maxotics

I say, if it moves, post it :)

I started watching La Jette last night but my daughter said the soundtrack was going to give her nightmares :)   But I could already see that it deserves to be on the "minimalist" list.  
 
I went to see Rush last night with my brother in law.  Looks like it was shot on high-ISO film-stock.  Afterwards, I looked it up and discovered they shot on a multitude of cameras, from Arris down to 5Ds.  Lots of FX too, from backgrounds to crash sequences.  I enjoyed the film and what I thought impressive is how the technology never interfered, that is, I never felt something was done for technology's sake.   
 
They could have used a 5D3 with the ML hack, but they used an Arri, because that is what was available to them and they used the best tool in their budget.  That didn't stop them from using 5Ds for other stuff, or other cameras.  Most important, they didn't use film though though they lovingly recreated that look.
 
JG, my oldest daughter has probably watched Kill Bill a gazillion times.  She in art school now.  I play that old foggy "that stuff is stupid" :)  But I agree, Pulp Fiction is straight up great film-making.

Olly, some PhD student could certainly go to town on the second video!  There's an interesting detachment.  You didn't linger on any shots that one might linger on ;)  He's living the dream, yet it goes by so quickly, you can't see him actually enjoying it.  Is life lived as a dream enjoyable?
 
As for my narrative videos.  As much as I would love to shoot some of my scripts, I don't have the time, money, or appetite for the sacrifice involved.  When one says, "just go out and do it", that's easy to say if you're single or don't know just how much you need from others to get it done.  If you have a family, the risks are very high.  Once we had our first child I recognized that people don't watch the films I would have loved making.  I don't know if I could do a good film; I do know my natural audience would be very small.  In any case, masterpieces exist and few people watch them as it is.  So I spend my time trying to turn people onto them. 
 
I've been working on technical issues involved in making the EOS-M a good RAW shooter.  If I succeed some filmmaker might use the camera to shoot a reel that gets them the opportunity to do a film I would call a classic. Certainly, I would love to shoot something worthwhile with it.
 
We are all part of each other's narratives.  Or as one of my friends so wittily put it, "we all play bit-parts in each other's screenplays"

Let me recommend a book I think every film-maker should read
 
http://www.amazon.com/Sculpting-Time-Tarkovsky-Filmaker-Discusses/dp/0292776241
 
In my 20s my girlfriend took me to her favorite film, The Sacrifice.  I have never sat through a longer, more boring, 2 hours in my life!  When I later read that they forgot to load film into the camera before shooting the burning house, and had to shoot another burning house, i was not in the last surprised.  I made a mental note that Tarkovsky is the WORST filmmaker ever.
 
Then I read the book and watched some of his other films.  
 
What I love about this site is that it talks about film-making technology in a serious way.  People who think it's about one camera vs another are COMPLETELY missing the point.  The questions trying to be answered is "what is the best technological approach, and trade-off, I should take for what I want to shoot."  
 
Let me finish my rant with this.  At the Dartmouth Film Society they showed "Black Narcissus".  There are so few real film-theaters around I was very excited.  I wished my oldest kids were around to take them.  Anyway, I went by myself and watched it.  It didn't look good at all.  I thought, "I guess digital technology has advanced so far Technicolor now looks like crap."  I had remembered seeing the film in NYC and being blown away with it's cinematography.  Afterwards, I asked what they showed it on.  The young woman (student) says, "DVD, we wanted to show it in film, but the projector was broken.  And then our Bluray wasn't working.  Fortunately, we had a DVD too."  I was floored.  
 
It wasn't that a film-society showed one of the greatest Technicolor masterpieces in DVD, it was that they did not tell the audience.  People went away not having experienced the technology/story as it was meant to be shown.  
 
That's the way I feel reading many of those off-posts.  Many readers don't know the beauty of real film because it has been swamped by digital content.  Eventually, everyone learns their mistakes, just like I did about Tarkovsky and the real goal of filmmaking.  Many posters here that go off-topic will one day get it.  
 
