# Canon 5D Mark iii HDMI Clean Output?



## eturkyolu (Mar 18, 2013)

So I heard Canon Announced that in the April of 2013, or next month, the Canon 5D Mark iii would get an update which would allow for a clean HDMI output. Does this mean that we can use an external recorder such as the BlackMagic Hyperdeck Shuttle for external recording? If so, then can we actually record at a higher fps such as 60p at Full HD? if not, then what kind of impact does this have on videomakers? Thank You in Advance!


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 18, 2013)

The firmware update doesn't change up the frame rate of capture, so it doesn't matter if it's stored locally or sent out via HDMI to a recorder. 1080p30/24 is all she'll do.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 20, 2013)

eturkyolu said:


> So I heard Canon Announced that in the April of 2013, or next month, the Canon 5D Mark iii would get an update which would allow for a clean HDMI output. Does this mean that we can use an external recorder such as the BlackMagic Hyperdeck Shuttle for external recording? If so, then can we actually record at a higher fps such as 60p at Full HD? if not, then what kind of impact does this have on videomakers? Thank You in Advance!



It won't give 60p. Hopefully the better compression will make a noticeable difference. Depends how much of the problems occur before the compression stage. Maybe not.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 6, 2013)

Canon said this HDMI update was coming out in April 2013.

Any word on this?


----------



## marvinhello (Apr 6, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> eturkyolu said:
> 
> 
> > So I heard Canon Announced that in the April of 2013, or next month, the Canon 5D Mark iii would get an update which would allow for a clean HDMI output. Does this mean that we can use an external recorder such as the BlackMagic Hyperdeck Shuttle for external recording? If so, then can we actually record at a higher fps such as 60p at Full HD? if not, then what kind of impact does this have on videomakers? Thank You in Advance!
> ...



It won't give you noticeable difference, trust me. I'm using Canon 1D C with Atomos Ninja 2 external recorder. if you don't do heavy colour grading or keying/compositing, there is no difference at all.


----------



## marvinhello (Apr 6, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Canon said this HDMI update was coming out in April 2013.
> 
> Any word on this?



I would imagine Canon is likely to release it during NAB (some day next week), to get people's attention and more media coverage. or shortly after NAB.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2013)

marvinhello said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > eturkyolu said:
> ...



1DC codes a lot better in camera than the 5D3 though no?


----------



## Policar (Apr 7, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> marvinhello said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



Only in 4k, so far as I know...

The 5D has a bad codec but also a bad image from the sensor. Fine for what it is but if you want good video step up to the C-line. In motion there will be no visible different in the HDMI clean signal. Blown up to 400% you'll begin to see something. For chroma keying MAYBE you will get a minor difference. This is a spec sheet upgrade so as not to fall behind the D800 in terms of perception, nothing more.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 7, 2013)

Will clean HDMI files give me more flexibility doing heavy post-processing in After Effects?


----------



## Policar (Apr 7, 2013)

dirtcastle said:


> Will clean HDMI files give me more flexibility doing heavy post-processing in After Effects?



In my experience yes, just a bit. What really breaks the codec is foliage in fast-moving wide shots (or with ALL-I high detail wide shots in general), so for stuff like that you'll bring out more macroblocking the more you manipulate it and your keys and secondaries will be better with HDMI.

But the image itself won't look visibly different except paused and blown up to 400% except in very rare instances.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 7, 2013)

I don't get it, people complain (in other forums like the Magic Lantern one or EOSHD) how bad the Canon 5D codec is, but then the consensus is that using a more robust pro codec like ProRes doesn't make any visible difference.

I'm confused, is the Canon codec bad or not? Because if it is, then using a different and better codec like ProRes should make a pretty visible difference. On the other hand, if the difference will be subtle at best, then how bad is the 5D codec to begin with?


----------



## Policar (Apr 7, 2013)

Midphase said:


> I don't get it, people complain (in other forums like the Magic Lantern one or EOSHD) how bad the Canon 5D codec is, but then the consensus is that using a more robust pro codec like ProRes doesn't make any visible difference.
> 
> I'm confused, is the Canon codec bad or not? Because if it is, then using a different and better codec like ProRes should make a pretty visible difference. On the other hand, if the difference will be subtle at best, then how bad is the 5D codec to begin with?



