p.1 #3 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
"Image quality is very good – pin sharp 2K. Why the hell is this feature not implemented if the cameras are capable of it?? Also if the sensor can provide 2K DNG in live view, why is the video mode so soft and challenged for dynamic range? I find this very puzzling."
Bizarre indeed (if what they say is true and there are not catches, perhaps it is pin sharp but aliased, at least on the 5D2 or maybe on both)!
If it can make pin sharp full 2K frames at 24fps rate on the 5D3 and even 5D2 then why does their video engine end up putting out on the 5D2 hugely aliased, trace soft HD and the 5D3 output a soft but clean HD and why in both cases is it only 8bits and not at leat 10bits and why is the DR so extremely limited when after so much downscaling it should be much better you'd think. Is Canon marketing crippling cameras even FAR more than we ever imagined?? Is there some minor technical detail (could well be but if so might not some relatively inexpensive extra few parts not have fixed it)?
Lots of unanswered questions and ML may be getting way ahead of themselves or forgetting to mention to major catches perhaps. Maybe they are leaving out some crucial bit of info since it seems hard to believe, especially regarding the 5D2, that Canon would hide the ability to get sharp and aliasing free video.
p.1 #4 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
Sorry to rain on the parade but this is not raw video.
The guy that runs EOSHD is not a reliable source of information about anything Canon related. He has a major axe to grind with Canon over percieved short comings of the 5D3 and the price of the 1D-C and EOS cinema cameras. He takes full advantage of every chance to bash Canon while still operating and making a living off of a website called EOS HD... Go figure
What this is doing is capturing the live view buffer as a 14-bit DNG still. With the 5D3 the image is 2080x1456 with garbage at the top, bottom, and left side of the frame. When cropped to the actual image pixels it is a 3:2 ratio image at 1933x1288. but, it is a raw image, and it can be captured without a shutter actuation so it may be great for time lapse.
p.1 #5 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
yeah, intentionally crippled! OMG
More likely Canon did not develop 2K as it is not a standard like 1080P is.
few people have a TV that can play the video back (4K monitor/TV). As you can 1080P on a TV.
I don't believe Canon is being evil and crippling the camera. They develop firmware to current standard of 1080P.
p.1 #6 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
abqnmusa wrote:
yeah, intentionally crippled! OMG
More likely Canon did not develop 2K as it is not a standard like 1080P is.
few people have a TV that can play the video back (4K monitor/TV). As you can 1080P on a TV.
I don't believe Canon is being evil and crippling the camera. They develop firmware to current standard of 1080P.
You are forgetting the parts: 14 bits vs 8bits, much better DR and supposedly much sharper than 5D3 videout put and supposedly without aliasing (5D2 has a LOT). All of those are relevant to 1080P. At the least it makes you think there may have been a way for them to have given it 10bit compressed output at the least. Again hard to know for sure though.
Now maybe ML and the EOS HD guy, in particular, are over-hyping the quality and maybe it still looks aliased on the 5D2 and maybe it is not as much sharper on the 5D3 as they claim, granted.
p.1 #7 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
super35 wrote:
Sorry to rain on the parade but this is not raw video.
The guy that runs EOSHD is not a reliable source of information about anything Canon related. He has a major axe to grind with Canon over percieved short comings of the 5D3 and the price of the 1D-C and EOS cinema cameras. He takes full advantage of every chance to bash Canon while still operating and making a living off of a website called EOS HD... Go figure
What this is doing is capturing the live view buffer as a 14-bit DNG still. With the 5D3 the image is 2080x1456 with garbage at the top, bottom, and left side of the frame. When cropped to the actual image pixels it is a 3:2 ratio image at 1933x1288. but, it is a raw image, and it can be captured without a shutter actuation so it may be great for time lapse.
I know it is not raw video, but they hinted that it can be driven at 24fps. Perhaps it will bog down too quickly to be of use for video though, very possible.
However, it does make you wonder about 10bits compressed and why they didn't go for that and the pin sharp talk makes you wonder why the 5D2/5D3 video seem to be less than 1920x1080P actual res. It is possible they failed to mention that this DNG frame is aliased on the 5D2, although they made it sound like it is beautiful. But yeah could be the EOS HD guy going out of control.
Doesn't that seem to offer higher actual resolution than the video 5D3 puts out though?? Couldn't the camera take that down to 10bits instead of 8bits for compression?
p.1 #10 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
The thing they are over-hyping is that this means we could have raw video recording if only Canon had wanted to make it work. These files are over 5mb each and they are not the correct size. Is it even possible to process these to DNG, crop them, and record them at 24fps inside a 5D2 or 5D3? I seriously doubt it. This is just an excuse to have another big Canon bash fest going on over there. I don't even look at that site anymore because they have lost all credibility and this is just further proof.