Now, to get back on this topic, what are the best films that use the most minimal of technology.  I'd love to see a best 10 lists.  I'll start with Fast Runner.

A few thoughts:
 
At the end of last year I purchased a 5D3 (refurb, end of the year sale...screaming deal). My reasons were that I wanted a full frame camera for both video and stills, and ideally one which was at the cusp of gaining some quality improvements due to Canon's announced 1.2.1 firmware update with "uncompressed HDMI out."
 
When the firmware arrived, and after reading up some enlightening posts, I was almost ready to sell the camera. When Blackmagic announced their new BMCC 4K and the Pocket cameras I was planning on putting the 5D on eBay asap. 
 
Then a small miracle happened, word spread quickly that ML was on the cusp of something big. I stuck it out, read anxiously as those early reports indicated that capturing RAW data was a real possibility, and eventually took a leap of faith and installed ML on the 5D3 and put in my order for a couple of Komputerbay 64gb 1000X cards.
 
I haven't looked back since, the improvement in quality has been stunning to say the least. I have completely rethought my purchase and I now think it's one of the best decisions I have made. This has been strengthened by the delays in the BMPCC shipping, and some of the issues plaguing their Pocket camera. 
 
Further, I have been able to record at 1920X1288 resolution without any issues, this is a good format for anamorphic shooting, or subtle re-framing in post.
 
Having said that, there are a few caveats which might or might not be deal breakers for some:
 
1. As of yet, no audio. This might or might not come back at some point.
 
2. Playback is a bitch. Currently in-camera playback is limited to a low frame rate b/w image, not something you want to show to your client for on-set approval.
 
3. External monitoring is kinda buggy, it definitely has issues but it's useable for basic needs.
 
4. Post production is a bit more involved, and the footage does take up a lot more space than h.264. 
 
5. While I wouldn't call the learning curve steep, there is a lot to wrap your noggin around at first.
 
6. There are some issues with some CF cards, particularly Komputerbay. Order 3-4 and be prepared to send a couple back.
 
If that doesn't scare you, and you own a 5D3 (or even a 5D2), then you should jump in because the quality upgrade is definitely worth it.
 
BTW, I made a short video that shows the differences between footage captured with the 5D3 Raw, the Alexa and the BMCC as how the intercut together in post, you can watch it here if you want:
 

You can't!  In the way I mean it, 14bits of each primary color.  Looks like I have to go into those "complications".  Camera sensors are monochrome.  They read light be placing little filters over each pixel, either red, green or blue.  Each pixel then "borrows" the 2 other colors it doesn't have.  So if it is a red pixel, it take the green and blue color information from neighboring pixels to create a full 24bit color.  (BTW, they don't work with RGB but YUV, oh this stuff is so f'ing torturous!)  But, for explanation sake...
 
Let's say we're in a perfect world.  You have 3 color values, each from 1 to 16,000 (red, green or blue).  That means, from those, you can create a full color at 16k x 16k x 16k depth, or 4 trillion!  You can't discern 4 trillion colors.   So now you have more color information than you can physically see.  In the end, we always need to reduce to 16 million.
 
Here's the rub.  You can't see 4 trillion colors.  The camera can record the 16 million you can see in 8bit video.  So what's the problem?  The camera may not chose the 16 million color values you would chose from a palette of 4 trillion colors.  As the article shows, it is never smart enough to do that.
 
RAW allows you to  SELECT which colors to scale down to your 16 million painting.  As Andrew said, do you want to start with 4 shades of pink, or 255?  It's all about CHOICE in what you want your final 8bit channel image to be.
 
Are we getting there?

Let me recommend a book I think every film-maker should read
 
http://www.amazon.com/Sculpting-Time-Tarkovsky-Filmaker-Discusses/dp/0292776241
 
In my 20s my girlfriend took me to her favorite film, The Sacrifice.  I have never sat through a longer, more boring, 2 hours in my life!  When I later read that they forgot to load film into the camera before shooting the burning house, and had to shoot another burning house, i was not in the last surprised.  I made a mental note that Tarkovsky is the WORST filmmaker ever.
 
