Barry_Green
Moderator
Last edited by a moderator:
Aliasing
- Thread starter Barry_Green
- Start date
Barry_Green
Moderator
The ones in the price bracket I've been following, which is the 7D, 5D, GH1, and K-X, all do the same basic thing, to one degree or more. The GH1 doesn't appear to do the severe color contamination that the 7D and 5D do, but the amount of aliasing is still quite substantial.
Shallow depth of field look pretty.
Low light be good.
Price tag am nice.
That's a moire.
*Jack puts on dunce hat and sits in corner*
Does Barry make anyone else feel like they road to DVXuser on the short bus?
Wow, wow, wow. Thanks for the great article Barry. Obviously it's important to know what's what. And this amazing article will undoubtedly help many, many of us get the best out of our cameras. But as fore the questions you pose, I'd say, IMO, filmmaking is smoke in mirrors anyway. I'm looking for truth in content and truth in performance, but as for the rest I want an illusion with the appearance of authenticity that's either aesthetically pleasing, rough, or life-like heightened as appropriate to the story, that feels real whether it is or not.
The plastic surgery analogy works to illustrate the potential complications / problems that can arise, but doesn't work as well (for me) in the picking a date vs. picking a camera I think. Most of us want authenticity in a mate, but all of art is artifice - hopefully with the illusion of truth - and that seems to be what the DSLR's offer 99% of the time.
Low light be good.
Price tag am nice.
That's a moire.
*Jack puts on dunce hat and sits in corner*
Does Barry make anyone else feel like they road to DVXuser on the short bus?
Wow, wow, wow. Thanks for the great article Barry. Obviously it's important to know what's what. And this amazing article will undoubtedly help many, many of us get the best out of our cameras. But as fore the questions you pose, I'd say, IMO, filmmaking is smoke in mirrors anyway. I'm looking for truth in content and truth in performance, but as for the rest I want an illusion with the appearance of authenticity that's either aesthetically pleasing, rough, or life-like heightened as appropriate to the story, that feels real whether it is or not.
The plastic surgery analogy works to illustrate the potential complications / problems that can arise, but doesn't work as well (for me) in the picking a date vs. picking a camera I think. Most of us want authenticity in a mate, but all of art is artifice - hopefully with the illusion of truth - and that seems to be what the DSLR's offer 99% of the time.
philiplipetz
Veteran
When people say that they see aliasing only occationally in their hDSLR videos they are usually confusing aliasing and moire, one of the many artifacts caused by aliasing. Moire is more obviously wrong than normal aliasing. Most shots I have seen of men with beard stubble dramatically show how aliasing introduces false detail. The beard looks much stronger than it really is. This false detail is what Barry, thank you, is talking about.
John Froton
Well-known member
As always, your explanations are very enlightening Barry. Thank you for the article.
I wonder what steps the manufacturers of HDSLRs would need to implement in order to reduce the amount of aliasing in these or next gen cameras? Where specifically in the hardware is so much aliasing happening? In the h.264 encoding chip?
It makes me wonder if there are other h.264 encoding chips out there, in some video camcorders, that are producing images with considerably less aliasing.
I wonder what steps the manufacturers of HDSLRs would need to implement in order to reduce the amount of aliasing in these or next gen cameras? Where specifically in the hardware is so much aliasing happening? In the h.264 encoding chip?
It makes me wonder if there are other h.264 encoding chips out there, in some video camcorders, that are producing images with considerably less aliasing.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It's not in the encoder, I believe it's in the way the sensor is being read and subsequently downconverted. These sensors are not designed for video, they're designed for still camera use, and they have a limited speed at which they can be read out. The still-frame rate on a 7D is 8fps, on a GH1 it's 3.5fps. You cannot read the entire sensor at 60fps or even 24fps. So, they use pixel binning (or, as some insist, line-skipping) to reduce the amount of data read from the chip, and it is that process that is introducing all the aliasing. Then, there's the matter of converting that down to a 1920x1080 frame; according to Alan Roberts' examination of the 5D, he thinks that they're simply employing very poor downconversion hardware.
Until we get a camera specifically designed for video purposes, we will probably continue to see these issues. Red custom-designed their own sensor to get away from this, and we're probably going to have to see such an evolution in DSLRs to get away from it too. In the meantime, we have aliased performance, but we also have incredibly low price tags, so one could even look at the aliasing as an enabling technology -- it enables us to get sharper-looking images at unheard-of price tags. It's just that the images aren't accurate and can lead to serious image problems too, but ... then the old "you get what you pay for" adage comes into play.