Remember this is the same guy that promoted ripping the AA filter out of 5D3's to record sharper video. After they ruined a few 5D3's it was proven the AA filter hack was a bogus idea for improving video.
p.1 #11 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
skibum5 wrote:
Doesn't that seem to offer higher actual resolution than the video 5D3 puts out though?? Couldn't the camera take that down to 10bits instead of 8bits for compression?
I don't know how can we ever know. I will say that the internal codec of the 5D3 is an improvement over the 5D2 and all previous EOS DSLR's with video recording. No one seems to have noticed that the IPB codec in the 5D3 is really good.
p.1 #12 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
super35 wrote:
The thing they are over-hyping is that this means we could have raw video recording if only Canon had wanted to make it work. These files are over 5mb each and they are not the correct size. Is it even possible to process these to DNG, crop them, and record them at 24fps inside a 5D2 or 5D3? I seriously doubt it. This is just an excuse to have another big Canon bash fest going on over there. I don't even look at that site anymore because they have lost all credibility and this is just further proof.
Could be, but all the same that file you provided looked pretty crisp. How did it go from a crisp frame buffer to a smeary video file? Why the need to smear it down in the video engine? And it does make you wonder about 10bits compressed ability even if 14bits RAW does seem very dubious.
It seems curious they hinted at an equally perfect buffer from the 5D2 since I didn't think the sensor on that could be read so fast. That seems hard to believe. The EOS HD guy may have been blowing smoke in that regard. Maybe it is an aliased messy looking buffer.
Back to the 5D3:
5*24 = 120MB/s rate
36MBish * 6fps = 216MB/s but it does bog down a bit even on the fastest card after a few seconds
I think 1080P24 all-i is something like peak 90MB/s which is certainly less than 120MB/s and it seems like RAW to fast cards tops out at about 80MB/s sustained so it would seem to be a huge 50% too slow (although I thought I saw some rumors about driving it at a constant 100-something MB/s)
Anyway, forget the RAW video, the main things you really wonder about are 10bits and the crispness....
p.1 #13 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
super35 wrote:
I don't know how can we ever know.
well if the raw buffer that is then used to create the compressed video from shows much more detail than it seems to hint that something messed is going on in a later stage. It would be interesting to shoot video of a subject and then get a few of those 2K DNG grabs and then compare.
I will say that the internal codec of the 5D3 is an improvement over the 5D2 and all previous EOS DSLR's with video recording. No one seems to have noticed that the IPB codec in the 5D3 is really good.
High profile AVC is considerably better than baseline.
Yeah I do think the 5D3 video quality is better. 5D2 has so much more moire and aliasing, gets blockier in shadows, SNR seems to be much worse (ISO6400 on the 5D3 seems to be not much worse than ISO800 on the 5D2 from what I recall).
BTW did you try the new firmware? at first glance I thought it maybe crisped up the 5D3 video a bit, but I think it was probably just a combo of the subject matter on hand this time and coming after having just done a lot of old VHS transfers and I probably just tricked myself. But maybe it did??
p.1 #15 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
super35 wrote:
I agree with this. It would have been beyond nice to have 4:2:2 10-bit and at a true 1080p resolution. It would have turned video world sideways.
It would!
Everyone assumed the softness was due to the way they had to bin off of the sensor and then apply some AA to make up for the hard AA filter being tuned for stills not video (or something that was simply intrinsic to what they were able to get at 24fps since they can't read the sensor fully 24fps and then downscale later, there has to be some early-stage processing and binning of some sort) and yet now we see an apparently perfectly crisp liveview RAW buffer that is apparently what gets fed to the video compression engine. So it seems like they actually are getting something great at 24fps off the sensor which then begs where did that quality suddenly go? Not that it is bad, but why not this level of detail?
Perhaps they chose a compressor chip that can only handle 4:2:0 8bits and that would explain that for the 5D2 but you wonder why for the 5D3 they wouldn't pick a 10bit 4:2:2 one.
p.1 #16 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
Skibum...here's a good review of the 5D3's video capabilities by Phillip Bloom, thought it might shed some light on the 'softness' the 5D3's video initially has; it can be sharpened quite well in PP...hope this helps and btw the new firmware is starting to be released; down under and Canon is installing it at their service centers...Jerry
Review of the Canon 5Dmk3
Phillip also did a video comparison of the 5D3, D800 and D4...if you're interested.
p.1 #17 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
StillFingerz wrote:
Skibum...here's a good review of the 5D3's video capabilities by Phillip Bloom, thought it might shed some light on the 'softness' the 5D3's video initially has; it can be sharpened quite well in PP...hope this helps and btw the new firmware is starting to be released; down under and Canon is installing it at their service centers...Jerry
Review of the Canon 5Dmk3
Phillip also did a video comparison of the 5D3, D800 and D4...if you're interested.
