5D Aliasing

subtleinspiration said:
What if you're in a situation you cannot change where the camera cannot handle the detail it is being presented? Your client wants an interview with a person who is wearing an outfit that is causing noticeable aliasing...are you going to ask them to go home and change?
Click to expand...

A little off-topic but thanks!
 
Lee Wilson said:
Looks nice to me and as you yourself say when you watch the full size movie the video looks OK.
Click to expand...

Yep, so this just begs the question: How can we go about compressing/reducing resolution without encountering these artifacts? It's clearly not the camera's fault in this instance, it's the downscaling algorithm being used to generate a smaller image. What are the best practices involved in downrezzing to SD/720p from 1080p? Compressor, even with the highest quality enabled, doesn't seem to be up to the task.
 
bwwd said:
I dont think that theres anything wrong here, show this vid to random person a ask whats wrong with it ,he will probably wont guess that some aliasing appears on black/white borders.
DSLRs have aliasing we all know that and we cant do ANYTHING about this reallly besides making our footage worse in quality ,when seeing threads like this im wondering if this became obsesssion for some folks ,aliasing is not that big deal for most people watching you know?
People dont really care about this ,people who always want more more more moremore care about that,if its not acceptable - sell your cam,its simple.
But first ask random peoples whats wrong with vid but dont tell them anything about aliasing and moire.
Ive seen aliasing many times on my TV on movies ,do you think i got scared and turned it off or something ?It didnt stopped me from watching.
---
theres more aliasing on vimeo because resize algorithm is similar to line skipping in dslrs.
Click to expand...

your buyers - distributors, clients, ad agencies - they are not "most people" or "regular people" and they will notice. Mass media must be good enough for the most discerning viewer, not just for the middle or average viewer. Many forms of aliasing on 5D 7D etc. are bad enough that they would take you out of the story.

Besides it's not just aliasing, it's very noticeably low resolution.

And many of you will scream "But House is using it" and so on. well, just because someone works in Hollywood does not mean they are wise or good at what they do. Is every Hollywood script great? No? Same goes for DOPs.

Besides there is NO TV show that uses the 5D as an A-cam. None. 24 uses it for the backgrounds (not the actors) in moving car shots, which are so blurred by motion the aliasing does not show.

Master a good adapter and you will get far better results - if you can, rent/buy a Red.

Also, on a pro shoot a lost shot is many thousands of dollars lost.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
your buyers - distributors, clients, ad agencies - they are not "most people" or "regular people" and they will notice. Mass media must be good enough for the most discerning viewer, not just for the middle or average viewer. Many forms of aliasing on 5D 7D etc. are bad enough that they would take you out of the story.

Besides it's not just aliasing, it's very noticeably low resolution.

And many of you will scream "But House is using it" and so on. well, just because someone works in Hollywood does not mean they are wise or good at what they do. Is every Hollywood script great? No? Same goes for DOPs.

Besides there is NO TV show that uses the 5D as an A-cam. None. 24 uses it for the backgrounds (not the actors) in moving car shots, which are so blurred by motion the aliasing does not show.

Master a good adapter and you will get far better results - if you can, rent/buy a Red.

Also, on a pro shoot a lost shot is many thousands of dollars lost.
Click to expand...

This is why you have multiple tools for multiple jobs. If your a production house and plan on doing shots that might result in bad moire, buy or rent a EX1 or RED or something else.

The thing that frustrates me is people basically saying the 5D useless because of moire, or jello, or whatever. Yes the camera ain't perfect, but it does work. And if you're willing to work with it's limitations you can get good results with it.

Let me use this example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vUWqRhReaZk

This is a guy painting an almost photo realistic picture of a car with MS Paint.

The point is simply it's not the tool that makes the image, it's the artist. And if the artist knows the limitations of the tool he can still create a great image with it.
 
Bassman2003 said:
Precisely my point.

You (and everybody else) seem to be willing to trade image integrity for being able to get something cheap, high resolution and now. This trend all started with the up-res chips of the HVX cameras.

Sure the image quality is nice and the shallow DOF is at never before at this price levels, but I see this "good enough" mentality being the prevailing mode of thought. "Clients will never notice it". "its just a little noisy in the shadows" "You only see it if you really look for it"

If we marginalize professional standards, who will want to pay for a professional?

I won't sell my DLSR because I use for still work.

RED is a video camera. So its design eliminates this.

I hear you, it is what it is.
Click to expand...

I'm with you bassman. We all wish we could get the same results as a $17500 camera as with a $3000 DSLR - but fact is you can't. People scream on the net that it's not true, that rainbows of moire will only be noticed by pixel peepers and so on. All this because they so desperately want to believe in the false promise that Reverie made last year, a promise that was, upon closer inspection, a lie, because the camera only works in very limited circumstances, and that clip was, after all, a 720p highly compressed web video, not a professional HD production going on air or to Blu-ray.

Another question to ask is how much is your time worth? It takes a lot of time and effort to shoot something. I for one do not want to put that time and effort behind srewy tools that will maybe let me down, and my client.

if you are doing short films for practice, then a 5D or 7D ARE dreams come true. But if you are charging money for your work you really should think of renting or buying proper tools.
 
coddida said:
Why is the RED thrown into almost every single one of these threads? If I wanted to buy a RED, I would. My questions are about the 5D. If I have questions about the RED, I will go to REDuser and ask them.
Click to expand...