The codec is bad, but so is the image before the codec, relative to the C300/F5/Red/Alexa/GH3. Improve one and the other will still hold you back a bit. But the 1DC footage shot in Super35 mode looks fantastic using the same codec, so I'd err on the side of the soft image being the bigger issue.

That said, both the codec and image are better than the ultra-high-end of four years ago and good enough for virtually anyone. What problems do you have now? Sharpness won't be improved. The "look" won't change. DR won't change. Shadow noise will stay chunky but maybe a little less gross in extreme scenarios, it might have a bit more shape but likely imperceptible. Chroma keying will be improved just a bit. Detail in very wide shots of complex patterns (trees, foliage) might improve insignificantly but enough to be more resilient in the grade when pulling secondaries. This is not a big upgrade. Prores is a great codec, but it doesn't change what you put into it.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 8, 2013)

So we can all agree that in a 5d3 the codec is NOT the bottleneck?


----------



## Policar (Apr 8, 2013)

Midphase said:


> So we can all agree that in a 5d3 the codec is NOT the bottleneck?



Maybe for some people it is. For greenscreening maybe. If you expose wrong, particularly in cinegamma, it doesn't do you a lot of favors.

If you want a nice, affordable camera in the EOS system just buy a C100! Or wait and see what comes next. These things are marvels. Amazing IQ. Amazing ergonomics. Great colors. Great pre-amps. Great DR. The best low light available. Just great. Kind of a lot of skew, though, and a dreadful finder.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 8, 2013)

Policar said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > marvinhello said:
> ...



I guess I will see. The details in the shadows tend to go away and certain things block up (although not as badly as on the 5D2, where a forest floor in the floor could start looking pretty ugly (blocking and blurring) and doing weird things on top (from the moire and aliasing) even when it wasn't all that dark. I was hoping that it might also bring back a touch of micro-contrast. Using different levels of h.264 compression in PremierePro I can take a super high quality file and notice some losses of that unless I use crazy high settings. Maybe it will help a bit with handling high DR natural world scenes (mostly what I shoot, I don't really shoot pre-planned movie/studio sort of stuff).

I still don't get why they didn't give it an APS-C crop mode read out in C-line sized blocks so there wouldn't be the need to blur it so much to get over the mis-mached (for video) AA filter. Well I suppose I know why, but how short-sighted man.


----------



## OldGrey (Apr 11, 2013)

Sadly after being with Canon for over 30 years , I have to suggest that my view of this 4.2.2. upgrade is not good. When the new kids on the block are offering a camera with 10bit 4.2.2 RAW that will take my Canon glass and record to SSD with a neat screen to view on for about the same price as the 5D3 ...........OH its not quite the same price you say , well add DaVinci Resolve 10. 

Seriously not since good old Super Mario and Sonic had their graves dug by Sony and X Box have I seen established market leaders shown the door by upstarts. So unless this firmware ( whenever it arrives) manages to provide a hell of a lot more from the chip, like RAW 10 bit , its hardly worth all the playing about and buying toys for. If its Video trade in fast and go for a real upgrade, true 10 bit at 4 K will give quality and longevity way over what you have.


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 11, 2013)

OldGrey said:


> Sadly after being with Canon for over 30 years , I have to suggest that my view of this 4.2.2. upgrade is not good. When the new kids on the block are offering a camera with 10bit 4.2.2 RAW that will take my Canon glass and record to SSD with a neat screen to view on for about the same price as the 5D3 ...........OH its not quite the same price you say , well add DaVinci Resolve 10.
> 
> Seriously not since good old Super Mario and Sonic had their graves dug by Sony and X Box have I seen established market leaders shown the door by upstarts. So unless this firmware ( whenever it arrives) manages to provide a hell of a lot more from the chip, like RAW 10 bit , its hardly worth all the playing about and buying toys for. If its Video trade in fast and go for a real upgrade, true 10 bit at 4 K will give quality and longevity way over what you have.



I would be the first one to jump ship for a BMCC, but my understanding is that the total package (camera + peripherals) is still several thousand more. Plus, the BMCC has crop factor limitations. When it comes to video, every camera on the market seems to have its trade-offs.

