5D Moire Work-around

The two shots in question weren't shot with different lenses, but with a completely different camera and codec (the Sony EX1 and C-D NanoFlash).

The vignetting is likely from being fully wide with the Singh-Ray VariND in place.

I don't really do much night fishing in shark-infested waters. Though, in that situation, the 5D would be better, as it's heavier and would cause more damage to a bull shark when used as a blunt object. The GH1, being "around half the mass" of the 7D, as Barry says, would not fare well as a weapon.
 
stephenmick said:
I don't really do much night fishing in shark-infested waters. Though, in that situation, the 5D would be better, as it's heavier and would cause more damage to a bull shark when used as a blunt object. The GH1, being "around half the mass" of the 7D, as Barry says, would not fare well as a weapon.
Click to expand...

You know what's worse than shark infested waters at night?

Manchester city centre.

That's the sole reason I went from a GH1 to a 5D. When I throw it at an attacker, it hurts and hurts bad.
 
ROCKMORE said:
How do all these resolution figures stack up against the GH1?
Click to expand...
About the same.

Your chart test showed the aliasing & moire issue to be solved to a greater extent on the GH1 than canon 7D and 5D, so has the GH1's HD resolution really been filtered down to become a standard def resolution as well?
Click to expand...
It has about as much aliasing, but what the GH1 doesn't do is the color fringing thing the 5D and 7D do. Overall resolution is a tad better on the GH1, but not enough to make a substantial difference. It still gets most of its HD "sharpness" through aliasing.
 
Reminds me of the early 3D console games. They scaled textures without applying any anti-aliasing. So you had jaggies, hard edges, no smoothness to the image. Then later we had the 3D accelerator cards come out which had hardware based 2x and 4x anti-aliasing, which took the image and smoothed it out. That early non-AA texture look is essential what we have with DSLRs but the source image is so amazing and the lenses so cinematic that we can forgive a lot of the aliased detail and just appreciate it for what it is in the real world.

I am sure the next gen image scaling routines will add some kind of anti-aliasing filter in software like those 3D cards did for games, to avoid compromising stills performance and to avoid having to sample all pixels and downscale the huge native res image to 1080p. In fact I can't see that ever being done on a DSLR it's just too crazy.
 
Barry_Green said:
About the same.


It has about as much aliasing, but what the GH1 doesn't do is the color fringing thing the 5D and 7D do. Overall resolution is a tad better on the GH1, but not enough to make a substantial difference. It still gets most of its HD "sharpness" through aliasing.
Click to expand...

Why then are there so many complaints about aliasing with the 5D and 7D, while I have not gotten any complaints about aliasing with the GH1? It's quite the opposite, all the GH1 feedback reports no aliasing problems.

If as you say, "It has about as much aliasing", on the GH1 why is the result acceptable, while the 5D & 7D are out of control in some situations?
 
ROCKMORE said:
Why then are there so many complaints about aliasing with the 5D and 7D, while I have not gotten any complaints about aliasing with the GH1? It's quite the opposite, all the GH1 feedback reports no aliasing problems.

If as you say, "It has about as much aliasing", on the GH1 why is the result acceptable, while the 5D & 7D are out of control in some situations?
Click to expand...
What Barry is saying is that the GH1 has a different kind of aliasing that looks a lot less offensive. "Aliasing" doesn't have a particular appearance; the word refers to any distorted representation/reproduction of the original image or sound.
 
ydgmdlu said:
What Barry is saying is that the GH1 has a different kind of aliasing that looks a lot less offensive. "Aliasing" doesn't have a particular appearance; the word refers to any distorted representation/reproduction of the original image or sound.
Click to expand...


Out of the box one camera produces what "appears" to be acceptable results, while another camera "appears" to produce disturbing results, true or false?

Appearance is everything. I believe what I see and so does my client. They don't understand technical explanations and don't want to hear them, I know, because I've tried to educate them many times resulting in blank expressions.

If I told my client the results of these tests we are looking at in front of us, lead me to believe the cameras produced "near the same results" they would think I'd lost my mind. I'm referring to Barry's charts.

if I had to pick one of these cameras based on these test results for a shoot, it would be a camera that produces results to keep my client from dumping me on the next project or maybe in the middle of this one.

Aliasing is, and has always been bad at any level of production, I never heard the term less offensive used before. If something is crawling around on my screen, be it "aliasing", "moire", "color fringing", or even "less offensive", the job will be rejected.

