5D Mark III - 890 lines of resolution

From the ML team reports of a 1620 intermediate pixel buffer, 810 lines is perhaps max resolution possible. ACR processed RAW is likely around 950 lines (not quite 960 (max possible before aliasing)). 1:1 crop RAW mode appears to be full 960 lines (better than C300 from Andrew's test chart).
 
You think it's that high? I'm still not convinced there's as much resolution as the GH2's I owned. DOF can be a fickle mistress though, but I have been shooting the 5d3 raw in pretty much F/5.6 - F/11. I will say the dynamic range is far superior; you get the gorgeous Canon colors and the shallow DOF as well as more resolution. Finding fast enough cards without breaking the bank and getting the internal audio working properly are the biggest 2 hurdles left. Oh, and workflow improvement.
 
jcs said:
Did you see the test chart 5D3 vs GH2 & C300? http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/5d-raw-iso-chart-resolution-test.jpg
5D3 RAW is quite a bit higher res than GH2 (even C300 in 1:1 mode), at least according to those charts.
Click to expand...

You can see that the C300 is CONSIDERABLY sharper. All the rings are visible, on the 5dmarkIII raw the last rings start to mess up. Remember that ACR does on default do quite a lot of sharpening on the 5d image. I prefer it when it's set to 0.
 
maarek said:
You can see that the C300 is CONSIDERABLY sharper. All the rings are visible, on the 5dmarkIII raw the last rings start to mess up. Remember that ACR does on default do quite a lot of sharpening on the 5d image. I prefer it when it's set to 0.
Click to expand...
C300 is indeed sharper (and less aliased) vs. the scaled down 5D3 RAW footage (non- 1:1 cropped). While the C300 has a standard color array, it does not not require de-Bayering: http://filmmakermagazine.com/38527-inside-the-canon-c300/:
We use a very nimble readout mechanism inside the sensor and we directly lift out the blue, and if you look at the numbers 3840 x 2160; you’ll find the blue is 1920 x 1080. You’ll find the red is 1920 x 1080. So we lift those two out directly.

When you look what’s left, there’s green; which is 1920 x 2160, and it’s a quincunx structure, but when you break that down, it’s actually two 1920 x 1080 frames. So we lift out two greens: coming out of the sensor is 4:4:4: red, green 1, green 2, blue. Uncontaminated by each other. Each of those 4 is 1920 x 1080 and they are clean.

The secret sauce, the magic in this baby, is those two greens. Those two greens are separated by a half a pixel, vertically and horizontally. If you add those two greens, you get an absolute cancellation of the first order alising, so you have an extremely clean green that nobody else can do. Once you matrix to get the black and white signal, the luma, that’s 70% green. That terrific green makes a terrific luma, and that’s one of the things that has been noticed in this; just what a clean, sharp picture is being made by this camera.

By adding the two greens, you raise the sensitivity of green, you raise the dynamic range of green, because the signal goes up by two to one, and the noise only comes up by the square root of 2, so you immediately extend the dynamic range. There’s a win-win in this double green.
Click to expand...

However, when you compare the C300 to the 5D3 RAW 1:1 crop mode, the 5D3 RAW image is completely clean with no aliasing, besting the C300 (not clear if that's a valid test though based on Andrew's comments, however). A full, aligned test chart would be helpful in any case.
 
Oh man, now I want to see what a maxmax modified B&W 5d3 can do.

The company maxmax actually removes the CFA using some special process they developed, they can do it to almost any camera.

Expensive though, $6550 to buy a visible light B&W 5d3.
 
Some folks tried maxmax before and posted results here (removed the OLPF); those videos are gone now but it was clear it wasn't worth it (not a visible improvement in quality). Now that we see the RAW output is fairly high resolution, the OLPF and other optical hardware were never the issue.
 
jcs said:
Some folks tried maxmax before and posted results here (removed the OLPF); those videos are gone now but it was clear it wasn't worth it (not a visible improvement in quality). Now that we see the RAW output is fairly high resolution, the OLPF and other optical hardware were never the issue.
Click to expand...

Anyone can remove the OLPF, well, maybe not so much on the 5d3.

What maxmax excels at is removing the CFA (Colour Filter Array), making an actual B&W camera, and I have yet to see any videos of that yet, especially coming from a raw source.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top