Videographers happy with 5D Mark III?

[MikeHunt]

I just spent 50 bucks on this:

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Sescom-LN2MIC-ZMH4-MON-Cable-line-Mic-Zoom-H4N-monitoring-jack-4027-/390395747448?pt=Camera_Cables_Cords&hash=item5ae5665c78

The new 5D3 doesn't need this accessory for 2 reasons:

(1) Audio Gain Control (AGC) is no longer automatic and volume recording can be manually set

(2) 5D3 now has Headphone socket.

Overall, this may be but a small example of one positive new feature that the 5D3 has, but it is an advance

 

[ecka]

Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

 

[Drama79]

The reason we want uncompressed HDMI output is because the compression is what hurts video quality the most. With a clean HDMI output...not only uncompressed, but free of any camera overlays like the blinking recording indicator...we can attach external recording devices to the camera that allow superior compression or even no compression at all. That is still not as good as RAW format straight from the sensor, but devices are available that will probably do a little better than Canon's ALL-I mode and more will be developed in the future.

So it's a way of future-proofing the camera to a degree. The Nikon D800 offers it and that's a plus.

The other issue with the HDMI output is what resolution is available for an external monitor. Shooting video you will immediately discover that the core problem is pulling focus while you're shooting. Viewfinder attachments onto the back of the camera are one approach, another is using an external monitor. There are focus assist features on some external monitors such as "Peaking" (which outlines in-focus areas as a confirmation) or "pixel-for-pixel" which zooms to a 1:1 display ratio.

The 5DMkII didn't support those modes well at all--the resolution and proportions shrunk miserably. The 7D was a big improvement, streaming 720p, and it appears the 5DMkIII maintains full 1080p while shooting. That is a huge advance for focus pullers if true. Sadly, the 5x/10x digital zoom you use in LiveView before shooting still cannot be activated while recording to assist with focus then...so external monitoring with peaking/pixel-for-pixel is the best available approach right now.

While clean HDMI out is a nice Nikon D800 feature, I'm going to guess that the ALL-I mode's bitrate is quite adequate, and the 5d3's superior low-light performance and other improved functionality makes it retain the crown of best DSLR video system. Sure, Canon may be trying to protect it's "C" Cinema cameras a bit, but a lot of this may simply have to do with the fact it only has one Dig!c5+ to pipeline the data through and that keeps cost, weight, and heat down.

Most likely the 5D3 isn't going to be what kills your film regardless. The script...

well, thanks for explaining, rather than just foaming at the mouth like most of the others. But allow me some questions:

Why would you want an external recording device for video with the 5D3? surely you'd use a RED for something like that? the point of an SLR I always thought was portability and affordability.

As far as video output goes, it encodes in H.256 anyway, which is pretty compressed as is. If you want uncompressed HD, Canon want you to buy the C300. in terms of out, I defy anyone to tell the difference on a field monitor between h.256 720p and 1080p. Unless your monitor is HUGE.

I take your points about zooming on an external monitor. I guess I've never wanted to use one. It's preference, I suppose, but I really think "NO CLEAN HDMI OUT ZOMG!!11eleven" has become the battle cry of the "it ended up too expensive and I need to convince myself it isn't worth it" crowd.

 

[catz]

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
or
- 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.

 

[Canon-F1]

-720 is worthless.

No 1080 @ 60 is the dealbreaker at the $3500 pricetag.

well then you can only buy sony as it seems.
good luck with that!

uncompressed video... well i doubt most users will hardly notice a difference.
and if your going pro and you really see the difference in the end result and think you need uncompressed video....you don´t go D800 or 5D MK3 either (imo).

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/hyperdeck_shuttle_review.shtml

 

[jspiteri]

Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

I've been wondering why no one has mentioned this when discussing Canon's supposedly odd 22.3MP resolution choice. This also seems to be a much overlooked factor when assessing moire and rolling shutter improvements.

Coupled with the new and improved compression option (which some people seem confused about just because H.264 is still mentioned), it marks huge improvements for video. Judging by some sample footage, particularly the 'Color of Hope' movie, the image has greatly improved.

http://web.canon.jp/imaging/eosd/samples/eos5dmk3/player_COLOR_OF_HOPE/movie.html?high

Also, just found this:
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7289/5d-mark-iii-round-up

stating that: "The video bitrate is a very high 91Mbit* in 1080p ALL-I mode. That is well beyond broadcast standard AVC Intra 50. No news yet on whether colour sampling is 4-2-0 or 4-2-2 yet or whether colour depth is 8bit or 10bit."

