5D olpf removal, this possible on Af100?

This is one of the sillier hacks I've ever seen undertaken in any camera platform.

My guess would be that so long as the OLPF is a seperate part, it would be removable. I would also guess that it would be rather difficult and of dubious value, just as on the 5d3. Keep your warranty intact and buy a GH2 body to hack for when you want intense detail.
 
EndCredits said:
There have been a few people removing the olpf from the 5d mk3 lately. Is this something that is vaguely possible to do to the AF100?
(not that i have the technical know how, confidence, or even a need for it)

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7813/how-i-opened-my-5d-mark-iii-and-why-you-have-to-be-crazy-to-do-it
Click to expand...

This is just an assumption on my part. However I believe that the AF100 only has one OLPF. So removing that, would possibly open the door to aliasing/moire.
Where as the 5D Mark III has two OLPF's, and the removal of one of those two has resulted in the image going from soft to more resolute, without aliasing/moire.


http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
 
I couldn't imagine risking the most important and fragile component of my camera
believing that I understood the UV characteristics better than the design engineers.
It's why you see all those busted down "fast and furious" wanna-be cars on the freeway.
Even if it's marginally better, the risk to the sensor is too great.

Jeff
 
and the removal of one of those two has resulted in the image going from soft to more resolute, without aliasing/moire.
Click to expand...
That seems unlikely. Has anyone shot a proper res chart with fine-gradation trumpets? That's how you see aliasing under a controlled test condition.

Sometimes people just don't see it. Remember that there were people out there denying that there was ANY aliasing problem at all on the 5D, and that it was just gorgeous and beautiful at all times, and when I and others pointed at the painfully obvious, they carried flaming torches and pitchforks and called for our heads? Whereas now, it's universally acknowledged that the problem was there all along. Even Philip Bloom said "aliasing and moire are the bane of my existence."

So when it comes to removing a filter... If Canon put in that filter, they probably did so for a very good reason. I mean, what's the alternative -- to think that Canon employs engineers who are idiots and who don't know how to build cameras?

I know people want to believe in magic and fairy dust, but before anyone even entertains an idea like removing part of their camera, they should do some scientific and repeatable testing using proper equipment that will reveal the flaws that the engineers probably prevented by putting that piece in there in the first place.
 
I think its really exciting that people try this sort of stuff out. Soft ware hacks are fantastic but actually toying with the hardware seems really interesting.
The other thing i find amusing about it is that for some reason I had assumed the olpf was software, not sure why but I did :)

@Barry, I don't think canons engineers being idiots is the only alternative. Some time things are the way the are for all sorts of reasons and some times that can be improved upon or a different result is preferable. Ether way I think its great that people explore the possibilities.

I had not heard of the HVX Hydra untill recently and all though it seems a bit funny now, I bet it was an exciting idea for those working on it.
 
The other big thing is that the 5D is a great high rez stills camera that happens to shoot alright video, the AF-100 is a dedicated video camera.
The OLPF for the Canon would be optimized for stills, not video, so there may be some advantage to changing it ( but I wouldn't be doing it)
The low pass filter for the AF-100 would have been designed for HD video so removing it would cause you far more grief.
 
Coming at this from the other side, I read the Philip Bloom bit about cheating the 5D3's soft image by sharpening in post. Figured the same might work on the AF. Tried it on a few samples I had sitting about, +~20% in FCP, and the results weren't bad... kind of depends on the subject, though... good for small landscape details, not so good for portraits and people. I compared this to adding sharpening in camera and preferred the post-processed samples.
 
1) Count me as one of the doubters that removing the OLPF from the 5D accomplishes anything of any substance, at least until someone objectively tests a before-and-after on a simple resolution chart. "real life" scenes shot at different times of the day at different f-stops is utterly pointless in determining the difference; a resolution chart is the tool designed to measure what difference there may or may not be.

2) Can't be done. I was all over the engineers on this one, and even got shown schematics of how the sensor block is built. The OLPF is behind the sealed sensor protection glass, behind the ABB iris. That block is all built and sealed in a dustproof "clean room". I doubt anyone other than an optical technician would stand much of a chance of pulling this off, and even then, depending on how the block is sealed, it may not be possible to do it without damaging it.

I'd love to do it just to try it out and see if it makes any difference, and would be willing to send my camera in to an expert who can guarantee a successful removal just so we can see what difference it makes. But it looks like it's a vastly different process than what is done for the 5D (that's an easily-accessible second filter, not part of a sealed optical block).
 
Barry_Green said:
Sometimes people just don't see it. Remember that there were people out there denying that there was ANY aliasing problem at all on the 5D, and that it was just gorgeous and beautiful at all times, and when I and others pointed at the painfully obvious, they carried flaming torches and pitchforks and called for our heads? Whereas now, it's universally acknowledged that the problem was there all along. Even Philip Bloom said "aliasing and moire are the bane of my existence."
Click to expand...

. . .but it looks so "organic" and "filmic"!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top