The bottom line is that if you NEED something with better IQ/DR/resolution than a 5D3, there's nothing to lament or debate... just go get it. But that doesn't render the 5D3 a terrible camera. It can be a great performer (in the right hands, in the right circumstances), especially for the price.


----------



## charlesqian (Apr 12, 2013)

Policar said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > marvinhello said:
> ...



Actually 1DC's 4K is superb, and its Super 35mm is too. Full HD is just so so. It has a 60p slow motion in Full HD but not that good.

I think Canon's firmware update has two elements: 1) uncompressed clean HDMI output; 2) mirroring LCD and an external monitor. The uncompresed clean HDMI output will let an external recorder such as Ninjia-2 records directly from a camera's sensor at 10 bit, 4:2:2 using ProRes or Avid DNxHD codecs. It will have some difference compared with the original 8-bit, 4:2:0 with cameras like 5D MKIII etc..


----------



## marvinhello (Apr 12, 2013)

charlesqian said:


> Policar said:
> 
> 
> > LetTheRightLensIn said:
> ...



It's still 8bit in a 10bit container if you record on Ninja 2, the additional 2bits are just zero.


----------



## thornie (Apr 12, 2013)

OldGrey said:


> Sadly after being with Canon for over 30 years , I have to suggest that my view of this 4.2.2. upgrade is not good. When the new kids on the block are offering a camera with 10bit 4.2.2 RAW that will take my Canon glass and record to SSD with a neat screen to view on for about the same price as the 5D3 ...........OH its not quite the same price you say , well add DaVinci Resolve 10.
> 
> Seriously not since good old Super Mario and Sonic had their graves dug by Sony and X Box have I seen established market leaders shown the door by upstarts. So unless this firmware ( whenever it arrives) manages to provide a hell of a lot more from the chip, like RAW 10 bit , its hardly worth all the playing about and buying toys for. If its Video trade in fast and go for a real upgrade, true 10 bit at 4 K will give quality and longevity way over what you have.



I somewhat agree with you sentiment/disappointment. I think what is happening right now in the HD video world is bigger than just Canon or any other DSLR manufacturer. I think more and more people are starting to move away from shooting with DSLRs and are embracing a lot of the newer solutions out there, such as the BMCC or the C100. When the 5D mkii was starting to be used by more and more videographers, there was really nothing like it. The market has caught up and is now offering a much wider and varied assortment of cameras that all hover in the same price range. If you are never going to shoot stills, why invest in the 5D mkIII? $1-$2k more gets you a BMCC, C100, or an FS100. Canon didn't as much lose their market share as they were overshadowed by newer, affordable, specialized equipment. DSLR shooting had a great run, but it's no longer the only option out there for indie film makers/videographers.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 12, 2013)

Yah, I just jumped ship to the BMCC. I ordered from Adorama last night, and i already got a notice that it is shipping this week. I guess they've figures out their supply issues. 

I waited as long as I could for Canon to give me something with raw that was affordable. I like to grade my video like i grade my pictures, and there was no way i could do this with Canon. 

Hopefully they'll come around soon.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 12, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Yah, I just jumped ship to the BMCC. I ordered from Adorama last night, and i already got a notice that it is shipping this week. I guess they've figures out their supply issues.
> 
> I waited as long as I could for Canon to give me something with raw that was affordable. I like to grade my video like i grade my pictures, and there was no way i could do this with Canon.
> 
> Hopefully they'll come around soon.



Congratulations! I suspect that you will like it and produce some very nice moving images with it.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 15, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Yah, I just jumped ship to the BMCC. I ordered from Adorama last night, and i already got a notice that it is shipping this week. I guess they've figures out their supply issues.
> 
> I waited as long as I could for Canon to give me something with raw that was affordable. I like to grade my video like i grade my pictures, and there was no way i could do this with Canon.
> 
> Hopefully they'll come around soon.



I would seriously consider waiting on the Blackmagic Production cam, it's definitely going to ship in July and a lot more camera for less than $1k more. I preordered it and the pocket cam, both are going to be stellar.


