# Canon 5D Mark III - Resolution Review



## jcs (Mar 21, 2012)

Received a 5D3 this morning; quick resolution test: http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39795


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 22, 2012)

Nice conclusion to your post. Glad to see such positive news about the video capabilities, instead of all the "this looks soft" posts.

I don't have permission to view your attachment. I assume it's a video clip?


----------



## jcs (Mar 22, 2012)

Images attached. First file (5D3S_Sharpen.jpg) is scaled down still (ideal case), second file is 1080p video frame. Both sharpened @33 (PPro filter).


----------



## peederj (Mar 22, 2012)

If this is the cost of ridding ourselves of aliasing and moire, I'm not crying. Sharpness as a concept is overrated in video: since you can't photoshop the imprefections off the talent, you aren't doing yourself any favors shooting sharp.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 22, 2012)

That video grab looks really, really good, with the still as a reference.


----------



## jcs (Mar 22, 2012)

It looks like Canon is doing an Unsharp Mask sharpen for video, thus the halos. I'll turning off in-camera sharpen and test again. Note that the still was sharpened the same as the video (and no halos in the still).

For those who want to try this at home: http://www.bealecorner.org/red/test-patterns/ . Comparing a still to a video frame is easier than setting up a proper (and correct) resolution test, especially when your printer can't really print the entire chart at full resolution (pre-made charts are $150+). My Xerox Phaser 6180DN was able to do a good job up to the 4:3 marks on one sheet (could print out 3 sheets in sections). The still frame compare was good enough for my curiosity.

For those with 5D3's: try turning off in-camera sharpen and sharpening with a convolution style sharpen in post. Looks excellent running in real-time in PPro (using the GPU sharpen filter around 33-48).


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 23, 2012)

Any other thoughts about the camera, now that you've had it for a whole day? I read a review on one of the video sites, and that guy didn't like it much at all. 

I'm getting mine primarily for stills, but it'd be nice to know that it's a potent video camera, too. I know I'd like to have had it at an event I shot about six weeks ago. Lots of girls with fishnets, and the moiré came out to play.


----------



## jcs (Mar 23, 2012)

Just tested indoors with the 70-200 2.8 II- looks great. Used "P" setting, "Faithful" profile, and sharpened to 33 in PPro (renamed file .MPG to play in realtime). 100% pixel peeping looks pretty good. Looks excellent playing back full screen. Will test on a real shoot soon (will also test other lenses).

Best results so far:

1. "Faithful" profile (0 everything)
2. IPB mode
3. Rename file .MPG for real-time playback in PPro CS5.5
4. Sharpen as needed, 33 seems to be a good starting point


----------



## peederj (Mar 23, 2012)

jcs are you finding IPB is better than ALL-I for tripod shots of nonmoving subjects? I was thinking this would be the case. 

And is faithful better than neutral for you? When you say 0 everything, does that mean sliders fully to the left or dead center?


----------



## psolberg (Mar 23, 2012)

and a not so great review

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7551/canon-5d-mark-iii-review

the 5DmkIII still falls to the GH2 and just marginally better than the prior, plus noise issues with the All-I codec.


----------



## jcs (Mar 23, 2012)

peederj- haven't done a real shoot with people yet, however there is a technical issue with I-frame- perhaps not being deblocked correctly (camera encoder or NLE decoder issue). IPB looks great and uses less memory; not missing I-frame at this point. Haven't tried Neutral yet- should work too. All 0 is the setting for parms. Some params go negative.

psolberg- sounds like the 5D3 is doing better for Andrew after turning off camera sharpening and sharpening in post: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/index.php/topic,449.0.html#d2


----------



## peederj (Mar 23, 2012)

Some people have claimed Neutral is a completely different processing than the other modes, so i would prioritize that. Many people have been shooting exclusively neutral (myself included) since Vince Laforet originally recommended it and explained why years ago.


----------



## Axilrod (Mar 23, 2012)

peederj said:


> jcs are you finding IPB is better than ALL-I for tripod shots of nonmoving subjects? I was thinking this would be the case.
> 
> And is faithful better than neutral for you? When you say 0 everything, does that mean sliders fully to the left or dead center?



ALL-I is going to be better than IPB for everything. As for picture style, 0 is to the far left for sharpness and dead center for contrast, sat, and color tone. Sharpness needs to be cut down all the way no matter what, and if anything cut down the contrast a bit. With the Cinestyle profile they suggested 0 for sharpness, -4 for contrast and -2 for saturation.


----------



## jcs (Mar 23, 2012)

In PPro CS5.5, I-only is only good for real-time playback without renaming the file from MOV to MPG (to get around a PPro bug).

I have analyzed the footage: it has more artifacts than IBP (which is more efficient- than I-only). The artifacts look like a deblocking issue (horizontal and vertical lines). Andrew Reid at EOSHD reported this issue as "mosquito noise", which is consistent with a deblocking issue (my guess, could be something else).