Then I read the book and watched some of his other films.  
 
What I love about this site is that it talks about film-making technology in a serious way.  People who think it's about one camera vs another are COMPLETELY missing the point.  The questions trying to be answered is "what is the best technological approach, and trade-off, I should take for what I want to shoot."  
 
Let me finish my rant with this.  At the Dartmouth Film Society they showed "Black Narcissus".  There are so few real film-theaters around I was very excited.  I wished my oldest kids were around to take them.  Anyway, I went by myself and watched it.  It didn't look good at all.  I thought, "I guess digital technology has advanced so far Technicolor now looks like crap."  I had remembered seeing the film in NYC and being blown away with it's cinematography.  Afterwards, I asked what they showed it on.  The young woman (student) says, "DVD, we wanted to show it in film, but the projector was broken.  And then our Bluray wasn't working.  Fortunately, we had a DVD too."  I was floored.  
 
It wasn't that a film-society showed one of the greatest Technicolor masterpieces in DVD, it was that they did not tell the audience.  People went away not having experienced the technology/story as it was meant to be shown.  
 
That's the way I feel reading many of those off-posts.  Many readers don't know the beauty of real film because it has been swamped by digital content.  Eventually, everyone learns their mistakes, just like I did about Tarkovsky and the real goal of filmmaking.  Many posters here that go off-topic will one day get it.  
 
Now, to get back on this topic, what are the best films that use the most minimal of technology.  I'd love to see a best 10 lists.  I'll start with Fast Runner.

here we go again

You can't!  In the way I mean it, 14bits of each primary color.  Looks like I have to go into those "complications".  Camera sensors are monochrome.  They read light be placing little filters over each pixel, either red, green or blue.  Each pixel then "borrows" the 2 other colors it doesn't have.  So if it is a red pixel, it take the green and blue color information from neighboring pixels to create a full 24bit color.  (BTW, they don't work with RGB but YUV, oh this stuff is so f'ing torturous!)  But, for explanation sake...
 
Let's say we're in a perfect world.  You have 3 color values, each from 1 to 16,000 (red, green or blue).  That means, from those, you can create a full color at 16k x 16k x 16k depth, or 4 trillion!  You can't discern 4 trillion colors.   So now you have more color information than you can physically see.  In the end, we always need to reduce to 16 million.
 
Here's the rub.  You can't see 4 trillion colors.  The camera can record the 16 million you can see in 8bit video.  So what's the problem?  The camera may not chose the 16 million color values you would chose from a palette of 4 trillion colors.  As the article shows, it is never smart enough to do that.
 
RAW allows you to  SELECT which colors to scale down to your 16 million painting.  As Andrew said, do you want to start with 4 shades of pink, or 255?  It's all about CHOICE in what you want your final 8bit channel image to be.
 
Are we getting there?

That tripped me up too.  When we speak of 8bits for monitors (255 integer) we mean, per color channel.  As you'll see when you set your display settings, you want 24bit (3 x 8 (byte)).  8bit video delivers about 16million color values--the range of human vision.
 
When your camera takes a photo/video frame, each sensor pixel is taking a 14bit reading, that is 1 to 16,383 (or something like that).Each pixel actually reads only a red, green or blue value.  Another complication.   Anyway, that number is ultimately converted to 0 to 255. So you're giving up a lot of accuracy about just how much color there was.
 
In RAW video, you get those 14bit values BEFORE the cameras converts them into 8bit equivalants.  Complex subject, hope this gets you on right track.

Some revision and a little mantra ( attached) to chew on.
1) Resolution is not as important as Color space. I'll take 10Bit 2.5K over 8Bit 4K any day
2) Built in ND filters matter a lot since many of us need them to knock down the sensors in bright light and NO I do not like taking the time to constantly deal with filters in my mattebox every time I change shots.
3) Panasonic will be wasting time and an opportunity if they release anything 'Pro' in a M43sensor ( Please forget the Speedboosters- that's more unweildy hardware between the rear-element and the sensor than I care to deal with in a supposedly 'Pro' camera)
So have a look at my mantra and goodnight all !
 