----------



## OldGrey (Apr 18, 2013)

The bottom line is that if you NEED something with better IQ/DR/resolution than a 5D3, there's nothing to lament or debate... just go get it. But that doesn't render the 5D3 a terrible camera. It can be a great performer (in the right hands, in the right circumstances), especially for the price.
[/quote]

Hi sorry I was not able to watch this comment.... guess the point I was making is that if you buy a 5D3 and then go for a ninja or shuttle or whatever to use the HDMI all you will get is 1080 in 8 bit 4.2.2. To get there you would have spent more on the 5D3 and the Ninja than a BMC Production camera. OK both need solid stste drives and batteries, neither will work for long on the on-board power. The Black Magic however will shoot 4k 10bit 4.2.2 for your quick stuff and RAW if your after a lot more. So how can you sell anyone interested in Video the idea that archiving clips on 1080 , loosing the ability to reframe/zoom within your footage, shoot true 10 bit and have RAW if you need it at the same price is not a no brainer ?????
Sorry I think BMC don't have the 100,300, 500 1Dc to protect and a marketing department to hold back the chances of Canon being able to compete. Truth is if there were no Magic Lantern firmware updates to worry about, no BMC to chase I don't think Canon would be producing this firmware in anything like the same way.

After all the "quality" measures have been pondered, lets not forget the global shutter and the pleasure of being able to pan in an urban setting without fear of the straight line !

See the danger here is for a company that seeing the changes to come has begun to talk of conversion of 4k footage for stills, prints, weddings , magazines , brochures and all manner of old school stills uses ..and then sadly lost the grip on the very future they have shown !

Thank you SEGA for Sonik and the market you created for XBOX !


----------



## dirtcastle (Apr 18, 2013)

OldGrey said:


> Hi sorry I was not able to watch this comment.... guess the point I was making is that if you buy a 5D3 and then go for a ninja or shuttle or whatever to use the HDMI all you will get is 1080 in 8 bit 4.2.2. To get there you would have spent more on the 5D3 and the Ninja than a BMC Production camera. OK both need solid stste drives and batteries, neither will work for long on the on-board power. The Black Magic however will shoot 4k 10bit 4.2.2 for your quick stuff and RAW if your after a lot more. So how can you sell anyone interested in Video the idea that archiving clips on 1080 , loosing the ability to reframe/zoom within your footage, shoot true 10 bit and have RAW if you need it at the same price is not a no brainer ?????
> Sorry I think BMC don't have the 100,300, 500 1Dc to protect and a marketing department to hold back the chances of Canon being able to compete. Truth is if there were no Magic Lantern firmware updates to worry about, no BMC to chase I don't think Canon would be producing this firmware in anything like the same way.
> 
> After all the "quality" measures have been pondered, lets not forget the global shutter and the pleasure of being able to pan in an urban setting without fear of the straight line !



Nobody denies the fact that Blackmagic cameras output higher quality video than the 5D3, for around the same price.

BUT BUT BUT... if you want an all-day, highly portable, run-and-gun camera that shoots FULL-FRAME, whose battery/storage options are much cheaper and lighter... the 5D3 would seem like a better option.

For me, the portability of the 5D3, combined with my existing set of Canon lenses makes the 5D3 a much better deal FOR ME (can you dig?). Plus, I'm also a stills shooter. 

Having said that... if budget were not an issue... I would get a BM too.  And I would get an Epic, a Phantom, etc.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 18, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> I would seriously consider waiting on the Blackmagic Production cam, it's definitely going to ship in July and a lot more camera for less than $1k more. I preordered it and the pocket cam, both are going to be stellar.



Why i didn't get a BMPC in short: less DR, no uncompressed RAW, more expensive. Remember, it's a different sensor, so no guarantee that it's going to have the same beautiful image. 

Indeed, once we start seeing vids, i may regret my decision. But i figure the reason someone gets a BMCC(as opposed to a 5D3) is for the DR and the complete control over it in post. So why would i want to compromise either of those for the BMPC?


----------



## syder (Apr 18, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> HurtinMinorKey said:
> 
> 
> > Yah, I just jumped ship to the BMCC. I ordered from Adorama last night, and i already got a notice that it is shipping this week. I guess they've figures out their supply issues.
> ...



Although it depends on type of kit you have elsewhere... RAW video eats disk space like there's no tomorrow. And the CPU and RAM requirements for working in RAW 4k aren't to be trifled at either. Happy to kit your post facility with a load of high end workstation computers and a 20 tb raid array - go for the 4k RAW system. Want to stick with your current 2 year old iMac - don't bother.