Until we get a camera specifically designed for video purposes, we will probably continue to see these issues. Red custom-designed their own sensor to get away from this, and we're probably going to have to see such an evolution in DSLRs to get away from it too. In the meantime, we have aliased performance, but we also have incredibly low price tags, so one could even look at the aliasing as an enabling technology -- it enables us to get sharper-looking images at unheard-of price tags. It's just that the images aren't accurate and can lead to serious image problems too, but ... then the old "you get what you pay for" adage comes into play.
Windjammer
Active member
Great article
Last edited:
Barry_Green
Moderator
That's what I would consider the ideal. But not 2mp, you'd want at least 3mp. You have to factor in the resolution loss due to the Bayer pattern and demosaic process, so you need about 3 megapixels to deliver a truly sharp 1080p image. But yes, that would be the best of all possible worlds: incredible dynamic range, incredible sensitivity, tiny noise, razor sharp images, and could have an optimally-tuned anti-alias filter. Only problem would be that it would be lousy for shooting still photos, hence why it's not likely to happen on an HDSLR.
Windjammer
Active member
Good point
Last edited:
Incedentally, this is what the HMC40\TM300 has, 3MP per chip. But these are three-chip cams, do they use Bayer pattern? Do they NEED to be 3MP each?
Barry_Green
Moderator
A three-chip camera would not use a Bayer pattern. The Bayer pattern is necessary because CCD and CMOS chips are monochrome; therefore to get a single chip to see in color you need a Bayer pattern. Three-chip systems don't need or use the Bayer, they use a prism to split the light and direct the red, green, and blue to individual chips.
Those cams probably have denser chips to improve the still-camera functionality...
Those cams probably have denser chips to improve the still-camera functionality...
Seamus McFlannel
Well-known member
Barry,
This is a great article. I have a question in this regard that concerns the Scarlet, or rather the speculative information that has been disseminated about it. It seems that they are calling it a DSMC, and they are saying it is both a motion picture and a still camera. So, would the same problems apply in this case. It does seem that is primarily a motion camera though. The reason I'm asking is that I have almost made the decision to buy an HPX300 along with the P+S Mini35C. But then I started reading about the Scarlet S35. From what I've been reading, it looks as though the cost of the Scarlet with the necessary features would cost about the same as the HPX300 with the P+S Mini35C. So I'm wondering if I should wait for the Scarlet as it will take the same lenses I would use for the Mini35 but be less cumbersome and it would have a much larger imager. The rolling shutter would not be an issue as both the HPX300 and the Scarlet both use CMOS chips. BUT, if the the Scarlet would have aliasing issues, I wouldn't be interested.
With all that said, and with what we currently know, which do you think would be a better buy for the money.
By the way, I am strictly a cinema style shooter.
Thanks again for the article.
Seamus
This is a great article. I have a question in this regard that concerns the Scarlet, or rather the speculative information that has been disseminated about it. It seems that they are calling it a DSMC, and they are saying it is both a motion picture and a still camera. So, would the same problems apply in this case. It does seem that is primarily a motion camera though. The reason I'm asking is that I have almost made the decision to buy an HPX300 along with the P+S Mini35C. But then I started reading about the Scarlet S35. From what I've been reading, it looks as though the cost of the Scarlet with the necessary features would cost about the same as the HPX300 with the P+S Mini35C. So I'm wondering if I should wait for the Scarlet as it will take the same lenses I would use for the Mini35 but be less cumbersome and it would have a much larger imager. The rolling shutter would not be an issue as both the HPX300 and the Scarlet both use CMOS chips. BUT, if the the Scarlet would have aliasing issues, I wouldn't be interested.
With all that said, and with what we currently know, which do you think would be a better buy for the money.
By the way, I am strictly a cinema style shooter.
Thanks again for the article.
Seamus
strangways
Well-known member
The thing with HDSLRs is, as Barry says, "You can't have a single system designed to render 21-megapixel stills, and 2-megapixel video, simultaneously"
The RED ONE is (various cropping choices notwithstanding) a 12-megapixel sensor, doing 12-megapixel stills, and 12-megapixel video, simultaneously. Hence, no aliasing problems because the OLPF is designed for 12-megapixels, and that's all it ever records.
Of course, to be able to record 12-megapixel video, they are recording at a data rate that is 10 times higher than the HDSLRs!
Al MacLeod
Well-known member
Writing this article on aliasing must have taken some time!
After reading it I don't think rolling shutter meets the test for aliasing. The depiction of the propeller blades a cmos sensor renders is accurate. It just represents motion differently than a global shutter would. There is no extraneous or additional information added, nor is any information deleted.
I guess it's a definition thing.
After reading it I don't think rolling shutter meets the test for aliasing. The depiction of the propeller blades a cmos sensor renders is accurate. It just represents motion differently than a global shutter would. There is no extraneous or additional information added, nor is any information deleted.
I guess it's a definition thing.