domonicwhite

  Thanks 'QuickHitRecord'   Sorry if I posted in the wrong place - it seems this issue is relevant to both cameras and I was picking up on what was said in this article...   It seems odd that we'd be talking about this camera being a viable option without 24/25p on clean uncompressed HDMI? Or is there a way to convert 30p to 24/25p cleanly? Why would Nikon give with one hand but take away with the other? Bit like the D600 black bars problem? So close yet so far or have I missed something here?

Sorry to be dim, but can someone explain the following from this article please -   "The HDMI is uncompressed – like the D5200 if not identical. However it is 60i or 30p in live view and drops to 720p when recording is activated in-camera."   I just want to double check that the D5200 can do 24fps & 25fps (1080p) uncompressed when recording externally via HDMI and it's not limited to 30fps for some weird reason?   Can anyone help / confirm please?   Thanks!    

[quote name='Scott' timestamp='1353966728' post='22365'] Personally I've never gotten acceptable results sharpening Mk III footage in post. For some reason 'softness' occurring naturally from the lens seems preferable to 'softness' caused by an AA filter. [/quote] Thanks - that's very interesting... what happens from your experience then? Doesn't sharpen, or do you get artifacts / other issues?

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1353966448' post='22364'] Here's the thing with moire & aliasing... ALL cameras have it. Even the 1D C and that is $12,000, and the Blackmagic Cinema Camera. The 5D Mark II had much worse moire and aliasing than the GH3 and that didn't stop it being used by pros in Hollywood. It isn't a desirable quality of the image but the way some guys have gone on about it on forums has been ridiculously over the top. The list of cameras that the GH3 is better than for moire and aliasing is staggeringly long - 5D2, NEX 5N, NEX 5R, NEX 7, A99, D800, D600, 7D, 60D, 600D, 650D, EOS M, 550D, OM-D and nearly every other DSLR on the market. The 5D3 is soft but when you sharpen in post sometimes you get some aliasing. The GH2 had slightly less moire & aliasing than the GH3 given the same situation. But it still occasionally flared up. Not so much in the real world but with a very sharp lens with a very narrow band of fine patterns. You may get 1 occurrence out of every 100 shots with it. On the GH3 maybe you'll get 5 occurrences out of a 100. Depends what you're shooting. The 5D2 was doing it on roof tiles and water!! All sorts of stuff. The GH3 seems to have a lighter anti-aliasing filter, so there's a very slightly wider window of fine patterns that it occurs on. I hope this puts the GH3's moire into perspective. I know it can be a confusing issue, as it depends on so many different factors whether you get some or not. By the way, it is far less visible on a TV or projector than it is on a computer monitor - which is the least organic and cinematic way to watch video. [/quote] Thanks Andrew - really appreciate the speedy reply and clarification. The ratios you mention are very encouraging - so much of the early GH3 footage has shown artifacts in one way or another that I'd got the impression the situation was much worse. It's a relief to hear things aren't that bad (and from a trusted source). Thanks for all your hard work!

I'm confused about the Moire and Aliasing situation with the GH3. In the article it's mentioned you/Andrew 'feel the GH3 is everything the GH2 was but better' - yet from what I've read and seen up to this point the Moire and Aliasing on the GH3 is far worse than the GH2, and given that Moire and Aliasing are very un-filmic I don't quite follow this thinking - at least in that particular comment? Can you/anyone elaborate/explain please? Also, in the article it's mentioned that softer optics can be used to get that 'dreamy cinematic look' (ie. compensate for moire and aliasing) - yet, when the 5d MK3 came out quite a lot of folks wrote it off for being overly soft - even after it became apparent that it's soft (dreamy cinematic?) image could be sharpened when more detail needs to be perceived. As a forum weary old man trying to make sense of all this to ensure my limited funds go on the right beast, I wonder if anyone could help clarify why softening an image to limit DD on one camera is acceptable / better yet sharpening in post to add perceived detail in wides on another is given such a hard time...? Isn't the soften-image-to-reduce- DD approach baking in a look? Anyone...?

Thanks for the update! Any comments on the aliasing / moire situation?

Thanks for the great info on the GH3 - your article raises some really interesting points. The price difference for the UK is disappointing but it's the mention of the 'm' word which made my heart sink. I'd be very surprised if they were able to fix that before release as it would presumably require a hardware change, and I would have thought that's all locked down now ready for mass manufacture. I can't see how they can fix moire etc in firmware - unless they muddy up the image somehow but that'll make some folks consider the 5D route again given the added attraction of FF. It's never simple is it :) SO much choice at the moment - which is great, but I thought the GH3 was going to leap to the top of the pile as a no brainer... Hopefully it still will, but not having to worry about moire/aliasing is a really important factor for many I'm sure. Yes you can work around these things, but so much nicer if you can free up that part of the brain to worry about other (more creative) things. Gonna have to wait for more example footage of the other cams for comparison now... :( Andrew - I know it would be a shed load of work, and therefore this isn't a reasonable request - but do you think a collaborative side by side comparison of all the main players (5DMKIII, 6D, BMCC, D600, GH3, A99, etc, etc, etc) could be possible to pull together on your site? Given the interest in the Zacuto Shootouts I bet lots of people would find this invaluable.... Looking forward to read more of your findings tomorrow...