If you're happy with the additional costs throughout your entire production workflow then the BMC4k looks like it'll be fantastic - but for a lot of people/places which aren't dedicated production companies the extra expenses across the board make it the C100 look like a better option.

As for the 5Dmiii firmware - we'll have to wait and see how much of an improvement it provides in terms of IQ. Until it's been tested we wont know for sure, but it wont turn the 5dmiii into something that will outperform a C300.

In 2008 DSLR video was ahead of the competition (in terms of sensor size/aesthetic potential vs cost - people forget how badly the 5dmii sucked in many ways for video on release). Expecting things to simply stay that way was always unrealistic - and here we are four and half years later with a range of cameras including the three BMC's, the GH3 (for those on a shoestring budget), 1DC, C100/300, FS100/700, Red Scarlet which all do video better than DSLRs.

That doesn't mean that you can't still make stunning work with a DSLR - or that they aren't still a very tempting option for people who do both stills and video: only that most high end video production companies will use the dedicated video tools that don't have a load of (to them useless) photgraphy features. For example the autofocus system on the 5diii is great for stills - and completely useless for video. Expecting devices which don't have most of their R&D budget going into features that wont be used to outcompete dedicated video devices doesn't make a lot of sense.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 19, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> Why i didn't get a BMPC in short: less DR, no uncompressed RAW, more expensive. Remember, it's a different sensor, so no guarantee that it's going to have the same beautiful image.
> 
> Indeed, once we start seeing vids, i may regret my decision. But i figure the reason someone gets a BMCC(as opposed to a 5D3) is for the DR and the complete control over it in post. So why would i want to compromise either of those for the BMPC?



1 stop less DR (but still more than the 5D3), but the Global Shutter and Super 35mm crop (the 2.3x on the BMCC was too much for me) and I'm all for compressed RAW, it's still a hell of a lot more flexible than H.264 DSLR files. I shot with the BMCC for one weekend and the resulting files were ridiculously huge and my 3.4 i7 iMac with SSD's/32GB RAM/2GB Video/Thunderbolt Drives could barely even play them. I wouldn't shoot 2.5K on that thing unless I was trying to make some award winning stuff, it's just not worth it. 

To me it seems like Blackmagic Design priced the production cam that way to discourage people from buying the BMCC. They are taking the old BMCC bodies, putting in the new sensor and slapping a 4K sticker on it and taking the old sensors and putting them in the Pocket cams, it's pretty genius really. 

Either way any of the cameras mentioned here can produce great images if used correctly, but the BMPC has the specs I've been looking for and at a ridiculously low price.


----------



## Axilrod (Apr 19, 2013)

syder said:


> Although it depends on type of kit you have elsewhere... RAW video eats disk space like there's no tomorrow. And the CPU and RAM requirements for working in RAW 4k aren't to be trifled at either. Happy to kit your post facility with a load of high end workstation computers and a 20 tb raid array - go for the 4k RAW system. Want to stick with your current 2 year old iMac - don't bother.
> 
> If you're happy with the additional costs throughout your entire production workflow then the BMC4k looks like it'll be fantastic - but for a lot of people/places which aren't dedicated production companies the extra expenses across the board make it the C100 look like a better option.
> 
> ...



The BMPC shoots compressed RAW, and you're right, my brand new maxed out iMac with Thunderbolt drives could barely play the BMCC RAW files, so hopefully it will be able to play the compressed RAW from the BMPC. If not I hear Apple is releasing new Mac Pro's this year, so i'll get one of those if need be.

I never said you can't make great stuff with DSLR's, I've shot hours and hours of material this year on DSLR's and it all looks excellent. Proper lighting can make all the difference in the world regardless of the camera. DSLR's have served me well, but I've been yearning for a proper video camera for the past few years. Almost picked up an FS700 used for $6k but by the time I called the guy it was gone, so I'm gonna give this one a try.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 20, 2013)

Axilrod said:


> I shot with the BMCC for one weekend and the resulting files were ridiculously huge and my 3.4 i7 iMac with SSD's/32GB RAM/2GB Video/Thunderbolt Drives could barely even play them. I wouldn't shoot 2.5K on that thing unless I was trying to make some award winning stuff, it's just not worth it.



