Chuck westfall on the sharpness of the 5dm3

[Bosman]

Here is a video addressing firmware but also a few questioned asked by planet 5d.
@8:15

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8EIdV4mAcpo
	Small | Large

One thing I thought interesting was that Chuck says in response to a question about the sharpness of the 5dm3 that a lot of data would be lost if the images were sharper because they are able to collect more data from an image without excessively sharp images and after adding sharpening later it sharpens up much nicer having more data. That was my take on what was said.

[Canihaspicture]

So let's say I don't want to do any post processing on my video... Why can't I have an option in the menu to sharpen it before the encoding process?

Seems like a logical request to me...

[jsbraby]

So let's say I don't want to do any post processing on my video... Why can't I have an option in the menu to sharpen it before the encoding process?

Seems like a logical request to me...

In camera sharpening on video does happen before compression. It has to; sharpening after compression would require the camera to do another compression pass to save the sharpened data.

If you want it sharpened in camera, feel free. The caveat is that the relatively aggressive way that video is sharpened in camera combined with h.264 compression results in crunchiness around lines.

All video cameras result in compromises. In the case of a Canon DSLR, you're trading low cost (and the potential for very shallow DoF) for increased post processing to maximize your video quality. With a RED, you're trading higher resolution for increased cost in post (RedRocket or increased transcoding time) and RED footage benefits from sharpening in post as well. With a Sony F3 or Arri Alexa you're probably shooting in a log space and have the color correction time/cost.

If you want to shoot video and skip all post processing, look at a Sony F900 or F23; they are the closest I've used to requiring nothing in post beyond cutting and a light grade.

[rocketdesigner]

Yes, why not just go out and pick up an F900....

http://bhpho.to/M1Z4j

You can't bet the price - compared to an HDSLR 

[Bosman]

Yes, why not just go out and pick up an F900....

http://bhpho.to/M1Z4j

You can't bet the price - compared to an HDSLR 

First, i never imagined this thread would be discussing the video aspects but it is informative to hear both user experiences.
Second, I would stick with the SLR as opposed to the Sony HDW-F900R lol!
I have yet to use the video feature cept for a brief test.

[jsbraby]

Yes, why not just go out and pick up an F900....

http://bhpho.to/M1Z4j

You can't bet the price - compared to an HDSLR 

First, i never imagined this thread would be discussing the video aspects but it is informative to hear both user experiences.
Second, I would stick with the SLR as opposed to the Sony HDW-F900R lol!
I have yet to use the video feature cept for a brief test.

My point was that there are costs to shooting video with a DSLR. One of those costs is increased post processing time to maximize picture quality. I wasn't encouraging anyone to go buy a RED/F900/Alexa. That only makes sense if you are a rental house or owner/operator and staying booked at least 10 days/month.

Usually an F900/RED/Arri Alexa/whatever is available for rent under $1000/day, and are a good investment for a rental on those days when you want/need their strengths and are willing to pay for their weaknesses. Using a DSLR on a professional video shoot has its own costs. I've done both.

DSLR video give clients a lower cost option for their budget, and a unique look. That the 5D3 has reduced moire to a more reasonable level is freaking awesome. That it can shoot 29 minutes of 1080p now is freaking awesome. But to make it look as good as it can, I know I have to light carefully, shoot flat (either Cinestyle or "Prolost Flat"), deal with freerun timecode and sync "fun" unless I'm shooting MOS, and do extra work in post. It's just the nature of the beast.

[Canihaspicture]

In camera sharpening on video does happen before compression. It has to; sharpening after compression would require the camera to do another compression pass to save the sharpened data.

My point exactly... Since the 5D Mark III does not have clean HDMI output you get very little in the way of sharpening BEFORE encoding. If you have to sharpen in post then by the very encoding process you just lost data already. Now you have to sharpen and re-compress further reducing quality.

All I want is the option to have some better on camera sharpening before encoding... Or clean output ... pick one.

[Sony]

I would be happier if my 5dmkiii didnt have video and, as a result, its price were cheaper bcause actually Ive never shot video. I have no choice but am happy with its sharpness in still (after doing AFMA). LOL!

