5D Mark III - 890 lines of resolution

bernard said:
John,
Isn't it fair to say that the (analog) AA filter can't be much of a factor on the 5DIII because that filter is calibrated for still photos, whereas the video image has pixel spacing (or effective size if it uses a 9x9 block) that is 1/3 the (spatial) frequency?
Click to expand...

The OLPF is tuned to the Bayer array. What happens after the photons are captured Canon has not yet disclosed.

bernard said:
Further, can we surmise that since the C300 is video only, that its (analog) AA filter is tuned for video?
Click to expand...
Again, the OLPF is tuned to the Bayer array and its specific resolution.

bernard said:
And finally, can we go further out on a limb and say that the good AA results of the 5DIII are due to digital AA? Is it possible that a well-tuned analog AA filter works better than digital low-pass filtering?
Click to expand...
There's no way around doing a good OLPF before the Bayer sensor array if the goal is to cut off high frequencies which will alias when sampled (captured).

bernard said:
Speaking of digital AA filtering, isn't it necessary to do that using the full frequency band? I.e. you can't just average the 3x3 block and THEN do digital AA filtering, right? Otherwise, there's no way to know what's an aliasing artifact and what's not, correct?
Click to expand...
Averaging performs a low pass filter. The number of samples determines the cutoff frequency. There is an assumption of 3x3 pixel binning, but most folks aren't taking into account the layout of the Bayer array. The filters don't work by finding artifacts, they simply remove frequencies higher than 1/2 the output target resolution before downsampling (Nyquist sampling theory).

bernard said:
As a corollary, would you agree that only the low-frequency performance of lenses is important on the 5DIII?
Click to expand...
No. Study MTF (Modulation Transfer Function)- more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_transfer_function
 
jcs said:
Again, ~890 lines with the OLPF is pretty solid. Still looking forward to the OLPF-removed resolution chart (no point pixel peeping other test images given the result of this last test- only a chart will tell us any actual resolution improvement).
Click to expand...

I'd want to be sure there's a significant boost in resolution before I do any surgery on mine. If post sharpening has the same result I'll probably stick with the built in diffusion filter.
 
dustylense said:
Oh no. The 5dmk3 is soft again. You guys are going to kill your eyes and brian cells in search of 100 lines. Now, it's all kinda just getting a bit silly.
Click to expand...

I've been saying it for ages "pixel peeping will make you go blind". And give you hairy palms. And get you divorced....that could be a good thing! One thing is for sure it won't win you an academy award...you gotta make movies to get one of those.
 
squig said:
I've been saying it for ages "pixel peeping will make you go blind". And give you hairy palms. And get you divorced....that could be a good thing! One thing is for sure it won't win you an academy award...you gotta make movies to get one of those.
Click to expand...

Pixel peeping for its own sake is silly, sure... but trust me - the Academy Award winners have someone in their team peeping at the pixels for them. They are also looking at stuff with eagle eyes themselves. I've had multiple Oscar nominees / winners pixel-peel my work for their movies:

- Soderbergh has given me notes on the kerning of individual letters for a trailer title. And he was right.

- Vince Pace (you know, Avatar stereo guru) once told me that one element (out of 50 layers) in a stereo main title sequence was misaligned by "a pixel or two"... and he was right: It was scaled to 100.1% in the left eye, 100% in the right.

- DVXuser's own Ruairi Robinson pixel peeps his movies for sure... that's why every detail just looks damn right.

I could give you a lot more examples but you get the idea: You just need both - attention to detail AND the big picture.

For me: it's more like you subconsciously know something is wrong... then zoom in to check. And then get accused of pixel peeping :)

As for that 5DMk3 example... I think that the one with the "secondary OLPF removed" is an April 1 thing... could be wrong, of course!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
 
Last edited:
bruceallen said:
(...) but you get the idea: You just need both - attention to detail AND the big picture.

For me: it's more like you subconsciously know something is wrong... then zoom in to check. And then get accused of pixel peeping :)
Click to expand...
;-)

bruceallen said:
As for that 5DMk3 example... I think that the one with the "secondary OLPF removed" is an April 1 thing... could be wrong, of course!
Click to expand...
I guess that one you are missin' :-)
 
bruceallen said:
Pixel peeping for its own sake is silly, sure... but trust me - the Academy Award winners have someone in their team peeping at the pixels for them. They are also looking at stuff with eagle eyes themselves. I've had multiple Oscar nominees / winners pixel-peel my work for their movies:

- Soderbergh has given me notes on the kerning of individual letters for a trailer title. And he was right.

- Vince Pace (you know, Avatar stereo guru) once told me that one element (out of 50 layers) in a stereo main title sequence was misaligned by "a pixel or two"... and he was right: It was scaled to 100.1% in the left eye, 100% in the right.

- DVXuser's own Ruairi Robinson pixel peeps his movies for sure... that's why every detail just looks damn right.