They want to sell what they can develop relatively easily, CODECs and chips, instead of what really diminishes the quality of most video, from production to display--low dynamic range and as NTSC used to be mocked as, "Never The Same Color" twice.  That said, I doubt consumer video will change much, in that regard.  Data requirements just too high.  What Panasonic could do is allow Vitaliy to hack the GH line into producing RAW video.  Doubt that would ever be a press release though!

That Sofoly clip is lovely, well executed and graded.
 
It's also flooded with light, we are talking a bout a very very low contrast scene, which does play to a compressed camera's strengths.
 
It's when you work with higher contrast ratios then the raw cameras wipe the floor with 8-bit squishy cams, it's just a fact
 
As far as the test was concerned I liked the 5D MKiii, The shadows appear much cleaner than pocket cams for high-contrast scenes, though I agree 100% with Andrew that the 5D colour needs taming, it's extremely rich.

This article as many shoot out reviews do, has evoked many fan boy comments, it's almost like a comment section from IGN on the Xbox One vs PS4 debate.  it's clear that a lot of people on here aren't really being objective. The GH3 users are here to convince everyone and themselves that GH3 is king, even though it isn't. The GH3 produces a nice image and it's easy to use = best camera. I don't think so.
5DM3 is a fantastic camera and RAW makes it a beast, but again, is it the best RAW cinema camera? possibly but you also have to remember Magic lantern is not canon, if Magic lantern were to stop doing what they're doing, it would all be over. Which leads me onto my next point, it's a hack, so paid Jobs are something you most likely would never use it on. And before people start saying you would never use RAW on a paid job anyway? says who, you? a lot of people here seem to speak in absolutes. I work on paid Jobs and use RAW, but I do it with a BMCC. The workflow is a lot easier than converting the RAW files from canon DSLRs. Also it's not hacked, the software works with the hardware and it was intended to from the get go. I
 
I've been a DSLR shooter for years, Before that if I wanted the cinematic look, I had to set up a rail system with a 35mm adaptor from Redrock Micro with the Sony EX3 . What we can do now, it's mind blowing.
 
Again A lot of users here seem to be speaking in absolutes, like my way is the only way and what i'm saying is true because i've used X Y and Z camera therefore I know better. GH3 users saying the GH3 is the best because it's just as cinematic and it's so easy to set up and use with minimal accessories. What has ease of use have to do with the final image? 
 
I'm a narrative and advertisement film maker, we use blackmagic because despite their flaws, they work well and the final image is great, for people saying the 5DM3 blows it away in low light, I work in a stuido and we have lights, I thinnk huge sensors have made people lazy, not using lights because the sensor can cope in low light. I never shoot anything that doesn't have a proper lighting. We also have 5DM3 on set but we don't use them for filming in raw because it's paid. Why use RAW, you don't need it you say? we do because we do a lot of green screen work, I'm also a visual effects artist, anyone who is will know that working with 8 bit 4:2:0 DSLR footage will know it's terrible for keying, and before people say, I can key DSLR footage and it looks great, let me tell you, there is a big difference between, it looks ok, and something that looks professional.
 
I think people are downplaying a lot of what blackmagic does, Take the pocket cinema camera which I own (FAN BOY TALKING), It's under $1000 and shoots Prores 422 and will soon Shoot 12bit RAW CinemaDNG. No other camera does that, The GH3 is a lot easier to use and it produces fanastic images, it's also got a great view finder and it's files are smaller and easier to manage, guess what, I don't care about any of that stuff, I and my clients care about the end image, not how I got there, just what it is. The GH3 does not produce better images, I don't care what you say, it just doesn't. For me colour grading matters a lot, and RAW enables me to push it much further than any non hacked DSLR, the GH3 crumbles if you push it too much in the grading department. Even the pocket cams prores grades beautifully without RAW.
 
I thought I would just give a different perspective, I wasn't going to comment but I seen too many GH3 users saying why the GH3 is good enough and overall a better camera when you factor in it's easy of use. Like that's all that matters. I read someone saying in regards to Dynamic range, there was only a little difference between the 5D and the BMPCC, i'm sorry but I can tell a huge difference. 
 