I'm assuming you had the iMac with the AMD GPU? I hear that Resolve really requires Nvidia. I've heard that the new iMac (late 2012) runs the RAW files very well. I hope so, because i just ordered one, after taking a very long hard look at Windows workstations! Please let me know if i am mistaken. 



Axilrod said:


> To me it seems like Blackmagic Design priced the production cam that way to discourage people from buying the BMCC. They are taking the old BMCC bodies, putting in the new sensor and slapping a 4K sticker on it and taking the old sensors and putting them in the Pocket cams, it's pretty genius really.
> 
> Either way any of the cameras mentioned here can produce great images if used correctly, but the BMPC has the specs I've been looking for and at a ridiculously low price.



I agree, however, I think it is quite possible that the $1000 difference between cameras will be pure margin for black magic. In other words, the components of the BMPC will cost the same (or less) than the BMCC. But that's pure speculation on my part.

My biggest fear is that the 7D2 will do something like full raw recording for 30-60 seconds. I would have jumped at something like that. I love my 5D2, and always will, so I'm really hoping that Canon makes a comeback.


----------



## Midphase (Apr 20, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> My biggest fear is that the 7D2 will do something like full raw recording for 30-60 seconds. I would have jumped at something like that. I love my 5D2, and always will, so I'm really hoping that Canon makes a comeback.



I seriously doubt that the 7D2 will do something that even the 1D C can't do. For Blackmagic to be coming to market with this new 4K camera in July means that they've pretty much been co-developing all 3 of their cameras all along and that it's quite likely that the 4K just wan't ready for the public last year. For Canon to be suddenly competing with them would mean that they would have had to have known about the BMCC and in development with their response all along. In addition, it would have required for Canon to actually give a crap about their growing video base which they really don't appear to.

Our best hope is that the new 5D3 firmware (which I'm sure will come in the new 7D2) will result in a somewhat improved video image through an external recorder. If the difference is mild to unnoticeable, then Canon might as well say goodbye to the DSLR video market that they so luckily gained by accident.

Every day I'm tempted to put my 5D3 up on eBay, then I remind myself that the 5D3 is a formidable stills camera, and I do enjoy shooting still photography as well. Rather my guess is that in the not too distant future I'll own the new BM Pro Camera (and most definitely the pocket one).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 26, 2013)

OK I was an idiot. Yes! It does deliver full-size clean HDMI out! You need to hit INFO a bunch of times while in video mode to bring up a special full size mode! Thank god.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 26, 2013)

Nobody else has anything to say about the new firmware??


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 27, 2013)

marvinhello said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > eturkyolu said:
> ...



Yeah I'm starting to think that you may have been correct. The issues seem to be with the weird softening Canon is doing at some stage and with the 8bits and not as much as the compression engine in the 5D3 (which is better than the one in the 5D2). I haven't tried any tricky scenes yet though. Maybe for those??????? So far it seems it seems of somewhat dubious value. But I haven't done much yet. But yeah you may have been right. I'm not sure it even helps grading any.

I also lost my ML software by going to the new firmware.

At first I though the new firmware made things sharper, but I'm pretty sure now that I just tricked myself.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> Nobody else has anything to say about the new firmware??



LTRLI: You're talking about the Canon firmware? Where did you get the new firmware? It doesn't appear to be available for download yet. That might be why others, like me, who might be interested in it have not received it yet.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 28, 2013)

JasonATL said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody else has anything to say about the new firmware??
> ...



It got leaked and various people had it on dropbox and the like. The link I got it from is dead. EOS HD had a link that had still worked. Don't know if it still does. It's easy to find since the firmware news is on their front page. There are links on POTN and all over. Google google.

Hope to test f/8 tomorrow.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> It got leaked and various people had it on dropbox and the like. The link I got it from is dead. EOS HD had a link that had still worked. Don't know if it still does. It's easy to find since the firmware news is on their front page. There are links on POTN and all over. Google google.
> 
> Hope to test f/8 tomorrow.



Thanks. I'll just wait two more days until Canon sends me the e-mail. I'm too busy editing my BMCC video footage from a weekend trip in which I didn't even touch the 5D3. My wife got some great photos with the 5D3. If it sounds like I've moved on...


