Andrew Reid

[quote author=TC link=topic=469.msg3034#msg3034 date=1332814882] Maybe we have it all wrong. As others have pointed out Canon is a business.  They could well make more money by crippling their entire range of market leading SLRs for the niche digital cinema market they have just entered. Let's compare with the world's most successful corporation and perhaps all will become clear. Canon: putting video on a stills camera is not good.  We won't sell any video cameras. Apple: putting a computer in a phone or a tablet is not good.  We won't sell any computers. Canon: we will make more money selling a small number of cinema cameras with a high margin, than we will selling a large number of DSLRs with a smaller margin. Apple: we will make more money selling a small number of computers with a high margin than we will by selling a large number of consumer devices such as phones or mp3 players with a smaller margin. Hold on a minute... This isn't working.  The more I think about the I am convinced that the people in charge of Canon do not have the slightest idea of what they are doing. [/quote] +1! Surely video sub $5000 is a larger market than the very small elite of pros who use a C300? Why fail to cater for the mass market? Apple targeted Final Cut Pro X at the mass market, and much to the dismay of many pros (myself included!) I bet they made vast amounts of money from it at £299. The 5D Mark III doesn't have to be dumbed down for the mass market like FCP X was, it just has to be improved. I don't think Canon's heart is really in it. They don't really like adding too much video stuff into a stills camera. I am pretty sure all their stills guys and advisors are against it and the feedback about video from those not in the know has probably been along the lines of 'we don't need it'. Very short sighted.

[html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/P1030136.jpg[/img] [url="http://gizmodo.com/5896434/can-the-900-panasonic-gh2-produce-better-video-than-the-3500-canon-5d-mark-iii"]Check out Gizmodo’s take on my GH2 / 5D Mark III comparison video[/url] Here’s a quick guide to the things I’ve found useful with my 5D Mark III video shoots so far. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7645/how-to-shoot-around-the-5d-mark-iiis-limitations/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

It has a place and will be good for some people. Resolution is very important and as you can see with the 5D Mark III lack of detail can destroy an image which has everything else right about it. However it is still only 1 part of the puzzle... Interchangeable lenses and the large sensor influence the image just as much, and sadly this JVC has neither. It does seem to have excellent dynamic range, resolution and colour but the price is a bit of a misnomer because to see much difference over a very good 1080p camera like the Canon XF line, you will need to get a 4K display of some sort. And indeed find an audience with one! Who is watching 4K stuff on a native display right now? Very very few people. So to your audience, or at least the vast majority, a large sensor and interchangeable lenses would make more difference in cinematic feel.

It is a small sensor, and who has a 4K display? This isn't for me.

[quote author=dangerzonerj link=topic=469.msg3021#msg3021 date=1332794939] [quote author=lubricated link=topic=469.msg3020#msg3020 date=1332793132] yet again - anybody has any info on 1Dx video? samples did look very good, can there be some actual difference from mk3? good comparison, wide angle detail is so much better on GH2. [/quote] Well... If you count the price itself, 1DX is more expensive than a FS100 by a good margin. And Andrew, you could make a comparisson between a FS100 and a MKIII so people can see if there is a great plus on buying a sony cam over MKIII. Of course it has great functions like peaking but what about the same tests with those 2 cams?? [/quote] Already touched on all the differences between the FS100 and MkIII in my previous articles the past few days, may do a summary in a separate blog post soon.

[quote author=ddueck link=topic=469.msg3017#msg3017 date=1332791258] [quote author=hoodlum link=topic=469.msg3014#msg3014 date=1332789464] 1080/60p halves the 24p bitrate on the NEX-7 to 14mb/s, so right there you have a big step back in quality. [/quote] I'm struggling to make sense of this. Clarification please? [/quote] Bitrate as quoted in the specs is per second. The more frames per second the more thinly spread the allocated bitrate for each second so the less each frame gets. The more compressed the frame and the less bits of data allocated to the image, the worse the image gets.

It's very low level. I really doubt firmware can adjust resolution and scaling method. It is the best Canon have allowed it to be with this hardware. If it is an artificial firmware switch which is limiting the hardware, like bitrates on the GH2 then we could be in luck. But there's more chance of finding a switch that opens a flap on the viewfinder dome and a small pistol rising out of the top.

Good point about the Contax glass / Nikon mount Mike. This is putting me off as well, some of my favourite glass is Contax Zeiss. The equivalent in Nikon AI though is not too much more expensive. Jack, regarding the hack it is important to realise exactly what the GH2 hack did. The only improvement to image quality on the hack was to the bitrate. The 5D Mark III already has high bitrates. The main problem is resolution. Out of the box the GH2 already had superb resolution and a clean image. The sensor scaling is low level hardware related not firmware. A hack doesn't yet exist for the 5D Mark III and there is no guarantee it ever will. I certainly hope so. Magic Lantern is definitely a plus point on the 5D Mark II at the moment but in terms of feature set, not image quality improvements.

Wow talk about different markets there. The GF2 and Ikonoskop! One is a bargain basement cam which punches above its weight, the other very expensive so not really a 5D Mark III alternative. I'd rather have the FS100 right now over the raw cams, much cleaner in low light and I do a lot of that. Plus the workflow is far more convenient.