 

[Axilrod]

Actually the HDMI out is 1080p and remains 1080p during recording, it just still has overlays so it's not technically clean. Also I read it has a bitrate of 91mbps! But that's a variable bitrate so what you get depends on what you're shooting.

And they said the moire/rolling shutter is much improved but still not completely eliminated. I wish they would hurry up and ship already!

 

[Policar]

Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

I've been wondering why no one has mentioned this when discussing Canon's supposedly odd 22.3MP resolution choice. This also seems to be a much overlooked factor when assessing moire and rolling shutter improvements.

The resolution certainly seems like a strange choice; it must have to do with video....

However, 1920X1080 bayer pattern (3x3 pixel binning) isn't that sharp. The F3 has a 3+ megapixel sensor and the Alexa a 4+ megapixel sensor to achieve a sharp 1080p image. In theory, bayer sensors can resolve about 70% of their stated resolution (not even taking aliasing into account)--so you need almost four megapixels to get a really crisp 1080p image. And this puts the 5DIII's 1080p mode at closer to 720p, about what the previous cameras have resolved. So that's disappointing.

The latitude, decrease in moire, decrease in skew (fingers crossed), and great looking colors still count for something, though.

 

[tjc320]

Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

I've been wondering why no one has mentioned this when discussing Canon's supposedly odd 22.3MP resolution choice. This also seems to be a much overlooked factor when assessing moire and rolling shutter improvements.

The resolution certainly seems like a strange choice; it must have to do with video....

However, 1920X1080 bayer pattern (3x3 pixel binning) isn't that sharp. The F3 has a 3+ megapixel sensor and the Alexa a 4+ megapixel sensor to achieve a sharp 1080p image. In theory, bayer sensors can resolve about 70% of their stated resolution (not even taking aliasing into account)--so you need almost four megapixels to get a really crisp 1080p image. And this puts the 5DIII's 1080p mode at closer to 720p, about what the previous cameras have resolved. So that's disappointing.

The latitude, decrease in moire, decrease in skew (fingers crossed), and great looking colors still count for something, though.

So... disappointed because it's not up to par with the Alexa? I would say while it's nothing to gush at we shouldn't be disappointed because it's not competing with cameras that are about 10x the price.

 

[tjc320]

Why would you want an external recording device for video with the 5D3? surely you'd use a RED for something like that? the point of an SLR I always thought was portability and affordability.

Is this first question a joke? Let me answer it: To record at a higher bitrate and higher quality to give you a better looking video through flexibility in color and in latitude. Last I checked buying a usable package for RED will cost around 20K. A 5D MIII and, say, an Atomos Ninja will cost about 4.5K. Still not on the same level but they certainly aren't in the same price range either.

As far as video output goes, it encodes in H.256 anyway, which is pretty compressed as is. If you want uncompressed HD, Canon want you to buy the C300. in terms of out, I defy anyone to tell the difference on a field monitor between h.256 720p and 1080p. Unless your monitor is HUGE.

Often times people will put out a larger full HD monitor for either clients or for themselves. Large monitors aren't uncommon. Sure, you'll never see one strapped to a camera but they are very common to have on a C-stand or a cart to use as reference.

It's preference, I suppose, but I really think "NO CLEAN HDMI OUT ZOMG!!11eleven" has become the battle cry of the "it ended up too expensive and I need to convince myself it isn't worth it" crowd.

You're right. It is preference. I think the real issue shooters have with canon excluding a clean output is because they CAN do it but they chose not to. I think while Canon was worried about loosing sales of the C300 they failed to match the competition over at Nikon who DID offer clean output because they want to sell cameras.

Someone has to tell Canon that the 5DMIII and the C300 aren't in the same market. I think they should be worried about losing sales to the D800 than to the C300. If somebody buys a C300 over a 5DMII WHO CARES! They are both Canon! They still bought your product. If they chose a D800 over a 5DMIII THEN they lose money. But that's just my opinion. I'm sure they have an actual strategy that I don't know about. I'm just bitter. Don't judge my bitterness.

 

[Drama79]

I'm not judging! Like I said, I agree, it's preference. I think the camera is aimed at small scale videographers. I agree that for upscale productions, it's a minor peeve, and I'm sure Canon would then direct you to the C300, and all that extra money....

