Sharpness and AA filter on DSLR?

E

evilthought

Well-known member
5D Mark III has 22.3 MP sensor.

The video resolution is only 1920 × 1080 = 2 MP per image

I can understand that AA filter would lower the resolution on 22.3 MP still image, but how would it have any effect on the 2 MP video image that was derived from the 22.3 original?

It doesn't make any sense.

There must be other reasons why 5D III video is softer. It has nothing at all to do with AA filter.

Is that reasoning correct?
 
as you say, it doesn't make sense: a filter that softens video would pretty much destroy stills - yet if taking the filter away solves the softness issue (at least partially), then it is the filter - my theory is that the filter has two modes and is electronically controlled (i.e. when there's no current running through it it's much weaker than when there's a current) and my hope is that Magic Lantern will allow us to control it, so that it stays in stills mode when we're taking videos
 
Samuel H said:
as you say, it doesn't make sense: a filter that softens video would pretty much destroy stills - yet if taking the filter away solves the softness issue (at least partially), then it is the filter - my theory is that the filter has two modes and is electronically controlled (i.e. when there's no current running through it it's much weaker than when there's a current) and my hope is that Magic Lantern will allow us to control it, so that it stays in stills mode when we're taking videos
Click to expand...
Let's put this to rest once & for all. Removing the OLPF doesn't improve resolution in any way. The video evidence for the effectiveness of removing the filter was very sketchy in the first place but Barry Green's analysis of the resolution chart shows that there is only increased false detail i.e. aliasing which is to be expected considering it's the anti-aliasing filter that was removed. It's really just wishful thinking that there is some simple solution to magically improve what is already a very good image. Just accept that the Canon engineers really do know what they are doing & have given us the best video image they could within the constraints of a FF stills camera.
 
nigelbb said:
Just accept that the Canon engineers really do know what they are doing & have given us the best video image they could within the constraints of a FF stills camera.
Click to expand...

The Nikon D800 FF resolves more resolution than the 5D3, so that disproves that Canon did their best in a FF. Canon could have done better.

I feel it's really just Canon up to their usual tricks of crippling cameras to protect their own. Nikon D800 FF has higher resolution, clean HDMI out and Crop modes, so why can't Canon? Plus, it's $500 cheaper. But I can't start over with Nikon because of the lenses.

Why do Canon customers have to rely on Alex and ML to make it a decent camera? They shouldn't, but thank God Alex and ML is here, or else Canon customers would be even more disgruntled.

Canon has shown that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt because more so than any company, they try to milk their customers for everything. Unless a miracle happens by mid-June and Canon comes out with something in the $8K range that's close to the FS700, Sony here I come. Canon has lost me as a customer, but they did make a ton of money off all the lenses that bought :(

Maybe I will pick up a new Rebel as a B-Cam, but that's about it for Canon because yes.... they suck as a company.
 
gene_can_sing said:
The Nikon D800 FF resolves more resolution than the 5D3, so that disproves that Canon did their best in a FF. Canon could have done better.

I feel it's really just Canon up to their usual tricks of crippling cameras to protect their own. Nikon D800 FF has higher resolution, clean HDMI out and Crop modes, so why can't Canon? Plus, it's $500 cheaper. But I can't start over with Nikon because of the lenses.

Why do Canon customers have to rely on Alex and ML to make it a decent camera? They shouldn't, but thank God Alex and ML is here, or else Canon customers would be even more disgruntled.

Canon has shown that they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt because more so than any company, they try to milk their customers for everything. Unless a miracle happens by mid-June and Canon comes out with something in the $8K range that's close to the FS700, Sony here I come. Canon has lost me as a customer, but they did make a ton of money off all the lenses that bought :(

Maybe I will pick up a new Rebel as a B-Cam, but that's about it for Canon because yes.... they suck as a company.
Click to expand...

Dude, listen - we get it, you really don't like Canon. But nearly every single post you make, on every thread in any forum, is about how Canon sucks and how you hate them and you won't buy their cameras and etc, etc, etc... Talk about the cameras you're interested in, and that you like and want to use; the whining is getting old.
 