I know i'll probably get shot down but i'm sorry I think a lot of people are missing the point, which is the end image. For run and gunners, yeah the GH3 is the way to go. For me, at the moment Blackmagic is my brand, expecting good things from the 4K version.

Absolutely, and I hate wisenheimers as well, must be my shadow.
 
The poor threadstarter has given up long ago.
 
That was my first experience with greenscreen: I read a book about Final Cut 2 in 2001 and chroma keying was mentioned. It looked easy. I had a bright green folder on my desk which I taped on the door. I put my VX1000 (DV PAL) on the tripod. I painted red color over my wrist, focussed on my hand and made a strangling gesture. Then I filmed myself, mimicking being strangled. Of course I had 'the hand of horror' in mind. Compositing was a matter of trial and error. I had to deinterlace before I scaled the hand, I had to get rid of the arm, I had to add the cut area with the bone (Photoshop) and animate it. It was far from perfect, but it was big fun. It was diffuse daylight, and though my hand was close to the folder, I only had a few frames with spill. I simply cut them out, that looked even more creepy (funny, actually).
 
I recommend a playful, respectless start. If you haven't done it and only read about all things that let it go wrong, you'll be discouraged.

If you want portability, the EOS-M will do BMPCC like dynamic range at 720p. You can use all your lenses.  If you can live with 720p, and some post-processing extra work, bodies are about $250.  I maintain a thread on ML here: http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8825.msg82944#msg82944  (hope you don't mind the link Andrew)

Cool, I get to be the first posted comment, which is:  SIMPLY F'ING AWESOME!  I don't know how you get the time to do all this but this is what I've wanted to know for months!  Finally I can get on with my life.  THANK YOU!

I think what Axel is saying, citizenkaden, is that if you want a nice 3d like chromakey, the background wrapping around the actors, you would build the set like that pictured.  The problem with such a set is that the side walls in green will reflect green light onto the actors and that will confuse the chromakey.  So you want the software to differentiate between green on the screen, and green that has been "spilled" onto the actors.  
 
When I first read about this I thought it was stupid.  Until I tried shoot green screen in a small room and it kept spilling onto arms and hair (that is, a green reflection).  If the OP can't place his actors far enough from the green screen he/she will run into this problem.  dishe's link clearly explains why 4:2:0 does not give accurate pixel level chroma for the software to work with.  Even 4:2:2 is not perfect.
 
In practical terms I would say this,
 
SCENE A: Actors are in big sword fight on some crazy tropical island.  The green screen is in a large room with plenty of room for lights, actors, etc.  A G6 would be fine.
 
SCENE B:  A man and woman are having an intimate talk aboard a "starship" with a window overlooking space.  Plenty of closeups.  The woman has fine, flowing hair.  Then xenogears BMCC is, if you ask me, would be the only chance you have of making it look real.

The whole idea of 4:4:4, 4:2:0 and 4:2:2 is, as has been said, the ability to create low-bandwidth video by compromising on color space, which we are less likely to notice (over contrast/sharpness).  
 
The better color information you have, the easier to key.  Andy should write all the people who spent $5,000+ on cameras that do 4:2:2 or 4:4:4 and tell them they wasted all their money ;)
 
Andy, all you need to say is, yes, color keying is easier on a 4:4:4 camera, but for what you want to do, your money is better allocated on a 4:2:0 camera like the G6 and good green screens, lighting and software.  No one here has argued against that!  We've only tried to educate the OP on the issues.
 
You're effectively saying that some of us don't know anything about real-life shooting, only academic theories.  Also, you shoot music videos that are so busy, visually, that no one would notice green in the hair, etc.  We don't know what the OP is wanting to shoot.  
 
It's Murphy's law that one day, Andy, you will get a job where the client will notice the difference.  Remember to report back to us ;)

Jiban, just in case you don't understand the issues from the beginning...
 
