I am highly interested to see 1:1 video samples and frame grabs.
Theoretically the pixel count and the higher speed of the Digic 5+ should result in the aliasing/moire being finally fixed. The moire makes the 5D mark II footage to be at times unusable, therefore there is a chance that the 5D mark III will be a huge bump in video quality over any video DSLR on the market.
Interesting to follow people's reactions:
- first people cry about moire (this is a true flaw of any DSLR on the market, except Panasonic GH2)
- then they get a camera that has moire fixed and it does it in a way that everyone should be happy (5D mark III)
- but people aren't happy, they hardly notice that the biggest flaw just got fixed with enormous efforts, then they cry that why it did not have more megapixels
- doesn't it occur that it is because it has moire fixed (to avoid line skipping)?
When I was shooting 30p happily on my 5D mark II, everyone was crying that why it does not do 24p. I continued shooting at 30p because I wanted to avoid stutter. At the time there were cameras that were able to do 60p already and I was kinda looking that maybe this would be good, who needs 24p or 25p in the first place. Now the 5D mark II and 5D mark III does 24 p, 25, and 30p and everyone cries that nobody wants to use 24p, 25p or 30p, but they want 60p.
So what do you really want? Because it could be that from technical perspective it is a tradeoff:
- You can have moire fixed
- You can have more megapixels and continue living with poor video quality
Or you can get a video camera that has 60p but it has more moire than the worst moire offender of all Canon models I have encountered, the terrific 60D.
To my understanding people were hoping for video optimized DSLR which would be great in low light and would have very nice AF. 5D mark III has all that, and more. It even has high quality codec for video. Not clean HDMI out though since Canon does not want to cannibalize its own C300 and rather wants to competitors to cannibalize its camcorder department.
If Nikon would have had pixel perfect 1080p video in the D4 or D800, it would have been quite understandable that everyone would have ran screamingly to Nikon. Now that this is not the case, and 5D possibly does better video, somehow it goes without anyone paying attention and people jump the ship to next moire h*ll.
Maybe most of the DSLR video customers have eyes made of wood and they can not tell moire from real details and people who actually know what they want are so rare that it is not really profitable for Canon. Internet, forums and ever reviews are full of totally clueless people. Instead these products are sold based on those confused people's images about the product that have no slightest idea what they are wanting, why they are wanting it, how they are going to use that feature nor what they are talking about or how they should use their camera in the first place to shoot great movies. Soon Youtube will be full of 5D mark III tests where people are panning, zooming, camera going to all directions, motion blur making people sick and then more these sheeples (that immediately start calling themselves film makers, directors and DPs, like just owning a camera would make them such) come and say it is not any better than a 550D....
I will not judge back or forth before I see full size samples of 5D mark III with milder than web compression, but based on the only sample I have seen so far on youtube at higher res than on Canon's site (here: http://youtu.be/WrDHEi3z-sY?hd=1
), it looks promising so far (be sure to click 1080p because the link above defaults to 720p). I can not see any moire on the brick walls or the ground on this video while I can see moire everywhere on the footage what I shoot with my 5D II. The difference based on this vague example alone is so substantial that it is like between night and day.
I would so much love to see a comparison where there are resolution charts shot with both RED Scarlet and the 5D mark III. If Canon has done the image resizing properly, it should not be so much worse than the RED. It could be very close to RED 4k downsampled to 1080p. In theory anyway without knowing the details how Canon has done the technical details.
EDIT: In fact, based on the only sample video I have seen: it could be that the 5D mark III does now the best video quality of any DSLR. It is likely that 5D mark III has less moire than 1DX because the sensor pixel size is better on 5D mark III than 1DX for the binning algorithm. On 1DX reducing the size is heavier operation, and it could be that the 1DX still does some line skipping. It could be that 5D mark III does not do line skipping at all and it is the "Jesus-camera" we have been waiting for so long.
EDIT2: I would not have space for storing all my footage in uncompressed format. I already have 10 terabytes of hard disks for storing the 5D mark II footage. It therefore is ok for me most of the time to shoot compressed video. I only would need uncompressed 4:4:4 video when I shoot green screen. And moire will ruin green screen much earlier than the compression. And the moire also harms the effective compression. Fixed moire, and all problems are solved.
EDIT3: Forgot to add: those clothes that the actors have on, maybe are intentionally chosen such that they will cause horrible moire on cameras that skip lines. It is quite possible that 5D mark II would have made unusable footage from those patterns. The 5D mark III footage is clean.