"They shouldn't, but thank God Alex and ML is here, or else Canon customers would be even more disgruntled."

I shoot on the MK2 and have never even really seriously thought about installing ML on it. The MK2, out of the box, bone stock, it a stellar stills camera and for the price an excellent semi-pro or "B" cinema camera. It's not perfect and neither is the MK3, but for the price, they are a great tool for the low budget film maker. They don't please everybody and no camera ever will.
 
gene_can_sing said:
The Nikon D800 FF resolves more resolution than the 5D3, so that disproves that Canon did their best in a FF. Canon could have done better.

I feel it's really just Canon up to their usual tricks of crippling cameras to protect their own. Nikon D800 FF has higher resolution, clean HDMI out and Crop modes, so why can't Canon? Plus, it's $500 cheaper. But I can't start over with Nikon because of the lenses.
Click to expand...
The Nikon D800 also has moire & aliasing & I have seen no evidence that it is a better camera for video than the 5D3. I really couldn't care about whether the HDMI out is clean or not as I have no desire to clutter up the camera by connecting a recorder even if it were a better physical connector than HDMI.

gene_can_sing said:
Why do Canon customers have to rely on Alex and ML to make it a decent camera? They shouldn't, but thank God Alex and ML is here, or else Canon customers would be even more disgruntled.
Click to expand...
Magic Lantern is ingenious but totally unnecessary in order to shoot good video. In common with everyone else that I know who uses Canon DSLRs for paid work I don't use Magic Lantern because it is still unreliable enough that you need to pull the battery occasionally when it locks up. ML is also getting overcomplicated with too many features being implemented which are OK-ish but like peaking or zebras not half as good as a proper implementation on a camcorder.
 
Same here Nigel. On the net everybody talks ML all the time, but I have never been on a "real" shoot with a Canon DSLR where it was being used.

Audio is going to a separate recorder, false color and focus assist are on the monitor, what's the point...
 
Hey Cowpunks52. You're totally right. I want to apologize for my negative attitude. I should just move on.

I think I'm just disgruntled towards Canon because like everyone else, I bought into the whole DSLR revolution in 2008 and bought a ton of Canon lenses thinking they would fix all the known issues and we would have a great camera. But year after year, it was just one disappointment after another. The latest 5D3 was just such a let down in a series of let downs. I just find it sad to see all these people on this forum are scrambling to find ways to make their 5D3 what it should be. Seeing people spend $600 to have MaxMax butcher their camera's OLPF to praying to Baby Jesus that Alex (who is awesome) can help the 5D3 find it's potential is sad.

But yeah, once again, I'm sorry for the negativity. 2012 is a great year for us stuck with Canon lenses because BM uses EOS mount, the Metabones and soon-to-be Berger EOS to NEX adaptor, and even RED has an EOS mount. So I'm stoked on that.

I made a ton of good work on my Canon's over the last few years and the future is brighter because of it :)
 
gene_can_sing said:
Hey Cowpunks52. You're totally right. I want to apologize for my negative attitude. I should just move on.

I think I'm just disgruntled towards Canon because like everyone else, I bought into the whole DSLR revolution in 2008 and bought a ton of Canon lenses thinking they would fix all the known issues and we would have a great camera. But year after year, it was just one disappointment after another. The latest 5D3 was just such a let down in a series of let downs. I just find it sad to see all these people on this forum are scrambling to find ways to make their 5D3 what it should be. Seeing people spend $600 to have MaxMax butcher their camera's OLPF to praying to Baby Jesus that Alex (who is awesome) can help the 5D3 find it's potential is sad.

But yeah, once again, I'm sorry for the negativity. 2012 is a great year for us stuck with Canon lenses because BM uses EOS mount, the Metabones and soon-to-be Berger EOS to NEX adaptor, and even RED has an EOS mount. So I'm stoked on that.

I made a ton of good work on my Canon's over the last few years and the future is brighter because of it :)
Click to expand...

