I want a better quality video For the 5dm3

[fs454]

since magic lantern can do all sorts of neat stuff why cant it enable 60fps1080p or 120 or 4k video for that matter since the sensor is big enough?

I dont know about all that voodoo stuff that goes on inside these things for all I know there is a squirrel inside a wheel driving the AF system... hang on that might explain!...

Processing power, for one. The camera's CPU can't handle capturing that many frames per second or that high of a resolution in real time. It was never built to do that, hence why the processing power isn't there, no matter what you try to tell it to do via software.

[Policar]

Curiously, the C300 seems to have the same pixel density as the 5DII...

I wouldn't get my hopes up.  The sample videos of the 1dx at Fenchel and Janisch show a lot of ugly aliasing and only slightly less noise than videos shot with the 7d.  Not even in the same ballpark as the F3 or C300.  Incrementally better than the 7d--at best.

There's a HUGE market at the $3,000 price point among videographers and student filmmakers.  You can buy a couple lenses and have a usable kit under $4,000 or you can spend significantly more and develop something that's almost production-ready for music videos and shorts or as a b camera for a serious rig.  Canon would be foolish not to introduce an EF mount cinema camera in this price range, but for whatever reason it seems they want to start with expensive products and work their way down...

1080p/60fps would be nice, but is trivial compared with a reduction in aliasing and skew and a boost in actual resolution.

[aaronofnero]

There's a HUGE market at the $3,000 price point among videographers and student filmmakers.  You can buy a couple lenses and have a usable kit under $4,000 or you can spend significantly more and develop something that's almost production-ready for music videos and shorts or as a b camera for a serious rig.  Canon would be foolish not to introduce an EF mount cinema camera in this price range, but for whatever reason it seems they want to start with expensive products and work their way down...

1080p/60fps would be nice, but is trivial compared with a reduction in aliasing and skew and a boost in actual resolution.

for the same reasons all other film-product competitors don't have equipment that cheap. Sony does have the fs100, which is at $5k, and you can now get canon/nikon mounts for it.. but there are still substantial limitations. The benefit though, even over the f3, is that you get 60fps@1080p.. the downside is the bitrate and color space, and only hdmi out, as well as the form factor and build quality. Enough people already complain about the fs100 in the professional video field.

You also have to remember.. sure, there is a huge market base for$ 3-4k as you say.. but there is an even BIGGER market base for $1-2k, or $300-500 - what's to stop them at 3-4grand if sheer volume of market sales was their intentions? I, for one, would love to save up for the c300 of f3, as the Arri Alexa is out of my price range.. and i'm simply happy and fortunate to have a professional option for less than 20 grand.. something that could provide me with a return income that costs about what a new Honda costs.

[BRNexus6]

Moire needs to be reduced to the point where it won't ruin a shot. Don't expect 60FPS in 1080p, because not even the C300 offers that, which I find ridiculous for a $12,000 camera.

The 5D Mark ll and other Canon HDSLR's don't actually shoot true 1080p video, it's actually rated just a bit higher than 720p, so hopefully Canon has improved the sensor/pixel downsampling for better resolution.

...Are you kidding me? That is not true at all. They do in fact shoot true 1080p video.

Sorry, but it's true.  The current Canon HDSLR's only capture a bit higher than 720p of actual resolution in 1080p mode.  It's been proven with test charts.

[Policar]

There's a HUGE market at the $3,000 price point among videographers and student filmmakers.  You can buy a couple lenses and have a usable kit under $4,000 or you can spend significantly more and develop something that's almost production-ready for music videos and shorts or as a b camera for a serious rig.  Canon would be foolish not to introduce an EF mount cinema camera in this price range, but for whatever reason it seems they want to start with expensive products and work their way down...

1080p/60fps would be nice, but is trivial compared with a reduction in aliasing and skew and a boost in actual resolution.

for the same reasons all other film-product competitors don't have equipment that cheap. Sony does have the fs100, which is at $5k, and you can now get canon/nikon mounts for it.. but there are still substantial limitations. The benefit though, even over the f3, is that you get 60fps@1080p.. the downside is the bitrate and color space, and only hdmi out, as well as the form factor and build quality. Enough people already complain about the fs100 in the professional video field.

You also have to remember.. sure, there is a huge market base for$ 3-4k as you say.. but there is an even BIGGER market base for $1-2k, or $300-500 - what's to stop them at 3-4grand if sheer volume of market sales was their intentions? I, for one, would love to save up for the c300 of f3, as the Arri Alexa is out of my price range.. and i'm simply happy and fortunate to have a professional option for less than 20 grand.. something that could provide me with a return income that costs about what a new Honda costs.

I suppose that's true.  PL mount cameras are allowed to be expensive since a decent kit of lenses or zooms starts around $30,000, though.  But for EF mount cameras, you can outfit one cheaply.  There's been a huge market in the $2,000-$5,000 range for a while (from the XL1 to the dvx to the hvx to the 5dII) of aspiring professionals.  Below that is, for better or worse, mostly dabblers, above that is pros.  If the 5DIII reads out like the C300 and produces decently sharp video it could very well be the next camera in this segment.