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 28, 2013)

JasonATL said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > It got leaked and various people had it on dropbox and the like. The link I got it from is dead. EOS HD had a link that had still worked. Don't know if it still does. It's easy to find since the firmware news is on their front page. There are links on POTN and all over. Google google.
> ...



Kinda scary, it sounds like everyone has moved on. This forum used to be post crazy when news like new firmware or this or that came out and now there will be no posts for days even after news! Even my begging for some more posts only brought but your response and that after a wait.

If you've seen my other post it is amazing what the camera actually seems to get off the sensor in 1920x1080, decent amount of DR and good detail, the compression engine seems to work well (at least for the soft, low DR signal it is fed) but why does it get fed a soft, low DR signal when the ML test implies that their is some much more awesome quality coming off the sensor at 24fps? Maybe that source is too slow to actually feed the video engine? But it seems like that IS the source that then gets played with and fed into the compression engine.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Apr 28, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> If you've seen my other post it is amazing what the camera actually seems to get off the sensor in 1920x1080, decent amount of DR and good detail, the compression engine seems to work well (at least for the soft, low DR signal it is fed) but why does it get fed a soft, low DR signal when the ML test implies that their is some much more awesome quality coming off the sensor at 24fps? Maybe that source is too slow to actually feed the video engine? But it seems like that IS the source that then gets played with and fed into the compression engine.



We know that the sensor puts out a 14bit stream. The processor then quickly and crudely compresses the files for storage. My guess is that without this crude compression, you would overload all the buffers, because the processors weren't designed for efficient compression at high speed.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 28, 2013)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> LetTheRightLensIn said:
> 
> 
> > If you've seen my other post it is amazing what the camera actually seems to get off the sensor in 1920x1080, decent amount of DR and good detail, the compression engine seems to work well (at least for the soft, low DR signal it is fed) but why does it get fed a soft, low DR signal when the ML test implies that their is some much more awesome quality coming off the sensor at 24fps? Maybe that source is too slow to actually feed the video engine? But it seems like that IS the source that then gets played with and fed into the compression engine.
> ...



A pre-compression before the h.264 compression engine???

If the liveview 'raw' DNG buffer can toss those frame out at 24fps (ignoring buffer clog) why can't they just clip to 1920x1080 and 10bits (or 8bits if their HDMI system won't handle 10bits) and output that over the HDMI at 24fps without any other junk being done to it and just toss each frame internally afterwards? Then, at the least, we'd get sooo much crisper video when using an external recorder. 

So as each of these hits the 512MB buffer they send it to HDMI after first clipping to 1920x1080 and then they just delete it from the buffer so it never overflows?

Maybe ML doesn't have access to the proper hooks to do that but couldn't Canon do that?


----------



## Roger Jones (Apr 28, 2013)

Biggest disappointment so far is the lack of audio on the HDMI output signal. I'll be that the leaked firmware is the same thing canon will be releasing. No audio on the external recorder makes this feature less useful. I think Canon does care about video users. The c300 and c100 have been a big success. Dumbing down the still camera capabilities keeps them from cannibalizing sales of higher end gear with bigger margins.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 29, 2013)

Roger Jones said:


> Biggest disappointment so far is the lack of audio on the HDMI output signal. I'll be that the leaked firmware is the same thing canon will be releasing. No audio on the external recorder makes this feature less useful. I think Canon does care about video users. The c300 and c100 have been a big success. Dumbing down the still camera capabilities keeps them from cannibalizing sales of higher end gear with bigger margins.



But but doing that also makes them just one of many and there are many hungry players. Not dumbing it down may have been the way to really get tons of sales. WHo cares about a bit of margin if you get 100x the sales instead? Who knows but it seems like they reacted in their usual conservative way instead of trying to aggressively go after the gold mine they accidentally hit on. Who knows.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 30, 2013)

I wonder if the new firmware doesn't actually make things a touch sharper after all, maybe comparing HDMI vs new internal is the same but maybe new internal is sharper than old? Fine edges seem to get mosquito noise sort of, maybe part of making it sharper. I need to shoot with the new, rollback and shoot with the old and compare. Maybe they did sharpen it up a bit? It is a different look than the 'raw' though, less fine micrcontrast still and yet maybe more aliasing than old video or the 'raw' video buffer?

