Comparing Video on a 5D3 and a 5DS R

Being lazy....
Has anyone compared the 2 at 1920x1080/24p?

Are there any resolution improvements?

Thanks

As 1920 and 1080 is your resolution for video, I don't see how having a 50mpx vs a 22mpx is more beneficial. I guess we shall see once the answers come in.

IRC the 5D3 resolution is exactly 3x the required video resolution (with some cropping for 16:9) so can be processed to get a good image with relatively little moiré.

I don't think the 5Ds is, though there's way more processing performance in that newer body. I think there were hints from Canon that it wasn't really intended for video work though.

Well assuming they use the whole sensor, at a 16:9 ratio crop, then the 50MP of the DS should allow for much more latitude in processing the results. In theory that should result in much better colour and less artifacts. It also calls for a lot of processing power to make use of all of that extra sensor data. Starting with more data should usually mean that you get superior results as you reduce its size.

Alan

As Alan notes, it's all in the available processing power. That and how much data can be read from the available pixels in the frame-rate interval. There's no way either can read the whole sensor out 24 or 30 times a second, so there must be selective read-out (limited by number and arrangement(?) of data-pipes out of the sensor, line-skipping, binning etc) and/or processing during readout before final compression and storage. Not the kind of thing one can bring intuition to when trying to compare the two without any info on those factors. Then, it's up to the engineers and ultimately marketing ( ) how those factors are balanced.
(I like the ETC approach used by Panasonic and others - just take the 1920x1080 in the middle of the chip (or 3840x2160 etc) to produce clean 1080 video with a "teleconversion factor" good for distant wildlife and such. On the 5DS, that would give quite a teleconverter - but the chip has to be designed specifically to read out those data quickly - not something a "stills" camera would be optimized for )

TeamSpeed wrote in post #17776069
As 1920 and 1080 is your resolution for video, I don't see how having a 50mpx vs a 22mpx is more beneficial. I guess we shall see once the answers come in.

Pretty much my thoughts but I lack the experience to test them technically.
So I thoughtntheir might be someone a lot cleverer than I am who had done it.
The best I could do is try it at one shoot snd then try it at another ( there would never be enough time to do a comparative subjective test on a shoot.

I really need to know as there seem to be no takers at a reasonable price for my 5D3 so it seems stupid to sell it for peanuts and then discover the 5D3 is much better.

Plus Imam worried about the processing power needed to edit video files from the 5DS R if theyncorrolate in size to stills!

Due to budget, I sadly cant get my HP workstation at tHe dealer discount originally promised , so I Will be building the workstation, and as time is manic at the moment, I Was waiting a few weeks until the house I inherited is sold and hoping a more powerful skylake chip was launched in the interim. So cant even test that out

sploo wrote in post #17776076
IRC the 5D3 resolution is exactly 3x the required video resolution (with some cropping for 16:9) so can be processed to get a good image with relatively little moiré.

I don't think the 5Ds is, though there's way more processing performance in that newer body. I think there were hints from Canon that it wasn't really intended for video work though.

I read that too,msomwas not expecting great advances on the video front - the question is has it regressed.
I dont do much video - well hardly any. Most is when a model says can I do a short music video clip for an audition etc. As part of a portfolio.
So no big thing really.
Hoped an expert could advise me which should be best.
TBH I dont seem to be very good at it - and it seems to need a shed load of lighting!
I have 4 x 600 watts of constant Bowens lights and my estimate is you would need twice that!
If one wants to shoot at F8 and Not let the ISO go through the roof.
By then the model would be blind.
I must be missing something big here!

BigAl007 wrote in post #17776096
Well assuming they use the whole sensor, at a 16:9 ratio crop, then the 50MP of the DS should allow for much more latitude in processing the results. In theory that should result in much better colour and less artifacts. It also calls for a lot of processing power to make use of all of that extra sensor data. Starting with more data should usually mean that you get superior results as you reduce its size.