If you deal with paying clients on a daily basis, you know they don't accept excuses, if you fail they won't pay you. There are a hundred guys with Red One rigs across the street waiting to knock you out of the box.
 
Last edited:
>What Barry is saying is that the GH1 has a different kind of aliasing that looks a lot less offensive.

As I understand the GH1 has a stronger AA filter (good for video and not so good for still resolution)
 
ROCKMORE said:
Out of the box one camera produces what "appears" to be acceptable results, while another camera "appears" to produce disturbing results, true or false?
Click to expand...
Out of the box, the Canon produces big swaths of color and weird mushing blobs of color, on a black and white chart that has no color whatsoever on it. That is worrisome, because it will manifest itself somehow or other in non-chart footage. And it does, in the moire patterns; the GH1 will produce moire patterns but not introduce color shifts in the image, the Canons' moire patterns are "rainbow" patterns of orange and purple.

So aliasing is very present in both, but color fringing and color shifting moire are much much more prevalent in the Canons.

Overall amount of aliasing is similar, and the appearance of sharpness that is related to aliasing is about comparable. Less in the GH1, but it's a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.

Simple fact of the matter is, when you're dealing with a low price tag, you will deal with compromises. The Canon gets rainbow moire patterns, the GH1 gets mushy muddy footage on high-detail scenes. Pick your poison.

if I had to pick one of these cameras based on these test results for a shoot, it would be a camera that produces results to keep my client from dumping me on the next project or maybe in the middle of this one.
Click to expand...
Which is why I say, anyone who is dumping an EX1 or HPX300 (or even HMC40) for a DSLR *for image quality purposes* is ... well, in my opinion, they're being foolish. The conventional video cameras deliver more dynamic range, much more legitimate resolution, and far fewer complications from aliasing. They are, however, more expensive and have deeper DOF, are bigger, don't have interchangeable lenses.

The DSLRs have the advantage of shallow DOF and low cost and interchangeable lenses. They are not competitive with modern conventional video cameras in terms of general quality of image. Period.

You pay a price for that low price tag. If you're willing to pay that price (aliasing, moire, etc) then they are a fantastic deal.

If you deal with paying clients on a daily basis, you know they don't accept excuses, if you fail they won't pay you. There are a hundred guys with Red One rigs across the street waiting to knock you out of the box.
Click to expand...
Well, let's just be very clear, if very offensive: if *anyone* thinks they're going to get better or even comparable results out of a $1700 DSLR, vs. a $17,500 Red One, then they're just being willfully ignorant or are actively trying to fool themselves. Or, they're just blinded by the price tag and want to believe so incredibly fervently, that they'll fall for anything. Or, in the worst case, they're just plain stupid.

Now, with that said -- the DSLRs can be put in scenarios where they can deliver results that look about as good as the Red could. In Certain Scenarios. Head shots are the most prevalent and ideal one to demonstrate this capability. I have seen 720/60p footage out of a GH1 that absolutely floored me. I've seen stunning 1080/24 out of the 7D. I've seen GH1 1080/24p that I can only describe as fan-friggin'-tastic.

BUT: the DSLRs can also be put into scenarios where they look like ASS. A deep-focus shot of a house, for example. The Red would not fail you in that scenario. Neither would any modern conventional video camera.

I know there are people who are comfortable using DSLRs as their primary camera in business situations. I am not one of them. I have two of these, I know them pretty well now, and I would not trust a paying job to one of these (unless it was a micro-pay job and it was entirely portraiture/interview/head shot stuff). If there's a paycheck and a reputation on the line, I'm using a product that will perform to professional standards each and every time.

I'm sure other folks will write in and say that they're pros and the DSLR meets their "professional standards" -- fine for them, and I wish them the best of luck.
 
Last edited:
ustein said:
As I understand the GH1 has a stronger AA filter (good for video and not so good for still resolution)
Click to expand...
I'm not sure of the relative strength of the two AA filters, but I wouldn't be surprised if the GH1 has a slightly stronger one, since the stills resolution is lower on the GH1 (14mpix vs. 18mpix). It doesn't have to let as much spurious fine detail through, because in its highest resolution mode (14mpix stills) it doesn't need as much legitimate fine detail as the 7D (18mpix).
 
I compare with other 12MP stills and here the GH1 shows a bit less detail.

I also agree after some time that aliasing and moire are the main issues right now. Fine details and straight lines can catch you.
 
