Canon 5d mark iii improved- olpf removed for higher resolution

Kholi said:
I'm tuned in, again.

That's two reports that the OLPF change is significant. I'm gonna assume that Andrew didn't shoot something controllable before he removed it, though.
The prospect of decent resolved Full Frame being an OLPF removal away is beginning to sound pretty tempting.
Click to expand...

Cosimo Bullo said:
Very much so...
Risk = reward. My hat's off to these guys taking a chance...
Click to expand...



So getting down to what's important- Andrew of EOSHD wrote:

"Absolutely no sign of moire or aliasing and a nice feel to fine detail. It is very close to the GH2 / C300. But full frame!!"

"Footage looks more cinematic, more organic."

It becomes painfully clearer everyday that Canon didn't need to add that secondary OLPF to the cleaning system mechanism.



http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
 
Last edited:
PappasArts said:
So getting down to what's important- Andrew of EOSHD wrote:

"Absolutely no sign of moire or aliasing and a nice feel to fine detail. It is very close to the GH2 / C300. But full frame!!"
Click to expand...


That's also the opposite of "sharpening can do this same job."

If he felt that it could, he probably would've stated that. Still, a side by side would be good.

Eyes out for his footage.
 
refocusedmedia said:
Well, if this and the two comments above yours are indeed accurate then ya... I can see why you guys would be a bit excited. :)
Click to expand...
Mine do not count? Michael's (Pappas) and Kholi's either? Do you know who I am? : D What about to watch again the footage again and put some fair of your own then? Wouldn't it count better? :-)
 
Emanuel said:
Mine do not count? Michael's (Pappas) and Kholi's either? Do you know who I am? : D What about to watch again the footage again and put some fair of your own then? Wouldn't it count better? :-)
Click to expand...

Honestly, the footage from James Miller didn't look all that much different from Philip Bloom's video review where he showed how to improve the image in post (sharpening). That's why all this excitement has been extremely confusing, especially when you factor in the initial suggestion that Miller's image contained aliasing\moire where as the post-sharpened native image did not.
 
refocusedmedia said:
Honestly, the footage from James Miller didn't look all that much different from Philip Bloom's video review where he showed how to improve the image in post (sharpening). That's why all this excitement has been extremely confusing, especially when you factor in the initial suggestion that Miller's image contained aliasing\moire where as the post-sharpened native image did not.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly but just like the GH2 hack enthusiasts some of the people here don't seem to want to apply any scientific rigour or objective testing. It's sufficient for them that in their opinion the video look awesome or at least better than they had been led to believe that the 5D3 was going to deliver. Are there actually any 5D3 owners reading this thread who are convinced by this flimsy evidence because I certainly am not.
 
I'll say it again, DUST! Forget post sharpening, thats easy. Post removal of DUST will be reality and I'm sure, a pain in the neck. I'll stick with the easy post sharpening.
 
There is a limit to post sharpening that you usually reach very fast . I downloaded the original files and played around with sharpening and I was very surprise how high you can go without altering too much the out of focus background.
What I mean is post sharpening seems to also go very high with these images.
 
how can this OLPF filter be strong enough that the video looks so soft out of the camera, yet weak enough that it doesn't affect stills? with such a strong filter, RAW stills should be a mush of non-detailed identical pixels, but they're not - which leads me to think... (you know I'm always on the optimistic side) that filter actually changes from stills to video mode, it is electronically controlled somehow... and Magic Lantern will give as a way to control it without tearing the camera or getting rid of the dust-removal mechanism :)
 
Samuel H said:
how can this OLPF filter be strong enough that the video looks so soft out of the camera, yet weak enough that it doesn't affect stills? with such a strong filter, RAW stills should be a mush of non-detailed identical pixels, but they're not - which leads me to think... (you know I'm always on the optimistic side) that filter actually changes from stills to video mode, it is electronically controlled somehow... and Magic Lantern will give as a way to control it without tearing the camera or getting rid of the dust-removal mechanism :)
Click to expand...

Actually the dust removal system can be cut and paste to a new piece of glass, you can DIY if you are skilled enough, or maxmax.com can do it for you for extra $175.
The total cost of removing OLPF, replace with a clear IRC filter and transplant the dust removal system is $400+$175+$20 shippping = $595

Will Magic Lantern save you $595? We have to wait until Canon release the first firmware update.
 
marvinhello said:
Actually the dust removal system can be cut and paste to a new piece of glass, you can DIY if you are skilled enough, or maxmax.com can do it for you for extra $175.
The total cost of removing OLPF, replace with a clear IRC filter and transplant the dust removal system is $400+$175+$20 shippping = $595.
Click to expand...

IR filter and working dust system sounds like a winner if aliasing and moire aren't significantly increased. Hopefully someone will test disconnecting the electrical connector to see if there is a software change happening too (else hooking up the dust system might defeat the purpose of replacing the OLPF).
 
Not the first person to use any info from Andrew, but after seeing his London MKIII video, I think I may actually trust his judgement for once if he says that the image is vastly improved over that.



Probably the most convincing MKIII footage I've seen personally. Sharpening isn't as eye searing in this, and the color, range, cleanliness of the download half-a-gig file is quite tasty. So, if the removed OLPF trumps this, then to me it's justifiable.

The question is, as already brought up: why and how?????
 
I called Canon's 1-800 # and talked to one of their reps. I asked him about the mark lll's soft image. I told him about people using other lenses with the camera (like the Nikor lenses used in Copelandia) to make it sharper. He said he did NOT like this idea:furious3::violin:. He said that the soft image is due to the AF lense and that it works better when the camera and lenses are calabrated. I also asked about people removing the OPLF. He said if you do that the low light/ high ISO performance suffers. Does anyone have any thoughts/tests on the low-light performance and removed OPLF?
 
With all due respect, this guy you spoke with is absolutely full of it.

"He said if you do that the low light/ high ISO performance suffers. Does anyone have any thoughts/tests on the low-light performance and removed OPLF?"

That makes no sense at all.
 
Cosimo Bullo said:
With all due respect, this guy you spoke with is absolutely full of it.

"He said if you do that the low light/ high ISO performance suffers. Does anyone have any thoughts/tests on the low-light performance and removed OPLF?"

That makes no sense at all.
Click to expand...

He just spoke to one of the phone bubble heads. We have read this kind of thing before here. I always laugh at the ridiculous things these phoneBots say.


Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS
 
PappasArts said:
He just spoke to one of the phone bubble heads. We have read this kind of thing before here. I always laugh at the ridiculous things these phoneBots say.
Click to expand...

Pay peanuts get monkeys....I used to train phone monkeys, they generally work off a database. If your query is not in the database they make something up to get you off the phone. All that matters is their call stats.
 
squig said:
Pay peanuts get monkeys....I used to train phone monkeys, they generally work off a database. If your query is not in the database they make something up to get you off the phone. All that matters is their call stats.
Click to expand...
LOL True. Quite probably they are nothing but outsourcing ;-)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top