The generic term for green screen (or blue screen) is chromakey.  It means you "key" out a color (chroma), like a keyhole, and now you can see what is behind it (the chroma/color).  
 
In order for this to work, the software must go through the image, pixel by pixel, and determine if each pixel is the chroma you have selected, green in your case.  Naturally, every pixel will not be an exact green.  Some will be dark, some light, some may be bluish from the lighting, or reddish, etc.
 
In the software you can set the lattitude of what is, or is not, a green.   This leads to problems.
 
To key out the bluish green around an edge of the screen, you may pick up a bluish-green part of someone's shirt, and then that ends up being keyed through.  
 
Green, may reflect off the screen, onto someone's hair, and then that gets screwed up.
 
IN SHORT, GREEN SCREEN, IN PRACTICE, iS DIFFICULT TO DO VERY WELL.
 
Optimally you need
 
1. A large screen
2. A long distance between screen and subject to prevent spill
3. A well lit screen
4. A well list person, lit in a way that will match the visuals you'll key in.
 
If you think about this stuff, you'll realize that the better the camera knows a green from a not-green, the better it can apply a key.  Most video cameras throw out a lot of color information in compression, 4:2:0 (instead of 4:4:4) that one doesn't notice much in most circumstances BUT is a serious problem for green screen work.
 
YES, you can pull a good key with 4:2:0 video cameras, like the G6, but it is MORE difficult than a camera that doesn't compress the video image in that way.  I don't know whether it would be better to invest in a better green screen and lighting and use a G6, or invest in a camera that does 4:4:4, maybe $4,000 used and go cheap on lights, etc.  There is NO hard answer.  
 
In short, I am giving background behind what mtheory is saying--no one in their right mind would choose a 4:2:0 camera to do professional level green screen work unless they had a perfect studio setup.
 
The ML setup works because the RAW video contains 14bits of true color information at every pixel location.  Yes, the workflow is monstrous, but if you end up spending all your time trying to light your screen screen to get a good image, and can't, with a 4:2:0 camera, you might not think it so bad ;)
 
Almost every camera your friends will own is probably 4:2:0.  Borrow on and try it first.  Don't invest money in any camera until you go through chromakey workflow at least once to understand the issues I've explained.  Then you'll know what is, or is not important to you.

I'm fairly certain Guy + Cameras + 3D printers = Divorce ;)
 
That doesn't stop me from fantasizing!  

I'm not looking for excuses, I want to like the camera. But I want to hear legitimate reasons to pick it over other options, and quite frankly you guys are getting awfully defensive when I ask innocent questions. The thread wasn't about the G6, its about where I should go based on what I'm doing and what I'm used to. It says G6 in the title because it is an example of something that I think may be a good fit. Notice I also mentioned a Nikon and BMC camera, but didn't mention the Canon 70D or AC90. I'm looking for something in this class of camera. Let's be perfectly clear: I AM NOT ON THE OFFENSIVE. I'm looking for the real deal from people who have used some of the modern bodies, but what I'm getting in response sounds like a pep rally instead!
 
Its sort of like when shopping on Amazon, a smart buyer will click on the negative reviews first. I want to hear what don't people like about it, what's the worst case scenario- then work backwards from there. If the bad isn't so bad, and I think it is still better than other options available, I'll go for it. If someone just has nothing but glowing reviews about a product, you'll have to excuse my cynicism- I don't believe any product is THAT perfect. There's always a con!
 
I'm not looking for you to tell me which camera to buy, but rather looking for an intellectual discussion about the pros and cons. I'm happy the G6 works for you guys, and maybe it will work for me too. All I'm saying is help me make an educated decision because we all have different needs and expectations. Sorry if I rubbed anyone the wrong way, it wasn't my intention.

Received wisdom is that Canon accidentally created DSLR video. They added simple 30p recording to the 5D MKii for journalists, and as more people used it and bought the camera for video they started expanding the features. Then we get the 7D. The 550D was a big milestone, bringing all this to a cheap plastic body. without that camera god knows what I'd be working as...
 
But shortly afterwards it all stalled a bit, they realised it was a big market, and created EOS C to capitalise on the professionals using their lower-end products.
 