Actually the GH1 in RAW stills mode is renowned for being one of the sharpest highest resolving 12MP (effective, in 3:2 ratio mode) camera available.

I think the reason the GH1 moire isn't an issue on the GH1 (and this is a complete guess) is that the sensor is smaller, faster, and can sample more lines than the 7D and 5D per scan.

In other words it doesn't have to skip out as many lines to achieve 24 frames per second because it's vertical line resolution and physical sensor size is significantly less than the 5D.

In even simpler terms, it's small red and shiny.
 
commanderspike said:
Actually the GH1 in RAW stills mode is renowned for being one of the sharpest highest resolving 12MP (effective, in 3:2 ratio mode) camera available.

I think the reason the GH1 moire isn't an issue on the GH1 (and this is a complete guess) is that the sensor is smaller, faster, and can sample more lines than the 7D and 5D per scan.

In other words it doesn't have to skip out as many lines to achieve 24 frames per second because it's vertical line resolution and physical sensor size is significantly less than the 5D.

In even simpler terms, it's small red and shiny.
Click to expand...


Have you seen any comparisons showing any difference between the sensor speed of the PAL 50fps and NTSC 60fps versions of the camera in terms of the image issues? It's only 20% put we are getting a closer look these days.

(Barry is the GH1 in your chart test a PAL or NTSC? BTW your last post set it straight)

It does look as though the GH1 is a safer place to start as a B roll camera on a paying job. It will undoubtedly produce shots that viewed in post will outperform the primary camera in many cases without taking any risks. The GH1 does perform well.
Lower cost and even the added ability to use a few lenses the Canon mirror prevents, like some wide 35mm Zeiss ARRI standard mount lenses that haven't seen much action lately I'd like to give a go.
 
ROCKMORE said:
It does look as though the GH1 is a safer place to start as a B roll camera on a paying job. It will undoubtedly produce shots that viewed in post will outperform the primary camera in many cases without taking any risks. The GH1 does perform well.
Click to expand...

I strongly advise against this. The GH1 is a nice camera but it has far bigger issues than moire on the 5D and lower overall image quality in almost all shooting conditions.

If you go down this road, you'll meet me coming the over way!!

It's resolution and sharpness for stills in RAW and lack of moire are it's ONLY image quality strong points over the 5D.
 
It does look as though the GH1 is a safer place to start as a B roll camera on a paying job
Click to expand...
But, the GH1 can occasionally pooch your shot with its underpowered codec. Aliasing will always be present, and in the 7D you can get some occasional rainbow moire, on the GH1 you get occasional codec pooching of the shot. If you're trusting your professional project to a $1500-$1700 product, just understand that there's no free lunch and you're going to have to accept some compromises.

These are consumer products (all of them, 5D, 7D, GH1, K-7, D300, whatever). Their employment on a paying job is something you'll have to weigh for yourself. I wouldn't advise anyone to use a nonprofessional product in a professional environment, although people do every day and many folks don't have a problem with it at all.
 
The definition of nonprofessional product depends on your application of said product. If Shane Hurlbut can use the 5D on the set of one of the biggest hollywood movies means he can glean some advantage from it. So it's not about cost or whether the camera comes from a professional linage or a consume one. The decision is not that binary. It's all about how you intend to use it.

But I still think the 5D is better overall than the GH1 when it comes to image quality, having used both out on the street in my own small way!
 
commanderspike said:
I strongly advise against this. The GH1 is a nice camera but it has far bigger issues than moire on the 5D and lower overall image quality in almost all shooting conditions.

If you go down this road, you'll meet me coming the over way!!

It's resolution and sharpness for stills in RAW and lack of moire are it's ONLY image quality strong points over the 5D.
Click to expand...

There is really a split decision on these cameras. Both are great and both have a potential problem that can be worked around.
As we've seen in the opening frame of this post, the occasional nasty 5D moire attack can easily be cured with spike's quick emergency fix, at the loss of resolution that nobody will be able to see unless freeze framed and closely scrutinized.

Commanderspike has both cameras and strongly recommends 5D over GH1, what's your pick Barry? (Even if your decision is the lesser of two evils)

There is still a third camera soon to be released that may get me something to play around with while waiting for these problems to be sorted out. That would be the 1500D (If it really exists) 1080p, 30fps, I can test all my other lenses, dirt cheap, and still able apply the emergency spike moire fix if needed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top