Alan

Hmmm see what you are saying.
My concern is .... Is there enough processing power and bandwidth to do that.
Things that worry me are:-
1. Canon don't really promote any video improvements regarding this camera, in fact to some extent its the opposite.
2. If I take a pic on the 5D3 and look at the LCD its there by the time I flick the camera over to look at the LCd, whereas there is a 2 sec ?? Delay on the 5DS R. ( no more than others , and no real issue in return for the resolution so no complaints) . My concern is how can the camera shift that much data say 24 times a second :-/

If Canon have gone the crop route theory that would mean some magnificarion! No?
TBH this is beyond me. :-0

AJSJones wrote in post #17776275
As Alan notes, it's all in the available processing power. That and how much data can be read from the available pixels in the frame-rate interval. There's no way either can read the whole sensor out 24 or 30 times a second, so there must be selective read-out (limited by number and arrangement(?) of data-pipes out of the sensor, line-skipping, binning etc) and/or processing during readout before final compression and storage. Not the kind of thing one can bring intuition to when trying to compare the two without any info on those factors. Then, it's up to the engineers and ultimately marketing ( ) how those factors are balanced.
(I like the ETC approach used by Panasonic and others - just take the 1920x1080 in the middle of the chip (or 3840x2160 etc) to produce clean 1080 video with a "teleconversion factor" good for distant wildlife and such. On the 5DS, that would give quite a teleconverter - but the chip has to be designed specifically to read out those data quickly - not something a "stills" camera would be optimized for )

Hmmm maybe thats why Canon doent exactly extoll the 5DS R as a leap in video technology lol

Really hoping one of the clever 5DS R owners would check this out.

Assuming that you are using 1080p video using one of the "normal" codec's, then the processing power needed for video from the 5Ds will be the same as from the 5DIII. You have to remember that what you are getting from the camera is processed 1080p video, the equivalent of shooting JPEG in camera, but with a size restriction thrown in too. All of my comments in my previous post were to do with how Canon are dealing with the data coming from the sensor, and how they might be processing it down to the 1080p video that gets recorded to your memory card.

The only time you would need to worry about the processing power of your computer is if you were recording "RAW" video. This is not something that you can do with the 5Ds, but is possible if you use Magic Lantern with the 5DIII. I do not think that this is something that you would likely be doing anyway. If you were to keep the 5DIII, mostly for video work, and as a backup for the 5Ds, then I would be very inclined to put ML on it, as it really has a lot of features that make shooting video much easier. I find it quite useful for stills work on my 50D too though, although adding 1080p video to a camera that did not previously have video capability is great.

Alan

Submariner wrote in post #17776668
Plus Imam worried about the processing power needed to edit video files from the 5DS R if theyncorrolate in size to stills!

As BigAl has noted: 1080p video out of a 5D3 will be the same "size" as 1080p out of a 5Ds (all the processing to produce that video is in camera).

The only differences would be if a camera were to offer a massively high bitrate or possibly some lossless compression format on the video (thus two cameras could produce 1080p resolution video, but have very different data sizes). I'm not aware the 5Ds offers anything like that - though don't quote me on it.

The 5Ds lacks a headphone socket - only really an issue if you're not using an external sound recorder.

Perhaps you could ask a member with a 5Ds if they'd be willing to shoot a few seconds of appropriate video for you, such that you could take a look. Alternatively, see if Philip Bloom has tested a 5Ds (http://philipbloom.net​/blog/contact/). I know he uses Canon DSLRs extensively and did a good review of the 5D2 vs 5D3 for video, so if he's had his hands on a 5Ds you may well get some insightful answers.

Thanks for the info

Submariner wrote in post #17778786
Thanks for the info

No worries.

It does occur to me that it's possible they're having to throw away a lot of pixels (as opposed to averaging them together) to go from the 50MP sensor to the 2MP HD resolution (for performance reasons). That might lead to worse moiré than the 5D3, but I am just speculating.

sploo wrote in post #17778977
No worries.

It does occur to me that it's possible they're having to throw away a lot of pixels (as opposed to averaging them together) to go from the 50MP sensor to the 2MP HD resolution (for performance reasons). That might lead to worse moiré than the 5D3, but I am just speculating.

Thanks interesting point.