Author Topic: Mark III and ML  (Read 2751 times)

hog120

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Mark III and ML
« on: April 28, 2014, 11:15:11 AM »
Is the Mark III that much better at shooting video in ML than the mark II?  I realize it shoots at a little higher resolution, has faster AF, and higher ISO.  What am I missing?  Is it $2,000 better?  I'm trying to look for a reason to upgrade.

chmee

  • Contributor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1031
  • raw2cdng
Re: Mark III and ML
« Reply #1 on: April 28, 2014, 12:26:33 PM »
i'd say:

* faster CF-Bus
* better AA
* "better" regular Noise-Pattern

are points, thinking about it :) (Beside the fact, its in terms of Photography a completely new level..)

hog120

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Mark III and ML
« Reply #2 on: April 28, 2014, 12:36:56 PM »
I'm comparing the two for ML.  The faster CF-bus and buffer allows a slightly higher continuous recording resolution.  The AA, and noise are decent improvements.  In reviews, the resolving power in terms of lines of resolution are almost identical though.  I bet the Mark III is a lot better, but everything on the internet is so compressed you'd have to buy one just to find out it seems.

MGerard

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 36
Re: Mark III and ML
« Reply #3 on: April 28, 2014, 07:42:38 PM »
I have work experience with the 5D2, 5D3 (which I own now) and the 7D:
The 5D3 uses binning instead of line skipping to downsize the sensor resolution to HD, which reduces moiré and aliasing by an incredible amount. There is some aliasing in overblown highlights which is a problem that all single large frame sensor cameras share (including the Arri Alexa), but there are ways to get rid of that in post.
Except for a lack of resolution in comparison to the C100 / C300, which also operate in an 8bit color space, the 5D3 is a capable video camera, probably the first DSLRs really made for it. Apart from that the audio circuitry is also much better than the 5D2 (if that would matter). What might improve the resolution a little bit is to tweak the h264.ini settings with ML. Mine is stable (also on complex scenes) recording at an inter-frame data rate between 69 - 120 mbit/s, and there is a definitive increase in detail, especially when sharpening is applied in post. In addition, you could also use a cheap external HDMi recorder (like the soon-to-be-available Ninja Star by Atomos) to record from the "4:2:2 uncompressed" HDMi out, but apart from getting rid of the h.264 blocking, it doesn't really give you anything "more" color- or resolution-wise.

When it comes to ML raw recording is where the 5D3 really shines (again, more detail and of course high color depth). Recording at (true) 1080-25p is possible with the right CF cards. In total, the image quality blows away the C300 and the 1D-C. But that comes at the price of a more demanding / time consuming post workflow. 

In my opinion, an upgrade to a well-tweaked 5D3 is way worth the cost.

hog120

  • New to the forum
  • *
  • Posts: 20
Re: Mark III and ML
« Reply #4 on: April 29, 2014, 12:18:00 AM »
Great post.  My mark II is stable at 1880x740 70mbit/s.  Seems like from your experience, the mark III is a worthy upgrade.  The color depth really shines on the Mark II.  I hope it transferred over to the Mark III.  Some internet clips for what they're worth, show it looking oversharpened, and a little artificial.  I just wish I could get more for my mark II.  :o