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Mar 24, 2012)

jcs said:


> In PPro CS5.5, I-only is only good for real-time playback without renaming the file from MOV to MPG (to get around a PPro bug).
> 
> I have analyzed the footage: it has more artifacts than IBP (which is more efficient- than I-only). The artifacts look like a deblocking issue (horizontal and vertical lines). Andrew Reid at EOSHD reported this issue as "mosquito noise", which is consistent with a deblocking issue (my guess, could be something else).



In your initial comments, you posited that this could be a playback issue, rather than an encoding issue. Do you still think this is a possibility?


----------



## psolberg (Mar 24, 2012)

jcs said:


> peederj- haven't done a real shoot with people yet, however there is a technical issue with I-frame- perhaps not being deblocked correctly (camera encoder or NLE decoder issue). IPB looks great and uses less memory; not missing I-frame at this point. Haven't tried Neutral yet- should work too. All 0 is the setting for parms. Some params go negative.
> 
> psolberg- sounds like the 5D3 is doing better for Andrew after turning off camera sharpening and sharpening in post: http://www.eoshd.com/comments/index.php/topic,449.0.html#d2



Off course you can sharpen in post. But the detail won't fully return. It simply improves what you got...which is not the same as capturing more detail to start with and introduces artifacts. Just as with stills, you can't sharpen your way to what is not there.


----------



## jcs (Mar 24, 2012)

Stephen- hard to say until we hear from Canon and Adobe.

psolberg- check out the bear picture and Andrew's comments here: http://www.eoshd.com/content/7608/cinestyle-on-the-5d-mark-iii-and-fixing-softness-in-post#d2

He too was surprised, but it works. A clean, anti-aliased image can be sharpened quite a bit by removing the anti-aliasing with a convolution sharpen filter. The trick is to remove enough to increase sharpness while not introducing excessive aliasing.


----------



## peederj (Mar 24, 2012)

jcs now I have the 5D3 and doing tests I can confirm you probably want to be using the following picture style (unless you are using a 3rd party one like CineStyle): 

EDITED: This was the old Vince Laforet suggested setting, Neutral 0, -4, -2, 0, but now I've decided it's no longer best. Instead, I'm now suggesting another setting in my updated post below.

Reading Andrew's site, he's got factual errors in many of the articles I read. For instance, in his camera comparison as posted now, he dismisses the C300 has having only 4:2:0 color when in fact it has 4:2:2 as can be easily verified on Canon's site. Lazy for someone of that influence...this is why proper journals hire fact checkers.


----------



## jcs (Mar 24, 2012)

Thanks for the tip peederj, I can experiment with Neutral. I have CineStyle and a bunch of other profiles; I can also create some from scratch. Here's a real-time LUT (instead of LUT Budy) for PPro and CineStyle: http://brightland.com/w/. I only use it for reference: instead creating curves from scratch based on content.

Andrew at EOSHD verified that the 5D3 can in fact be sharpened in post to closely match the GH2- the images should be helpful to others concerned about the ultimate image quality of the 5D3.

The Brick Wall Test and Bugatti Veyron footage I just shot might also be helpful to those wanting to understand the quality and actual resolution of the 5D3.


----------



## peederj (Mar 24, 2012)

Well thanks for contributing your tests, and I thank Andrew as well, imperfect though his articles may be they are useful and often on-point.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 24, 2012)

jcs said:


> Stephen- hard to say until we hear from Canon and Adobe.
> 
> psolberg- check out the bear picture and Andrew's comments here: http://www.eoshd.com/content/7608/cinestyle-on-the-5d-mark-iii-and-fixing-softness-in-post#d2
> 
> He too was surprised, but it works. A clean, anti-aliased image can be sharpened quite a bit by removing the anti-aliasing with a convolution sharpen filter. The trick is to remove enough to increase sharpness while not introducing excessive aliasing.



Sharpening 700 lines of resolution helps but it ain't the 1000 lines I hoped for or want out if the box. It is off course the only choice short of a c300 or Sony fs.


----------



## jcs (Mar 24, 2012)

In my informal resolution test with a printed test chart comparing still to video, it looks closer to 800-900 lines. The GH2 was rated around 800 lines; Andrew @ EOSHD matched the 5D3 to GH2 footage, so that sounds about right.

Look forward to seeing a proper resolution test with a real test chart. In any case, the price is fair for the combination of low aliasing, high resolution, and full frame capability.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 25, 2012)

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7620/3000-nikon-d800-thrashes-flagship-6000-nikon-d4-for-video#d2
EOSHD still seems to think the 5Dmk3 is a 720p faux 1080p camera (his own words). 



