Jump to content

Jeff Gibbs

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jeff Gibbs

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Andrew great article what a game changer for such a small price. Curious how your going to rig the GX80/85 with recorder and xlr mic and yet retain that small non threatening form factor. Would be an elegant arrangement.
  2. I have been very impressed with D800.  If this holds up, I might be switching. Let me ask everyone something. The Mark III is supposed to have a 15 x's faster processor that the Mark II, Digic 5, a new codec, nearly twice the MPS, a sensor perfect for video downscaling--what am I missing?--and we are to believe that the Mark III is not capable of clearly resolving a far, far, better video image than probably any other DLSR type camera, to any say nothing of for gosh sakes it predecessor the Mark II with a vastly slower processor, mis-matched sensor for video, Digic 4, etc. etc. of which it is barely if at all better? IE could not Canon have made the Mark III given its specs an absolute video MONSTER rivaling much more expensive cams if they wished? Could not Canon, if they wished, have "released the hounds" and maybe still could via a firmware update allow the 5d Mark III video to be mind-blowing in every way?  That Canon seems to have chosen to cripple the Mark III is as much the reason I cancelled my Mark III order as the soft image.  There has been a wrong turn taken. That they were willing to prevent us the end user from accessing the video feed in a useful way perhaps tells us all we need to know about who won the battle over whether to cripple the video capabilities of the Mark III.  My two cents, spoken in the hopes that Canon admits it erred and fixes this pronto.  I really don't want to have to switch to Nikon, but I am thiiiiiiiiiiis close.....
  3. Lots of great discussion here.  I find the pixel peeping thing to be weird and sort of desperate defense.  If someone finds the image too soft, then its too soft.  If you think its fine as is, your right too, for your needs!  I think we can each be the judge of what we need. For wide shots for my work and most of my colleagues the Mark II and apparently now the Mark III the low resolution is a problem.  Otherwise, it's a stunning image, and I am still using a Mark II, as well as a GH2 and an XF300.  I was hoping for one camera I could carry with me say off into the mountains to follow doc style folks fighting some environmental issue, that does the interviews well, is easy to follow action with, and can capture vista and landscapes reasonably well without a lot of muss and fuss.  I really hoped that the Mark III was going to offer all of this, so far its doesn't seem to, I am going to wait to buy another Canon DSLR until they get the resolution bumped up.  Every wide shot with the Mark III I have seen so far looks pretty much like the Mark II: soft.
  4. I wouldn't be surprised if Canon tremendously upgrades the Mark III video resolution in a firmware upgrade.  Until then, I will look elsewhere.
  5. I just cancelled my 5d Mark III pre-order at BH.  I cannot live with a camera with this low of video resolution.  I tried out a Nikon D4 last week and by comparison the 1080p seems much sharper, and the video options more refined. The crop mode has more resolution yet.  I am not ready to switch to Nikon--I have a GH2 for now. But I agree with those who prefer Canon people and colors, but I don't want to continue filming buildings and landscapes virtually in SD not HD. (I have owned and used a Mark II, 7d, and T2i.)  I feared all along Canon would not allow the 5d III to compete with the C300 much less the video cameras in between the XF300, etc. With this very high bit rate, and a sensor tuned for video, and more advanced codecs, its hard to see any other explanation.
  6. Well, that other people might not notice is a little comfort I guess.  Once I learned to see the jello and the other DSLR artifacts I see them in most all the famous videos that helped launch the frenzy.  I like to get things right, or as right as possible, because I think flaws in image or sound detract from the audience's experience whether they are aware of it or not.  Thanks for your input, I will just need to take care and look closely when shooting and try it different ways when possible.
  7. Wow thanks for the in-depth response.  I am a run and gun documentary fellow trying to get beauty shots as well and not really able to manipulate all those parameters readily (even if I understood them all, still learning)--just hoping for an easy fix and alas there appears to be none.  For what it's worth I see the banding in a lot of footage from various sources, even the C300, though less pronounced. I wonder if Neat Video can clear it up?
  8. Has any spotted any more Mark III footage? Still waiting for the stuff that jumps out at me as the next generation better.  Trading off artifacts for sharpness is a mixed bag.  I was out doing a few tests with a Mark II today and was reminded just how stunning of a camera it is when the depth of field is in play ie for interviews, etc, and how low resolution and for my work unsatisfactory the wide shots are. 
  9. I have seen a few comments on several boards about the banding issue.  However, I have not really seen a full solution.  I notice how severe or sometimes nearly invisible my banding is especially with blue skies varies from day to day.  Once I began to notice banding, now I see it in a lot of footage, especially in sky or dark solid colors. I am sure there might be some combination of patch, polarizing filter, iso, f-stop, shutter speed, color profile, lens , etc. that makes a difference.  But still I wonder if anyone has been able to banish the banding especially the blue sky stuff from their GH2 world with say a particular patch or adjustment?  Or is this just life with the GH2? Here is some stuff I shot with the Sedna AQ1, but the latest EOSHD patch does the same thing.  Thanks for any help! [url=http://vimeo.com/user2329906]http://vimeo.com/user2329906[/url]
  • Create New...