[html][url="http://www.vimeo.com/39171656"]http://www.vimeo.com/39171656[/url] Today I shot this comparison between the 5D Mark III and hacked Panasonic GH2 with [url="http://www.eoshd.com/gh2-patch-vault"]EOSHD Unified Patch[/url]. The results are all in the video. Now you just need to factor in overall aesthetics to your decision, which are important. Personally I’d say that full frame sensor aside there is no reason why I like the 5D Mark III’s cinematic image more than the GH2′s. But I do need a full frame camera! It is another look, another option. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

Nothing happens *at all*? Have you tried formatting the card? It sounds like a faulty camera, can't think of another cause.

From my limited testing so far the GH2 isn't as clean as the 5D Mark III at 12,800 but it is more detailed. What I like about the GH2 is that its high ISO noise has a very nice film-like fine grain structure to it, where on other H.264 DSLRs it is blotchy and compressed. This is a big plus as it drastically makes your image more film like having finer grain. The myth is that the GH2 is bad at high ISOs, far from it!

Not used the century optic 1.33x but I did shoot briefly with the Optex 1.33x which is similar. Not quite as good as the 1.33x LA7200 but not far off and more compact. Here's the footage: https://vimeo.com/15543342

Be sure to check out the C300 source MXF video files, for download on this page [url=http://carousel.hu/c300/?page_id=233]http://carousel.hu/c300/?page_id=233[/url] I won't be buying one at the current price though. FS100 and DSLRs lightyears better value.

A good article for the technically minded, very well written and well illustrated!

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=456.msg2956#msg2956 date=1332687433] 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[/quote] Just not true. It was superb for resolution out of the box. The hack just firmed it up for motion and added a finer noise grain, better gradients.

Don't think any D800E video footage is out there yet. But it would almost certainly exaggerate the mild aliasing and moire issue of the D800 not having an anti-aliasing filter over the sensor.

[quote author=AaronChicago link=topic=456.msg2912#msg2912 date=1332599805] Regarding the need to transcode for color work. I've recently discovered that Premiere CS5 and above, automatically expands footage to 4:4:4 ,32 bit float, in the timeline! No more transcoding to get latitude for finishing. Also regarding sharpening, Unsharp Mask works wonders compared to the plain ole Sharpen. This footage is looking great in my opinion though. Thanks! Aaron [/quote] This is true. No need for 5DToRGB or MPEG StreamClip, Premiere Pro CS5.5 is a superb piece of software for editing natively in. Especially 1080/60p AVCHD natively, which is still very flakey in FCPX.

Thanks jcs. However I have decided I just don't like the digital sharpening. It should be 1080p straight off the bat, otherwise it looks weird. I am finding that I either apply a little sharpening, which hardly makes it much closer to true 1080p, or I apply a lot which works for some shots but completely destroys others. 5D Mark III is teetering on the bring of eBay for me right now since D800 is looking like a worthy replacement, even with the slight moire and aliasing it appears to have.

[html][img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/d800-fx.jpg[/img] [url="https://vimeo.com/39035275"]Freelance BBC shooter Johnnie Behiri[/url] has had his hands all over the new Nikon DSLRs recently and has been keeping me informed about their pros and cons. The big news here is just how good the Nikon D800′s video with cutting edge Sony sensor is relative to its big brother the D4. [url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7620/3000-nikon-d800-thrashes-flagship-6000-nikon-d4-for-video/"]Read full article[/url] [/html]

[quote author=Simco123 link=topic=455.msg2919#msg2919 date=1332613971] [quote author=jindrich link=topic=455.msg2916#msg2916 date=1332612145] On the other hand, when shooting at 1080 all the nasyness go away and resolution shown is impressive. It's not free of some artifacts, but neither is the 5D3, which still shows moire at times (see video with the guy and a Lowepro bag) [/quote] Are you sure that was a 5D3 and not a 5D2 :-\ [/quote] Simco is right jindrich that was the old 5D2 vs D800. Pretty bad moire on both of those to my eye.

I wish these guys would get a proper tripod, tests giving me a headache!  :-X I don't think aliasing is completely solved in 1080p but moire and aliasing usually worse in 720p so you could have a point Hessler.

[quote author=sandro link=topic=455.msg2909#msg2909 date=1332595091] The aliasing on the D800 is HORRIBLE. No company can make it right :S [/quote] Could those videos have been shot with the D800E with no anti-aliasing filter? Possible. Because the two above don't have the same issues and neither does the Taiwan temple video.

Yep they fixed it  ;D That is one hell of a brick wall sir. BTW if you watch it embedded it looks like the D800! (joking) I just feel it is still a shame that the resolution still feels like 720p.

[quote author=Hessler link=topic=455.msg2884#msg2884 date=1332544940] Here is another video you might wanna take a look at, this video has no moire, but I can see aliasing in the grill of a car passing by, but the image looks great: https://vimeo.com/39073054 [/quote] That is better. Issues with horizontal lines but apart from that it is beautiful.