Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ronjbase

I'm not seeing the 5D Mark III "softness" that everyone is talking about

Recommended Posts

[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346003207' post='16514']
Undeniably Gale did a great job on House. There are also some very nice cut aways in modern blockbusters to 5D footage, usually as a crash cam.

However why cripple yourself now better cameras are out for the same money?

Look at what you gain vs what you lose, if you went for the 5D Mark III over the BMC.

You'd gain:

Wide angle faster than F2.8
Stills
Usable ISO above 3200

You'd lose:

12 bit colour
4-2-2 sampling
Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+)
Raw codec
Larger built in screen
HD-SDI
XLR
Da Vinci Resolve (it comes in the box)
$500 cheaper

I believe the BMC is by far the better deal. We don't need to catch up to Canon, we need to catch up to Blackmagic and so do they.

What people don't realise very often about the large sensor in the 5D Mark III is that it only has ONE advantage - the way it renders a lens. Shallower DOF all else equal (which is not actually what you always want on every shoot, every scene, every shot) and more choice of lenses at wide angle. It doesn't give any of the dynamic range, resolution or low light advantage in video mode that the sensor is capable of in stills mode.

The Blackmagic's image shits all over the 5D Mark III. The only thing it can't do by comparison is 24mm F1.4 and ISO above 3200.

13 stops of dynamic range for $3000 is a much bigger deal than a full frame sensor which is crippled by a dreadful image processor and dated codec.
[/quote]

The BMC is a 'better' camera on paper, fine. But how many people have even got the best out of the MKII yet? Who cares about 12 bit vs 8 bit if you can't even make 8 bit look good in the first place. Until you can produce images as good as House, what's the point in arguing about how much better the BMC is? If producing good cinematography isn't your aim then yes, but if you're serious about cinematography it's quite clear that even the MKII is way ahead of the skills of a lot of shooters. People are fixated with specs but they can't even make the 5D look great! Isn't that where the energy should go? The BMC shits all over the 5D? Show me some of your work that shits over the episode of House that Gale Tattersall shot, or something that comes even close!

You're clearly biased against the 5D and losing the ability to be objective. You got bullied by it in school and can't get over your resentment. It's the camera you fell in love with and now it's gone off with the cute football player. It's not the camera that's letting you down man! You've projected your need onto it and it hasn't met your expectations, shit happens. Still cuts in with an Alexa though so it's not all bad for a £2.5K camera.

Why make it 5DMKIII vs BMC? Stop trying to get your revenge man! They're two totally different cameras that do different things. One is a STILLS camera that happens to do amazing video in the right hands. The other is a low end cinema camera capable of groundbreaking images for the price, both have drawbacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
Despite the discussion the on going on the merits of the Mark III, can anyone give me some sharpen settings for FCP7. I want to make some test and burn a Blue Ray and really see how the sharpening improves the image to see if it is worth the extra effort. For my job , the Mark III is great out of the box since my audience is the iPad. Of course the Mark III may be obsolete if Andrew's early descriptions GH3 features are right on. Only if they would let you choose the codec. I'd pay several hundred more for ProRes....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You don't need to pay several hundred for ProRes on the GH3, just a couple of hundred will do for the Blackmagic Hyperdeck Shuttle and an HDMI cable :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No because the OM-D doesn't have an HDMI feed in video mode, only playback mode.

Listen - what a lot of people don't seem to get about HDMI is that right to this day (D800) aside, it has been a compressed interlaced feed and no better than the internal recording of DSLRs. It isn't worth using unless you have the camera to do it justice like the D800, FS100 or possibly the future Sony offerings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Or, just get a Blackmagic Cinema Camera and shoot industrial-strength 1080p 10-bit ProRes 422 HQ (log) @ 220-megabits/sec, or uncompressed 2.5K 12-bit RAW CinemaDNG @ 5-megaBYTES/frame, both with 13-stop dynamic range, on commodity-priced SSD media, with a plenty-big-enough sensor, EF lens mount, dual balanced audio inputs, 5" LCD touchscreen, headphone jack, built-in uninterruptible power supply, including state-of-the-art software, all for $3K US -- and be very, very, happy.

And, if you want, add a "GH3" body-only for pretty-OK-looking 1080p60/50 (hopefully) for ~1/3 that price and be insanely happy.

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For what I do, I don't see the BMCC being a practical tool for ENG coverage. especially with the crop factor . considering I use the 24mm or equivalent for a lot of my clips. Maybe when it comes in a micro four thirds mount and chip size...... AND I would still like some sharpening settings for the MarkIII in FCP7 please.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='EOSHD' timestamp='1346003207' post='16514']
Nearly half your resolution (600 lines vs nearly 1000+)
[/quote]

600 lines seems to be an exaggeration. The 5D3's video capture resolution is 1904x1072, vs 1720x974 for the 5D2/7D/550D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='Bruno' timestamp='1349703707' post='19483']
600 lines seems to be an exaggeration. The 5D3's video capture resolution is 1904x1072, vs 1720x974 for the 5D2/7D/550D.
[/quote]

Where did you get all these figures from? Please post the url.
thanks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ronjbase' timestamp='1349748919' post='19505']
@ Mirrorkisser, Thank you, I've only been asking sharpening tips for several months. it' start....
[/quote]

Why not just apply a sharpening filter and see what happens? Final cut has a basic sharpening plug-in. I'd start there with it turned down fairly low

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've tried various sharpening settings and didn't see a difference and I registered at personal view. trying to figure out that site, it's
layout is confusing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='ronjbase' timestamp='1349751749' post='19507']
I've tried various sharpening settings and didn't see a difference and I registered at personal view. trying to figure out that site, it's
layout is confusing
[/quote]

Most videos I've seen are done in Adobe with an Unsharpen Mask applied. I'm not sure this helps since you're in FCP.. But that's the only plug i've seen used as an example of how to clean up a 5D3 image.. It's nothing crazy either, just slide the bar until it looks right, & doesn't draw attention to itself... You know the drill:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that if you are applying sharpening to your footage and you are seeing nothing change, you are probably doing something wrong.
Anyway I think that ultimately, if you are happy with the raw footage I see no reason why you should worry about sharpening it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One really good thing about the All-i codec on mark III (and now on the GH3 as well) is that we don't get stuff like this:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?294411-Strange-quot-blocks-quot-in-the-image-from-the-FS700

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='hmcindie' timestamp='1349958534' post='19604']
One really good thing about the All-i codec on mark III (and now on the GH3 as well) is that we don't get stuff like this:

[url="http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?294411-Strange-quot-blocks-quot-in-the-image-from-the-FS700"]http://www.dvxuser.c...-from-the-FS700[/url]
[/quote]

Are you sure about that? I thought the main advantage to All-i is that you don't have pixel interpolation between frames? Each frame is encoded as a single, isolated frame. If your bitrate is to low, you are still going to get chunks of pixels grouped together regardless if it's happening on a frame by frame basis or interpolating over a group of frames. Is that not correct? As far as I was aware, The main artifacts that GOP produces are slight periodic shifts in areas of the frame where little change occurring over time. The codec then directs it's attention to things that are changing the most between frames. Although again, if the bitrate is to low, the motion will still seem chunky and smeared... I don't understand how this would reduce macro-blocking and chunky movement if the bitrate was still to low?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...