EDIT: the artifacts, fine detail shimmer, aliasing and such seem to be something going wrong in Premiere Pro (h.264, High, 5.1, 40Mbs CBR; USM/sharpen/colorista tools) since both the original Ninja recorded files and ones recorded by the 5D3 with new firmware DO NOT have that weird stuff going on. So whatever that is it is definitely not the fault of the 5D3 and/or new firmware.

EDIT: EDIT: well other than in one file where there is some weird black band that pops on and off across a few letters of white text in a weird way on one file, that is on the original
MORE EDITS: actually that weird stuff is in all the files, slight bumps to cam and almost like a bit of 5D2 line skip sorta aliasing jitter, just without sharpenin git wasn't as easy to spot


----------



## psolberg (May 2, 2013)

this is an excellent article on the ML hacks which although not related to the firmware in question, it does answer why the quality improvements are minor at best.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/10294/3-5k-canon-5d-mark-iii-raw-video-with-magic-lantern-and-latest-updates

apparently the 5DmkIII internal processing before encoding pretty much degrades the image quality while preparing it to exit the camera either via the h264 encoding engine or hdmi. In other words, this dashes all hopes to improve on the soft output via HDMI recording. It's a hardware limitations problem.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2013)

psolberg said:


> this is an excellent article on the ML hacks which although not related to the firmware in question, it does answer why the quality improvements are minor at best.
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/10294/3-5k-canon-5d-mark-iii-raw-video-with-magic-lantern-and-latest-updates
> 
> apparently the 5DmkIII internal processing before encoding pretty much degrades the image quality while preparing it to exit the camera either via the h264 encoding engine or hdmi. In other words, this dashes all hopes to improve on the soft output via HDMI recording. It's a hardware limitations problem.



There must be some hook to send stuff over the HDMI since it has to send the degraded stuff out, if one can find the hook and access that directly. Unless there is some direct hardware path to HDMI and to cards from the buffer that is forced into a certain pathway of manipulations that are hard locked and can't be adjusted enough either. 

But if that buffer is where even normal images get sent before they get sent to the card then that seems odd since it doesn't debayer CR2 before writing to the card or convert them to jpg or anything. 

It's a shame Canon didn't release full pipelines, OS, DIGIC documentation. Sooo mcuh more could be accomplished sooooooooo much more easily. hah.

I'm confused about why he talks about the DNG getting slowly debayered in the buffer and then written to the card and talk of still being in bayer format at 1931x1080 when the sensor is 22MP Bayer and 4:4:4 when Bayer files are not truly 4:4:4. And if it gets slowly debayered before being written to the card why are some claiming the DNG files on card are in bayer format (although it has seemed unlikely to me).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (May 2, 2013)

I still don't know why they didn't give the 5D3 high quality cropped modes for wildlife and stuff and 2x2 block modes. They had so many years and such a market to conquer and dominate and it seems they got all side tracked in going other ways and maximizing profit margin and internal segmentation and this and that instead, so conservative too.


----------



## psolberg (May 3, 2013)

LetTheRightLensIn said:


> I still don't know why they didn't give the 5D3 high quality cropped modes for wildlife and stuff and 2x2 block modes. They had so many years and such a market to conquer and dominate and it seems they got all side tracked in going other ways and maximizing profit margin and internal segmentation and this and that instead, so conservative too.



C-line protection. that's all.


----------



## florian (May 3, 2013)

But the C-Line is a total different quality. I have the 5D III and like it a lot and use it on my Tiffen Merlin 2 from time to time. But I got my 1D C this week and I can only say the quality of the movies is something I haven´t got before. I filmed parrots with 600mm II lens and 2x III in 4K and Super 35.
That gives me 1200mm *1,3 crop = 1560mm and I can crop the picture down to 1080P and get about 3120mm focal lenght or with the Super35 mode 1800mm because of 1,5 crop . It´s just perfect. Doesn´t really fit on my Merlin anymore but I don´t regred spending the extra Money. And I have to say the clean output is not really needed, the quality will only get better with RAW. But it´s nice to be able to connect a Ninja and get the Zebra and Focus peaking. and a backup of your recorded image in a good quality.


----------