[KitsVancouver]

Chuck: "We're going to look at the...um....needs of the market and consider our strategy going forward.  I can't make any promises."

He should have been a politician.  He doesn't say or commit to anything.  It couldn't have been a more useless comment.  What I think he's saying is that they will give the features to the other products if it makes sense to Canon.  They are not committing to making the best products that they are capable of. 

PS: Is it just me or does that Planet 5D guy seem a bit creepy? 

[jsbraby]

In camera sharpening on video does happen before compression. It has to; sharpening after compression would require the camera to do another compression pass to save the sharpened data.

My point exactly... Since the 5D Mark III does not have clean HDMI output you get very little in the way of sharpening BEFORE encoding. If you have to sharpen in post then by the very encoding process you just lost data already. Now you have to sharpen and re-compress further reducing quality.

All I want is the option to have some better on camera sharpening before encoding... Or clean output ... pick one.

If you had a clean output from the 5D3, you'd still be sharpening in camera with it's overly aggressive algorithm, or sharpening in post. I will agree that a clean output is desirable, because I would very much like to capture to a AJA KI Pro Mini in ProRes instead of h.264. A clean output may be possible with a firmware update to remove the <expletive> red dot.

If you haven't read Stu Maschwitz's article on ProLost Flat wherein he addresses in camera sharpening and the 5D3 (http://prolost.com/blog/2012/4/10/prolost-flat.html) it's well worth a read.

[bp]

I would be happier if my 5dmkiii didnt have video and, as a result, its price were cheaper bcause actually Ive never shot video. I have no choice but am happy with its sharpness in still (after doing AFMA). LOL!

This is one of those misconceptions that never goes away.  The inclusion of video most likely LOWERED the price of the mk3.  With video, the camera appeals to two market segments.  Without video, it would have only appealed to still shooters (selling fewer copies - Canon would have to price it higher to make up for lower sales).   Also, software R&D is SO much cheaper than hardware R&D, and video in DSLR's is almost all about the software...  So you might want to thank your video-centric brethren, rather than curse them. 

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It would be so insanely helpful if they added the basics of focus peaking and/or a little box at 100% view overlayed that you could slide around, even Canon themselves admitted the 5 series needs it when the talked about why the 1C supposedly doesn't need that.  Zebras for exposure would also help a ton. As would adding a perfect non-line skipped 1920x1080 1.6x zoom mode and a more extreme zoom mode. Really say they played silly reindeer games and left such basics out.

[distant.star]

.
According to this logic, if a 5D3 had no video, it would sell for $4000 or $5000. Seriously, how many copies do you think they'd sell at such a price. They'd do well to get $2200 a copy for one, and that would be fine by me.

It's nonsense to think video inclusion has invoked some magical economies of scale. All it's done is increase the number of eager buyers, and Canon has taken advantage of that by increasing the price as any normal company would.

To paraphrase a line from the movie "The Princess Bride," maybe that word 'misconception' does not mean what you think it means.

This is one of those misconceptions that never goes away.  The inclusion of video most likely LOWERED the price of the mk3.  With video, the camera appeals to two market segments.  Without video, it would have only appealed to still shooters (selling fewer copies - Canon would have to price it higher to make up for lower sales).   Also, software R&D is SO much cheaper than hardware R&D, and video in DSLR's is almost all about the software...  So you might want to thank your video-centric brethren, rather than curse them. 

[bp]

I didn't quote any exact numbers, didn't claim that without it, it would cost 4 or 5 grand.  We can quibble about the meaning of the word misconception if you want.  Look, you guys feel free to tell yourselves that the camera would've been cheaper without video all you want.  The fact is, guys... EVERY DSLR in today's market includes HD video.  Furthermore, there is no additional hardware being added to achieve it - it's all in the firmware.  To "leave it out" would have accomplished nothing, other than excluding a whole segment of the market, making it sell fewer copies, and thus making production of each unit less profitable at any given price point.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

As for his talk about no open apps and such (which I said I thought might likely more than pay for any extra customer support needed due to increased sales if they got there ahead of the curve) well....
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/tech/gaming-gadgets/nikon-android-camera/index.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_latest+%28RSS%3A+Most+Recent%29