" has a cinematic feel to it as well as some of the other videos.  I had the fortune to work with a special goose.  His alpha male acting at 1:34 of this video shows his Oscar performance.  Cheers.  Happy Easter to all.
http://vimeo.com/39855784

[jlev23]

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!

[jlev23]

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."