We do this because the 5D is touted by low-end users who cannot see the difference as being a Red killer. This brings down the price of what I do, with tools like Red, because clients hear it too. Then I am no longer fairly compensated for the extra image quality my more expensive tools deliver.

We need to fight for the money to do things right.
 
kevinottawa said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
Click to expand...

Maybe you haven't noticed, but DVXuser isn't exactly a hotbed of academic precision when it comes to the use of language. Most of the time, even simple grammar and proper punctuation seems optional. Instead of anyone responding to my relevant question about the best way to go about downscaling HD to smaller resolutions, I get this oh-so-typical internet snarky non-reply. I'm well aware of the proper use of this term but in this case it also - or so I thought - adequately described a different sentiment. Upon reflection, I should have said "raises" rather than "begs" the question. For that I can only ask for your forgiveness. I hope you'll accept the apology and we can all move past this unfortunate matter.

Now, then... can anyone recommend a better method of downscaling HD? It seems rescaling in another application like After Effects or Shake might not be a bad idea, since they reportedly use better resizing algorithms. Apps like Sorenson Squeeze and Episode Pro also seem worth looking into. Has anyone tried?
 
NextWaveG said:
This is why you have multiple tools for multiple jobs. If your a production house and plan on doing shots that might result in bad moire, buy or rent a EX1 or RED or something else.

The thing that frustrates me is people basically saying the 5D useless because of moire, or jello, or whatever. Yes the camera ain't perfect, but it does work. And if you're willing to work with it's limitations you can get good results with it.
Click to expand...

You are not incorrect, but this is also a recent mode of thought brought about by recent camera limitations in the marketplace.

What happened to every camera of a certain ilk performing to a professional standard? Are we really supposed to whip out a different camera for every situation? Is this grounded in any reality?

Sure a 1/3" chip camera will not give a shallow DOF, so you would want a camera that offers shallow DOF if you want that look. That is a fine concept.

The images have improved but with some tradeoffs. I just hope the tradeoffs don't keep increasing at the sub $20,000 price level.
But to have to own the two cameras because one has operational limitations is an easy pass for the camera makers.

Pre-HD craze days, we did not whip out a different camera, we whipped out a better camera, but above a certain price point, all of the cameras could function in all of the same situations. PD-150 to a Varicam there was nothing you could not point it at and come home with the goods.
 
Robert Ruffo said:
We all wish we could get the same results as a $17500 camera as with a $3000 DSLR
Click to expand...
Actually Not all ,where did you learn to read ALL peoples minds ?Its unbelievable that you can tell what all people think and wish.
The point is - DSLRs are what they are,you wont change it ,you want improvement ? Go to canon website and send @mails like all those guys who asked about 24p firmware and canon might listen during planning improvements for new cams,but dont expect such improvements from current models please.They are what they are.
If DP is a bad DP because hes using 7d or 5d for tests on the set then i must say its a bizzare way of thinking that you have.
Im sure that most guys dont think that "House is using it and its great because of this" ,we are just curious how it will come out in professional hands on the real set and will it pass as tv series picturewise.
 
Last edited:
On this point I watched an evening of TV in the UK on my LG 1080 high def 37" tv.
Out of the 4 high production bbc dramas all had alaising in them at some point.

Derek
 
Bassman2003 said:
You are not incorrect, but this is also a recent mode of thought brought about by recent camera limitations in the marketplace.

What happened to every camera of a certain ilk performing to a professional standard? Are we really supposed to whip out a different camera for every situation? Is this grounded in any reality?

Sure a 1/3" chip camera will not give a shallow DOF, so you would want a camera that offers shallow DOF if you want that look. That is a fine concept.

The images have improved but with some tradeoffs. I just hope the tradeoffs don't keep increasing at the sub $20,000 price level.
But to have to own the two cameras because one has operational limitations is an easy pass for the camera makers.

Pre-HD craze days, we did not whip out a different camera, we whipped out a better camera, but above a certain price point, all of the cameras could function in all of the same situations. PD-150 to a Varicam there was nothing you could not point it at and come home with the goods.
Click to expand...

I have to say I dissagree with you. It is very common to use different cameras when necessary.

Say you own a video camera with a DOF adapter but need to put it in a small space...or say you have a really low light scene...these are both situations where a DSLR would potentially peform better.

I know several large production houses that own 5Ds and EX1s or REDs. And they shoot mostly on the 5D. Why? Cause they are able to use the 5D to create beautiful footage.

Just cause up till now, people didn't own multiple cameras doesn't mean you can't do it. The nice thing is that you don't have to break the bank to own an EX1 and a 5D.
 
I think you missed my point. Owning multiple cameras is not an issue. It is very common.

Needing to own multiple cameras because some of them just can't handle situations is my issue.

The industry has fallen in love with CMOS but it is not a 100% solution yet. It will fall down in some professional shooting situations. They like them because they are cheaper to produce. period.

I am not asking for the perfect camera, I just want present cameras to be able to perform to the standards of past cameras.

I don't understand why I see so many people embracing this attitude of "just use another camera" "The right camera for each situation" I guess they do not plan on paying for all of these cameras and still making a profit in their business?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top