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

k.wasley said:
These tests of a MKIII vs MKII line chart do not show the aliasing present from the MKIII that are in the tests earlier in this thread. You can see that at 800 lines there is very little 'cross hatch' aliasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8jjk6CuCwGw
Click to expand...

While I too used that video in another thread, it's only useful as a comparison of 5D2 vs 5D3: it doesn't look like the chart was set up properly (too close to camera or too much zoom).
 
jcs said:
Jason Greene & I originally stated around 900 lines (I stated 890, then revised to 850 after seeing more tests). In any case, I provide actual chart tests results so that anyone can form their own opinion. Jabs and personal attacks are a waste of energy, and perhaps the poster(s) might reflect on the state of their ego (which ultimately causes great pain for themselves as well as others). Recall when I first proposed post-sharpening (and provided examples showing it worked), there was skepticism and now it is accepted (once Philip Bloom tried it). Again, in my day job I write image processing software and work with CPU & GPU algorithms (including real-time DCT and spectral analysis methods). I do my best to describe the math in a manner that understandable to all. The "I" in this paragraph is indeed part of the ego, however it's trying to be helpful.

Aliasing is related to the Nyquist sampling frequency, and thus the max theoretical horizontal resolution we can store with 1920 pixels is 1920/2 = 960. However, all camera manufacturers who create pro cameras state 1000+ lines. Therefore, even though "first (aliasing) artifacts" occur at much lower resolution (even before 960), there is useful information, even if it is aliased, all the way up to extinction. Therefore, I state useful resolution at the point of extinction, when aliasing smears the image to the point of noise (no useful information). This is the clearest way to agree on the limit of actual, useful information and resolution (the point of first artifacts is harder to agree on, and doesn't make sense to use as we have useful information all the way up to extinction).

Bill took a risk and had his camera modified by MaxMax. He posted the results and many of us thanked him for doing so. Unfortunately, the results didn't work out as planned, and some folks were extremely unkind. For those with critical comments, put yourself in Bill's shoes: he took a risk, spent time & money, and shared the results with the community. There is no advantage to the community to be harsh in this case. If one finds oneself being harsh when someone is trying to be helpful, ask yourself why, and perhaps read this book: http://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Awa...9963/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1335469053&sr=8-1, or if you are up to something significantly more challenging: http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Buddhism-...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1335469143&sr=1-1. We all have the same goal- we'd like to produce the highest quality material for our projects at a reasonable cost.
Click to expand...

Bill took the risk, and many appreciate that he did. It's not a cheap camera to mess with.

Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info Thread:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Kholi said:
Never understood where the crazy 900 line measurement was coming from. After the first videos I pegged it at 600ish, then talking with another user after an earlier chart 680. Bill's chart, which I guess I already pointed out a few posts back, definitely didn't look better than that. Worse. =T

Weird thing is that I actually do think the slightly aliased footage looks better, but at least we're closer to discovering that it's just aliasing.
Click to expand...
Now that you have access to one, what do you think of it in general and compared to a 5D II?
 
HansSteinert said:
Now that you have access to one, what do you think of it in general and compared to a 5D II?
Click to expand...

Didn't get a chance to actually shoot with it, it's on a feature already but should be back pretty soon. They just needed an extra body. Soon as it comes back I'll definitely be figurin' it for what's good. Need to find a second camera/look, MK3 might be it.
 
Kholi said:
Didn't get a chance to actually shoot with it, it's on a feature already but should be back pretty soon. They just needed an extra body. Soon as it comes back I'll definitely be figurin' it for what's good. Need to find a second camera/look, MK3 might be it.
Click to expand...

I think you're gonna like it. It's not perfect but it has that point and shoot ability that is second to none.....of-course you have to nail exposure and white balance and choose the right profile and stabilise it and choose the right glass...duh. The ability to stop down is what really makes it shine not to mention the aliasing/moire free images. I haven't even had time to test the 60p yet! Too busy working on a new draft.
 
squig said:
I think you're gonna like it. It's not perfect but it has that point and shoot ability that is second to none.....of-course you have to nail exposure and white balance and choose the right profile and stabilise it and choose the right glass...duh. The ability to stop down is what really makes it shine not to mention the aliasing/moire free images. I haven't even had time to test the 60p yet! Too busy working on a new draft.
Click to expand...

Well I just need something good in lowlight for video cam/POV footage. me thinks it'll work just fine for that. Like you said, being able to go high ISO and stop down is great.

For this specific use, I mean. Later on hopefully something else.
 
5000/6400 ISO is cleaner than 1250/1600 on the MKII. 10000/12800 is perhaps just slightly noisier than 1250/1600 but I haven't really needed to go that high. The IPB codec is pretty solid. Really looking forward to a magic lantern bit-rate boost. The dynamic range and colours are a lot better at high ISOs than the MKII.
 
Forget 8000 ISO, it's noisier than 10,000. As always nailing exposure is critical otherwise things get very noisy. Most reports suggest a 2 stop improvement but it looks more like 2.5 to me.
 
k.wasley said:
These tests of a MKIII vs MKII line chart do not show the aliasing present from the MKIII that are in the tests earlier in this thread. You can see that at 800 lines there is very little 'cross hatch' aliasing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8jjk6CuCwGw
Click to expand...
That test doesn't count because the chart was framed wrong. The shooter framed way too close to the chart, so the "800" box isn't actually showing 800 lines, at that distance it's probably more like 500 or 600.