 

[JustinTArthur]

The 5D Mark III was a video fail for me because of the press release and photographs of a magical DSLR with a C slapped on it with hype like "4K on the way". It seemed for a minute that while the C300 represented one thread, the more affordable and hobbyist-friendly DSLR thread was still a focus for them. All we got from the 5D Mark III launch was better low light and some features that were already available from Magic Lantern firmwares.

Even though I'll probably never shoot for the big screen and don't actually have friends doing sweet skateboarding stunts for me to stretch from 60fps to 24fps, the idea of having that power in the hands of me, a hobbyist, was appealing—I wanted it bad enough to stay up through midnight hitting refresh.

But like a decent handful of the disappointed video hobbyists or pros on these forums, I'm hitting the pre-order button because:

• The 5D Mark III has all the video bells & whistles of the D800 (minus that HDMI out), so why switch lens systems?
• Wow at the low light performance. I think back to some of the concerts and events I recorded in 6400 ISO that I had to clean up with a 100+ USD noise reduction plugin and hours of extra render time.

 

[Policar]

Did anyone notice that 5D3 native image resolution is exactly 1920*3 x 1280*3 (5760x3840). It is 3x3 pixel binning for video.

I've been wondering why no one has mentioned this when discussing Canon's supposedly odd 22.3MP resolution choice. This also seems to be a much overlooked factor when assessing moire and rolling shutter improvements.

The resolution certainly seems like a strange choice; it must have to do with video....

However, 1920X1080 bayer pattern (3x3 pixel binning) isn't that sharp. The F3 has a 3+ megapixel sensor and the Alexa a 4+ megapixel sensor to achieve a sharp 1080p image. In theory, bayer sensors can resolve about 70% of their stated resolution (not even taking aliasing into account)--so you need almost four megapixels to get a really crisp 1080p image. And this puts the 5DIII's 1080p mode at closer to 720p, about what the previous cameras have resolved. So that's disappointing.

The latitude, decrease in moire, decrease in skew (fingers crossed), and great looking colors still count for something, though.

So... disappointed because it's not up to par with the Alexa? I would say while it's nothing to gush at we shouldn't be disappointed because it's not competing with cameras that are about 10x the price.

It's not just the Alexa...virtually every decent video-specific 1080p capable camcorder records at a higher resolution than bayer 1080p and scales down--because bayer sensors aren't that sharp at a per-pixel level. Even models in the few hundred dollar range oversample. It just seems strange that the sensor would be designed around video resolution, when the video resolution it's designed around produces a fuzzy image. A weird compromise in general, though if the recording were done with 2:1 binning and then scaled down from there...that could look incredible.

And seriously, don't start the "not as good as x" debate. The Alexa may have better resolution, but it also has way less skew than any other CMOS-based camera, a great codec, more latitude than anything else, and awesome highlight rendition with a smooth bloomy look. Even the c300 isn't as good. DSLRs aren't close. Meanwhile, the fs100 (which uses the f3 sensor) is only 33% more expensive than the 5DIII and has a properly implemented super35 bayer sensor. But it's a dedicated video camera, so again a somewhat unfair comparison.

Then again, the 5DII apparently debayers from 5616x1053. Which means the 5DIII will have LESS resolution. Overall, the 5DIII should have 30% LESS resolution than the 5DII if this pixel binning stuff is true.

I get that the 5DIII isn't a video camera. It's just odd that the sensor's resolution was apparently chosen to improve video quality when a multiple of 1080p shouldn't help things one bit. I suppose maybe this is a limitation of the digic5 chip--it can't debayer, downscale, and compress that fast...who knows. Certainly the 5DIII video samples have less aliasing than the 1DX samples, which is a great start.

And that said...a reduction in aliasing is a huge and substantive improvement relative to the introduction of 1080/60p, so I applaud Canon for that (the Alexa and Red didn't do this to start because it's no one's priority--you all really use slow motion that much?! rent a phantom already....). This might still be a nice camera for video. Looks amazing for stills.

 

[daveswan]

I'm not making any judgements about the video until I see not-further-compressed samples (That I can download and drop into DaVinci Ressolve lite to see how it grades).

But

It could just be my next camera, upgrading from a 5D original and a 550D.

Although no uncompressed HDMI is a bit of a downer losing the ghastly moire and aliasing that bedevils a lot of my shots, which I've even seen on the weave of a solid-colour blouse that one of my actresses was wearing.

I think the C-DSLR will be way north of the 1Dx and hence too far out of my budget to be considered, even with 4K cine.

So yes, on balance I'm happy