So actually, how bad is aliasing really?

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stab

Well-known member
Yes aliasing and especially moire, dont look pretty. I think we all agree on that.

But actually, how 'ruining' is it in most productions? Since I came on this forum I read about this phenomenon everyday and many camera's are judged by its (lack of) aliasing performance...

The truth is, since I know about it, I see it everyday and everywhere. And yes, most of it on the television on programs that I would call 'professional productions'.

Cooking programs, game shows and yes, today even a HD tennis match on Eurosport was covered with moire.

As a conclusion, most professionals think having their background covered in moire is acceptable. And hell, most viewers dont even see it. And when they do, they dont give a ****. "Thats what camera's do".

So what I think is that the only format in where moire is horrible, is fiction (film). But in there, you can easily work arround it! Choose a different house if the bricks are causing moire, let the actor wear different clothes if necesarry, etc etc.

As much I would like moire to be non existent, I dont find it much of a problem at all.

So share your opinion :)
 
On torture test res charts it can be pretty bad. But in production? Someone needed something to beat HDSLRs over the head with, and that's what they settled on. Unfortunately, it's a two edged sword. Moire is going to happen with any camera, that's just physics. Hence, OMG! the AF100 has moire! Moire happens. Get over it. In real life, it doesn't matter. Just my opinion.
 
Its so irritating! Make you crazy and ruin your shot. Not acceptable! I hate it! So avoid canon. And moire you saw on tv is happen from wofty dofty in broadcast chain. Its not from camera. Broadcast camera is really nice!
 
I have been watching some film releases lately that used Genesis HD (latest "Takers"), and I must confess that to me they dont look like film. So if this is what a DSLR could aspire to without moire etc, then I dont want it. When you look at a freeze frame the Genesis looks like film, but when you watch it in motion it looks like video. I put this down to the Genesis is just too sharp.

So in summary I welcome moire. I use it as a kind of peaking. When I see it I either pull shorter focus or open up aperture.
 
Hmmmm....I think the Genesis is not the greatest example because to me it has the notorious reputation of looking....too digital.
 
Opening aperture won't make moire go away. And Many time unless you got good big monitor you wouldn't know you got the moire or aliass. But then you came home at night and on your sony begas and your pretty shot look sucks! Lol
 
Stab said:
The truth is, since I know about it, I see it everyday and everywhere. And yes, most of it on the television on programs that I would call 'professional productions'.

Cooking programs, game shows and yes, today even a HD tennis match on Eurosport was covered with moire.

As a conclusion, most professionals think having their background covered in moire is acceptable. And hell, most viewers dont even see it. And when they do, they dont give a s**t. "Thats what camera's do".



So share your opinion :)
Click to expand...

I shoot with an EX3 for a living coming from film. I picked up a 550D last year as a bcam and now a 60D. I have had no more trouble with aliasing and moire with the Canon than the Sony. In all my years of shooting film there were rules to follow when transferring to tape just as rules to follow for any video camera.
There is way too much complaining and not enough shooting.

This is the post of the millennium/ Thank you Stab.
"And hell, most viewers dont even see it. And when they do, they dont give a s**t. "Thats what camera's do".
 
Last edited:
ROCKMORE said:
I shoot with an EX3 for a living coming from film. I picked up a 550D last year as a bcam and now a 60D. I have had no more trouble with aliasing and moire with the Canon than the Sony. In all my years of shooting film there were rules to follow when transferring to tape just as rule to follow for any video camera.
There is way too much complaining and not enough shooting.

This is the post of the millennium/ Thank you Stab.
"And hell, most viewers dont even see it. And when they do, they dont give a s**t. "Thats what camera's do".
Click to expand...

Damn son... +1!!!
 
I was ex1 shooter and owner for 5d and 7d. Ex1 same as ex3. I don't agree looks same for aliass and moire. Ex very clean! Canon dirty but canon nicer in low light.
But sometime I confuse and frustrate on this. I keep watch my bluray hollywood movie on giant tv in my apartment and still see many alias and moire! Maybe my tv junks, but make by sony :(
 
Personally I do not like it, but most everything I see on TV has it..... Honestly people just need to do more shooting instead of complaining.
 