Now they will protect that line at most costs. Magic Lantern can hack what they like as long as it's not a C camera, because C is worth too much to Canon. It's a big part of their future. Though the C500 is a big mis-step and shows their lack of experience at the top end: you can't take the piss out up there. Give us everything now please, or we'll hire an Alexa ;)
 
This year, the majority of jobs I've been involved with one way or another were shot on C300. That is expert business really. To completely steal the market previously occupied by Sony camcorders in a few years, out of the blue, Canon cemented themselves even more firmly in the professional consciousness than they ever had.
 
It does give the bare minimum but it's just so easy to use and works wonderfully. It's mostly hired, hence that silly price, though I know one owner operator.
 
One little feature in the 5D MKii kicked it off, now they own corporate, internal, and small scale advertising. They dominate the low end. That's a great success story for them. Our market though, is still a niche. they want consumers and pros, and they're happy to mop up the bit in the middle with the help of the unpaid Magic Lantern crew.

Perhaps I should be optimistic about 7D MKii, since even an iPhone now has 120fps... but I'm not... once bitten, twice shy and all that... :S If their 15,000 pound video camera doesn't have it, why would an SLR?
 
Yes if Sony take the five-axis stabilisation and put it in an amazing NEX-9 or something, with more than 24/28mbps we could be talking.
 
If I see 24mbps AVCHD written on another new camera I'll punt it into the nearest lake.
 
The trouble is it's a "standard", but it happens to be a shit and outdated one, like PAL SD for example. 
 
Canon at least ignore these standards and implement their own codec forms. The AVCHD nearly ruins the FS700, for example. Shit just falls apart after a bit...

I agree with you JG and having worked intensively with RAW for a bit I can give more reasons why what you say is the case.
 
1. Line skipping.  The sensor is reading data one line at a time partly to maintain expected frame size, but also because recent chips can't read AND process a full frame 24 times a second.  The 5D3 obviously can (as Zach pointed out).  But I bet those electronics are expensive and power-hungry (and cost Canon considerable R&D).  Eventually they'll make it to other cameras, but I see no economic incentive for Canon to give people other options to the 5D3 this soon.  The camera seems on track, with non-moire video to be another classic like the 2 Canons before it.  Good for them!  The 7D, IMHO, is still a sports camera or high-end/rugged Rebel.
 
It was just 11 years ago that Star Wars, Attack of the Clones, was shot on 1080p, on a Sony something-or-other.  My guess is the 5D3 is either as good, or better.  Think of that, a $3,300 camera!
 
There's a lot of competition in digital film "cinema" cameras now.  Hard to be generous without profits!
 
When I first start doing this, I too, wanted something between H.264 and RAW.  What I didn't see then, and hopefully this will help others, is that Photo processing/compression is about DATA and video processing is about PERCEPTION, similar differences between WAV and MP3, in audio.
 
In photo processing, you'll looking to keep as much image data as possible because photographers/viewers have a low tolerance for pixelation, blotchy colors, etc.  The bar is actually pretty high now!  So I don't know how you'd reduce the image information half-way?  Cut down the number of red or blue pixels?  In any case, such a strategy would have little or no use for photography.
 
Video processing is about throwing out as much image data as you can and compressing the rest to create as pleasing a MOVING picture as you can, psychologically.  There is no real connection between RAW bayer data to JPG, and image data converted to a video 4:2:2 color space.  That whole #:#:# quality idea is centered on psychological compression methods for moving pictures--that is, that we're not as sensitive to low-color and dynamic range as we are to sharpness, etc.  
 
A simple way of saying what I'm saying, is, to use audio as an example, low-bit-rate WAV is probably worse than high-bit-rate MP3 (psychologically).  They are NOT the same approaches!  You can't meet in the middle.  They are parallel approaches to image recording and display that don't meet.
 
There is no middle in video.  That's what my journey is leading to.  You either have full 14-bit color, or you have color-reduction and motion-base compression.  
 
If one insisted on a middle ground, it would be 14bit 720x480 upscaled.