Full frame shoot out: D4 vs D800 vs 5DmkIII
Thanks.
I did see those before. Sharpening in post definitely helps micro-contrast, but it's not magic. No matter what you do in post it doesn't deliver the crisp frame that Super35 posted above (or C300 crispness or a big time hollywood cam crispness and yet that frame he posted looks pretty solid). (yes he surely sharpend that frame that he posted, but no amount of sharpening 5D3 video gives it those fine details) And if that crisp frame is what is used to source the video, what is being done to it to blur it all out later in the chain and why? I mean if it just took he shows in his file above and compressed that that would awesome! But instead it's like they ran a gaussian blur all over it so the C300 would look better or something. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation.
p.1 #18 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
skibum5 wrote:
Thanks.
I did see those before. Sharpening in post definitely helps micro-contrast, but it's not magic. No matter what you do in post it doesn't deliver the crisp frame that Super35 posted above (or C300 crispness or a big time hollywood cam crispness and yet that frame he posted looks pretty solid). (yes he surely sharpend that frame that he posted, but no amount of sharpening 5D3 video gives it those fine details) And if that crisp frame is what is used to source the video, what is being done to it to blur it all out later in the chain and why? I mean if it just took he shows in his file above and compressed that that would awesome! But instead it's like they ran a gaussian blur all over it so the C300 would look better or something. Maybe there is a reasonable explanation.
Not sure of motives/whys or reason-able, whatever the case it's clear Canon has left us some headroom when it comes to sharpening. And while the lower ISO performance hasn't changed the higher ISO's are really stunning when compared to the 5D2.
I've not moved to FF yet and am still not sure if it will be the 6D or 5D3; gear weight issues are my biggest problem ATM. The second video PB shot with the D800 gave me hope for the 6D, as the company that makes the alias/moire filter for the D800 is doing the same for the 6D; the price is $400. My biggest issue now is if I go for a refurb the 5D3 it is near the same cost of the 6D w/filter...and the 5D3 has many pluses that may just outweigh the 6D's feature set; lower weight.
A move to FF has been delayed do to funding issues, perhaps this is a good thing as I'm quite interested in seeing how well the 5D3's new firmware will work. AF at f8 and full HDMI out might make those 'weight' issues fly away; just need to get stronger and that I can do given enough time
Shot some video with the G12 and do enjoy it, love stills more, but video is fun and such a different mindset/challenge!
p.1 #19 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
StillFingerz wrote:
Not sure of motives/whys or reason-able, whatever the case it's clear Canon has left us some headroom when it comes to sharpening. And while the lower ISO performance hasn't changed the higher ISO's are really stunning when compared to the 5D2.
I've not moved to FF yet and am still not sure if it will be the 6D or 5D3; gear weight issues are my biggest problem ATM. The second video PB shot with the D800 gave me hope for the 6D, as the company that makes the alias/moire filter for the D800 is doing the same for the 6D; the price is $400. My biggest issue now is if I go for a refurb the 5D3 it is near the same cost of the 6D w/filter...and the 5D3 has many pluses that may just outweigh the 6D's feature set; lower weight.
A move to FF has been delayed do to funding issues, perhaps this is a good thing as I'm quite interested in seeing how well the 5D3's new firmware will work. AF at f8 and full HDMI out might make those 'weight' issues fly away; just need to get stronger and that I can do given enough time
Shot some video with the G12 and do enjoy it, love stills more, but video is fun and such a different mindset/challenge!...Show more →
Not sure the external ProRes HQ 422 recording is really making much of a difference over the internal codec. I only shot a pretty static scene and it was low ISO etc. So I still need to test it more.
The video looks pretty sharp for regular stuff but for natural world, forests and such, the lack of micro-detail/contrast isn't quite so ideal.
p.1 #20 · potentially interesting 5D2/5D3 video news
hey skibum5, that jpg I linked was not my shot and not my processing. I found the link on another forum. The actual raw DNG of the same shot I found here.
Summary: This image was made on a 5D3 by capturing the Live View buffer to a 14-bit DNG using a development version of Magic lantern firmware. Images in this mode are shot without shutter action. This opens up possibilities for timelapse or other uses (burst mode?, video?) of a totally silent raw stills mode at 1933x1288 resolution.
)! 
and I probably just tricked myself. But maybe it did??