I could give you a lot more examples but you get the idea: You just need both - attention to detail AND the big picture.

For me: it's more like you subconsciously know something is wrong... then zoom in to check. And then get accused of pixel peeping :)

As for that 5DMk3 example... I think that the one with the "secondary OLPF removed" is an April 1 thing... could be wrong, of course!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

Why hasn't Bruce been elected President yet?
 
bruceallen said:
I could give you a lot more examples but you get the idea: You just need both - attention to detail AND the big picture.

For me: it's more like you subconsciously know something is wrong... then zoom in to check. And then get accused of pixel peeping :)
Click to expand...

Totally agree.
It's a constant balancing act between the creative and technical side (especially on a low budget).
 
bruceallen said:
Pixel peeping for its own sake is silly, sure... but trust me - the Academy Award winners have someone in their team peeping at the pixels for them. They are also looking at stuff with eagle eyes themselves. I've had multiple Oscar nominees / winners pixel-peel my work for their movies:

- Soderbergh has given me notes on the kerning of individual letters for a trailer title. And he was right.

- Vince Pace (you know, Avatar stereo guru) once told me that one element (out of 50 layers) in a stereo main title sequence was misaligned by "a pixel or two"... and he was right: It was scaled to 100.1% in the left eye, 100% in the right.

- DVXuser's own Ruairi Robinson pixel peeps his movies for sure... that's why every detail just looks damn right.

I could give you a lot more examples but you get the idea: You just need both - attention to detail AND the big picture.

For me: it's more like you subconsciously know something is wrong... then zoom in to check. And then get accused of pixel peeping :)

As for that 5DMk3 example... I think that the one with the "secondary OLPF removed" is an April 1 thing... could be wrong, of course!

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Click to expand...

The best post I've read on dvxuser in a long, long time.
 
Im looking at my new ipad, and i only see 600-700 at best. Moire anything past that.

Jcs, sorry but stop it with the delusions. Mk iii looks good but it wont RESOLVE like C300.
 
Last edited:
Guys, the HVX resolved about what, 600 lines of resolution? Wasn't it used in big screen productions occasionally? Did you notice the resolution loss? I'm actually really, really impressed by this number. I WILL definitely get one!
 
SPZ said:
Guys, the HVX resolved about what, 600 lines of resolution? Wasn't it used in big screen productions occasionally? Did you notice the resolution loss? I'm actually really, really impressed by this number. I WILL definitely get one!
Click to expand...
exactly.
 
jcs said:
... however 890 lines (horizontal resolution) is sufficient for my needs...
Click to expand...

The whole thread you´re talking about a horizontal resolution of about 890 lines. I only see 700 lines without sharpening and postpro and at best 750 lines with it. Maybe one of us is looking at the wrong part of the test-chart...
 
Uwe Lansing said:
The whole thread you´re talking about a horizontal resolution of about 890 lines. I only see 700 lines without sharpening and postpro and at best 750 lines with it. Maybe one of us is looking at the wrong part of the test-chart...
Click to expand...

I included the part I am looking at on the first post in this thread (the "horizontal resolution" section). My understanding is that we count alternating black & white lines until we can't count them anymore (smeared together). As we approach the limit of the camera's resolution, the lines begin to smear. However, we can still count alternating black and white (just barely), all the way up to just below 900. What criteria are you using to stop counting at 750?
 
jcs said:
I included the part I am looking at on the first post in this thread (the "horizontal resolution" section). My understanding is that we count alternating black & white lines until we can't count them anymore (smeared together). As we approach the limit of the camera's resolution, the lines begin to smear. However, we can still count alternating black and white (just barely), all the way up to just below 900. What criteria are you using to stop counting at 750?
Click to expand...
moire.

sorry to burst your bubble, im only seeing 600-700
if it did do 890, it wouldve matched atleast against GH2 and would look similar to a C300.
 
jcs said:
... My understanding is that we count alternating black & white lines until we can't count them anymore (smeared together)...
Click to expand...

Exactly, me too. But the horizontal resolution refers to the vertical lines as you can see in this picture:



So, in this part of the chart I´m only able to perceive around 700-750 lines...
 
ewe & dcloud- at 6:18 in Jason Greene's video (https://vimeo.com/groups/5dhd/videos/39517721), right side horizontal res indicator (curved- funnel), you can count the lines up to around 850. Looking at the pure linear lines, bottom center, you can count up to around 890.

Canon rates the C300 at "1000+" lines. Note the mathematical limit before aliasing starts is 960 lines, so Canon (and Sony for the F3, etc.) are counting lines that are starting to have aliasing artifacts.

In other threads and forums, we found that sharpened 5D3 footage was at least as sharp if not sharper than GH2 footage. Then the conversation turned to, "you shouldn't have to sharpen in post", which is a valid concern, however it's our only option right now for the 5D3 (for those looking for an ultrasharp image). Removing the OLPF may be another more invasive option (though I was able to match via post processing the single example frame provided so far).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top