ROCKMORE said:
I shoot with an EX3 for a living coming from film. I picked up a 550D last year as a bcam and now a 60D. I have had no more trouble with aliasing and moire with the Canon than the Sony. In all my years of shooting film there were rules to follow when transferring to tape just as rules to follow for any video camera.
There is way too much complaining and not enough shooting.

This is the post of the millennium/ Thank you Stab.
"And hell, most viewers dont even see it. And when they do, they dont give a s**t. "Thats what camera's do".
Click to expand...

Haha thank you :)

2 days ago I even saw it in Hollywood's blockbuster "Next" (shitty movie btw) in fences and even hair. So **** it, I'm not worrying about it anymore. I will try to prevend it, if not, too bad and shoot it.

That only leaves my camera (60D) with 1 big downside left, and that is lower actual resolution... :D
 
nature, controlled env. = fine, aliasing rather gives a nice crisp look
all urban, car backlights, you name it... = bleh/possibly correctable in post/but most likely wasted footage

Glass skyscrapers & phat distances, or closeups in a small european village MADE UP of bloody bricks... you'll just have to try out and see what works for YOU.
 
Update:

Today I was playing tennis and it was dark, so the lights were turned on.

Guess what, when I looked at the fence and moved my head I saw REAL MOIRE. With my own eyes haha. I was really surprised. It looked exactly like the moire pattern on a 7D for instance.

Funny that our eyes (lens) and brain (sensor+processor) work more like a camera than I ever realized.
 
It makes me laugh when i hear the GH2 like i have does not have moire,of course it does,to be fair though in some of the BBC/ITV HD productions its very little if any and i dont know what they are are filming with but it looks superb.
 
Stab said:
Update:

Today I was playing tennis and it was dark, so the lights were turned on.

Guess what, when I looked at the fence and moved my head I saw REAL MOIRE. With my own eyes haha. I was really surprised. It looked exactly like the moire pattern on a 7D for instance.

Funny that our eyes (lens) and brain (sensor+processor) work more like a camera than I ever realized.
Click to expand...

Of course you can see moire. It's not in your eyes, but my guess is you're seeing an interference between two sets of railings, I've seen it too when passing my local park, between railings near to me and those in the distance. Any two regularly spaced objects can cause moire, it's simple physics, no more than high-school level. the cones and rods in your eyes aren't regularly spaced so cannot, of themselves, cause moire.
Dave
 
a lot of people talk about it like its no big deal. but the moire issue is why i decided against a canon for video. ive seen dozens of examples of moire online. and a guy on a shoot last week pulled out his laptop to show me a problem he had with his 7D on a previous shoot. a large, featured, brick wall was just a huge moired-mess. he asked me if that was a quicktime/computer/display issue. and i told him that it was a "feature" of the camera.

its not a canon-only situation. but canon IS the biggest offender. and thats enough for me to make a decision.
 
I own and love my two Canon 5D's, am a mod elsewhere for DSLR's and believe in art and fiction, and that having something to say always comes before technique, but even I have to admit that at times, frankly, the moire on this camera...well, it sucks.

I also believe in run on sentences.
 
wgzn said:
a lot of people talk about it like its no big deal. but the moire issue is why i decided against a canon for video. ive seen dozens of examples of moire online. and a guy on a shoot last week pulled out his laptop to show me a problem he had with his 7D on a previous shoot. a large, featured, brick wall was just a huge moired-mess. he asked me if that was a quicktime/computer/display issue. and i told him that it was a "feature" of the camera.

its not a canon-only situation. but canon IS the biggest offender. and thats enough for me to make a decision.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

I shot a commercial for Comcast recently where the wide shots TOTALLY broke apart because it could not handle the fine detail.

Medium shots and CU looked great as they always do on DSLR, but I seriously got boned on that one.

Never again.

The AF-100 has virtually no aliasing or moire compared to any Canon DSLR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top