Res chart tests are only valid if the chart is accurately framed up.
 
Barry_Green said:
That test doesn't count because the chart was framed wrong. The shooter framed way too close to the chart, so the "800" box isn't actually showing 800 lines, at that distance it's probably more like 500 or 600.

Res chart tests are only valid if the chart is accurately framed up.
Click to expand...

I see. Thanks for making that clear. Would be good to see a properly done chart with a good prime. No 24-105 please. Lets get something nice on there! (Yes i have 24-105, but much prefer my Leica R primes).
 
k.wasley said:
I see. Thanks for making that clear. Would be good to see a properly done chart with a good prime. No 24-105 please. Lets get something nice on there! (Yes i have 24-105, but much prefer my Leica R primes).
Click to expand...
LOL If not, you'll have the glass' chart, not camera's : D
 
Barry_Green said:
Res chart tests are only valid if the chart is accurately framed up.
Click to expand...


The thing is, it's not rocket science to use a test chart. I was doing that correctly with my dad when I was 14...


"A camera test chart in the hands of an amateur is like having a loaded pistol in the hands of baby."

Very messy!


Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
I suspect that the softness we're seeing with the MKIII might be due to a denoising algorithm that can't be switched off. Have a look at this test https://vimeo.com/40113110 The DXOmark sensor tests score the D800 much higher than the MKIII in high ISO and yet the MKIII looks much cleaner and softer at every ISO setting. While I normally don't like any auto settings I think Canon have done a good job because with a touch of post sharpening the images look very nice and clean! Post sharpening is a lot less work than post denoising.
 
squig said:
I suspect that the softness we're seeing with the MKIII might be due to a denoising algorithm that can't be switched off. Have a look at this test https://vimeo.com/40113110 The DXOmark sensor tests score the D800 much higher than the MKIII in high ISO and yet the MKIII looks much cleaner and softer at every ISO setting. While I normally don't like any auto settings I think Canon have done a good job because with a touch of post sharpening the images look very nice and clean! Post sharpening is a lot less work than post denoising.
Click to expand...


That sounds about right.
 
squig said:
The DXOmark sensor tests score the D800 much higher than the MKIII in high ISO and yet the MKIII looks much cleaner and softer at every ISO setting.
Click to expand...

dxomark only tests in stills mode - noise in stills mode and noise in video mode may be very weakly correlated



regarding the results after OLPF removal, I have already said this on another thread, but I'll repeat it here so people who have gone that route don't feel too bad about that adventure: it does some good

the question here is whether the OLPF hack brings improvements on any of the two main aspects of "sharpness":
* resolution: ability to show finer detail
* acutance: sharpness of edge transitions
and what downsides it may have (like increased aliasing/moire)

http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2009/06/have-you-seen-my-acutance

from the test charts, the OLPF removal seems to add no resolution at all, but acutance seems improved (same-lens tests should be needed for this conclusion, but the real-world samples definitely *look* a lot sharper, so I would let this one through), and aliasing/moire look about the same



now, that's precisely what "sharpening in post" can do too (sometimes with some artifacts, but that doesn't seem to be a problem with the 5D3, thanks to jcs's suggestion of using convolution sharpening), so I definitely wouldn't open the camera to get rid of the OLPF filter - yet, if magic lantern can disable it, images would be sharp directly out of the camera, without all those IQ issues that arrive because other stuff goes when the filter goes (IR filter, etc)
 
Samuel- good point re: acutance and post sharpening. Unsharp masking with a small radius < 1 can work well in addition to convolution (Canon's in-camera USM appears to have a radius > 1, resulting in halos).
The Optical Low Pass Filter (OLPF) can't be disabled without removing it, but pulling the dust vibration sensor connector could affect firmware behavior.
A circular polarizer can also increase perceived sharpness, likely due to microcontrast/edge enhancement (improves acutance vs. resolution).
 
nigelbb said:
I hope that the base post will be updated now that Andrew over on EOSHD has finally compared a butchered 5D3 alongside a standard one & concluded that there is no difference in resolution & quite a number of drawbacks. He is paying $170 to have his camera repaired. http://www.eoshd.com/content/8201/canon-5d-mark-iii-without-optical-low-pass-filter-the-verdict
Click to expand...

hmmm... only Andrew can do a comparison between the 5D3 and the 5D3 without the lowpass, and somehow slip some GH2 hacked comparison footage in. :huh:
 
nigelbb said:
""concluded that there is no difference in resolution ""
Click to expand...



That's odd- then what was all the improvements he saw in his footage in April coming from. As well everyone else who
were impressed?

Andrews ( Wednesday, 11 April, 2012 00:22 ) blog entry.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7813/how-i-opened-my-5d-mark-iii-and-why-you-have-to-be-crazy-to-do-it

I like the comparison he did with the GH2- the GH2 was excellent in those A/B shots.

I would just rather get a GH2 and hack it then go through the OLPF removal. The M4/3 is plenty good. However If I owned the 5D3, I would have the OLPF removed for sure.


Pappas
http://PAPPASARTS.WORDPRESS.COM
http://TWITTER.COM/PAPPASARTS

[size=+1]BlackMagic Digital Camera Info:[/size] http://www.bmcuser.com/showthread.p...mera-Technology-Announcements-amp-Latest-Info
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top