That's the thing - don't take camera specs and prices personally! It'll just get in the way of doing the work you want to do. Options exist now to make great images - and hey, if some people want to butcher and hack their camera, it's their choice - and it's not right or wrong. As long as technology has existed, people have tried to tweak it to their liking and they'll never stop, even if the "perfect" camera is released. Perfect is only a relative term, and different for everybody. You shot with what works yesterday, you can shoot with what works today - and tomorrow, something will work even better and you can shoot with that. Just keep shooting.
 
If I had the $2K difference between my used MK2 and a new MK3 laying around with nothing else to spend it on I'd already have it, and wouldn't install ML on it, and wouldn't have anybody hack it up. I'd use it and think "Nice upgrade. pretty much all aliasing and moire gone, real HD out of the HDMI, AND 60 fps, that's most of the issues people had with the MK2 resolved." Or maybe I'd go with a totally different camera, it would depend on what was on the market at that exact time and how it impacted my current support gear.
 
wow, we're trigger happy here these days...
sorry if I was wrong about the AA filter removal as a solution to the softness issue - I don't have a 5D3 (yet), and I don't have any interest in such an aggressive mod, so I don't follow developments closely - but I had some hope that ML could bring whatever benefits it has with a much less aggressive procedure

what's the new consensus about it, then? stuff looks sharper but there's no actual extra detail? if that's so, and aliasing/moire is not a problem, I'd aggree that it's no miracle cure, but it's easier than always having to add sharpness in post
 
It's there (the filter) to get rid of aliasing and moire. If you remove it you'll get rid of the built in softness it adds at the cost of the return of aliasing and moire.
 
gonzo_entertainment said:
It's there (the filter) to get rid of aliasing and moire. If you remove it you'll get rid of the built in softness it adds at the cost of the return of aliasing and moire.
Click to expand...

But from 22mp PHOTOGRAPHS. In 2mp video that filter doesn't do anything. That's why I find it very odd that some people are claiming that resolution is better.
 
I'd change that to: "That's why I find it very odd that some people are claiming that it has ANY effect on video images"
 
hehe, I understand how you wouldn't want that...
it's a byproduct of the IR filter going away too with the mod, right?
 
Not clear if there were any shenanigans (in-camera or post sharpening), however I don't get footage this sharp and detailed without post-sharpening (even with a 50mm prime or the ultra-sharp 70-200 F2.8L II):

Beach scene:
https://vimeo.com/39594898

Bill's MaxMax mod, which kept the dust-cleaner attached, was not as sharp and detailed. Removing just one OLPF doesn't make sense either, but pulling just the dust-cleaner connector might do something interesting (and is easily reversed). If the Canon OLPF's work like Nikon's (http://www.nikonusa.com/en_US/IMG/I...ies/Moire-D800-D800E/Media/OLPF_schematic.pdf), each OLPF simply creates an additional photon/wave copy (two points become 4 points), once horizontal and once vertical. This works via a system which uses circular polarizers. It appears in the beach video a circular polarizer was used (variable ND). Not clear if a circular polarizer and one OLPF removed can do anything optically, though I did see an apparent increase in sharpness (perhaps just microcontrast) when using a gen 1 Fader ND with the 24-105 F4L, neither of which are particularly sharp. A resolution chart test showed no improvement, though (if anything, aliasing increased; however aliasing isn't visible in the real-world test):

Raw clip, from camera (available for download):
https://vimeo.com/40107424

Graded & sharpened:
https://vimeo.com/40200361

The single-OLPF removal and dust connector disconnect apparent increase in sharpness and detail has not been explained yet (again, provided there was no sharpening performed). The panning and tilting with bricks/tiles/shingles didn't show aliasing.
 
Enough of this foolish wishful thinking. Those clips look no sharper than any other decently sharp 5D2 or 5D3 footage. This clip shows how sharp the 5D2 can look. In fact it looks sharper than either of those clips from hacked cameras but I am not claiming some magic modification that released the 5D2's full potential. It's just well exposed in focus & with the light just right.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top