> If you are afraid of 720p levels of resolution in a faux 1080p mode get the Nikon D800 because it is far more detailed.



Sharpening or not, 720p level is very dissapointing. I decided to skip the 5D3. Maybe that 4k body won't cost 16k , although I'm sure it will be C line meaning it will make the 1DX cheap in comparison.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 26, 2012)

jcs said:


> In my informal resolution test with a printed test chart comparing still to video, it looks closer to 800-900 lines. The GH2 was rated around 800 lines; Andrew @ EOSHD matched the 5D3 to GH2 footage, so that sounds about right.
> 
> Look forward to seeing a proper resolution test with a real test chart. In any case, the price is fair for the combination of low aliasing, high resolution, and full frame capability.



new post from EOSHD
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

quote from the article:


> The 5D Mark III’s image cannot be sharpened in post to match the GH2. That camera has a sharper image yet it is organic and fine not digitally over sharpened. Yes the 5D Mark III does benefit from a little bit of sharpening with certain shots over the master footage direct off the card but it adds to your workload in post – you have to be very careful about which shots you sharpen and which you don’t. Unlike moire and aliasing, resolution affects every frame so this is quite an important area and my single biggest frustration with the mushy 5D Mark III.



As I suspected, sharpening can only go so far when your base resolution is low to begin with. we know this from still images and given the low resolutions of HD video on top of the soft 5dMKIII output, sharpening is just going to help contrast (preceived sharpness) but won't bring detail out that was smudged by the codec.


----------



## peederj (Mar 26, 2012)

OK now I've done some more pixel peeper tests and I've come around to agreeing with the Crooked Path recommended picture style: Faithful 2, -4, -2, 0. Faithful is truer to skin tones, which you usually will want, though without humans in the picture Neutral may sometimes be better. But the important thing is two clicks of sharpening is the right setting. Sharpening at 0 is the right setting for stills I think but that doesn't translate to video. The picture looks a bit blurred at 0 sharpening...they may actually be intentionally blurring it as an anti-aliasing or anti-moire measure (just speculation...I have no idea...maybe they did it that way for the 5d2 and it's carried over). So it's possible the "native" sharpening setting is 2, but regardless, I am getting a sharper picture without haloing on the setting of 2.

Crooked path also has his own picture styles built off faithful. Though personally if I'm going to use a flat picture style it will be Technicolor Cinestyle which Crooked Path explains on his own blog: rather than a hacked-up faithful, Cinestyle is a deeper interaction with H.264. And I do think Sharpening 2 on Cinestyle is probably a better idea too than sharpening 0.

Just sharing my thoughts as I update them. Try it out and see what you think.


----------



## peederj (Mar 27, 2012)

EOSHD has a new video up comparing the 5D3 to the GH2. Bizarrely, he is using Neutral 2, 2, 3, 4. Which gives an awful green tint! I have to think someone told him to use that setting, but they were counting clicks to the right on the scale, but he interpreted it as Canon's actual numbers! I think they intended for him to shoot with Neutral 2, -2, -1, 0 which is a reasonable setting. Again my suggested setting for post grading is Faithful 2, -4, -2, 0.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7631/panasonic-gh2-vs-5d-mark-iii

My resolution tests were a bit depressing though. It's true the 5D3 video is fairly low-res, and the GH2 with the Ptools hack may well beat it handily. My shots didn't all get up to the bitrates that are nominal for this system...it's VBR and I was only getting half the nominal rate on locked down shots. I guess that's the GOP compression working well, but I would hope for more resolution available with more bitrate available.

However, varying resolution might look worse...suddenly things would appear to focus and defocus. So maybe what Canon is doing with resolution is drawing a compromise: fast-changing scenes will have comparable resolution to unchanging scenes, so that there is no visible degradation or blurring in specific places and times, but instead an overall softness that ensures the video will look consistent straight from camera.

Possible?


----------



## JasonATL (Mar 27, 2012)

I'm growing a little weary of EOSHD's soapbox. I get it. The 5D3 isn't what he hoped it would be in terms of resolution.

JCS has shown here that it appears best to set sharpness off in order to get the best out of this camera. Why would someone doing comparison tests set sharpness up rather than down? Why not set it the way JCS has and then sharpen in post? Why not put 5D3, 5D2, and GH2 through actual resolution tests with resolution charts? Why continue to use ALL I-frame if IPB doesn't have the problems?

I'd love to answer these questions myself, at least as far as the 5D3 is concerned, but I'm still waiting on mine.  Perhaps this weekend... In the meantime, I'm learning from others' and appreciate the reasonable approach that I've seen from JCS, as opposed to the approach some have taken who seem more emotional and less interested to get the best possible out of the 5D3.


----------



## jcs (Mar 27, 2012)

peederj- I too have found the bitrates to be a bit low: detail is being lost by overcompression.

I did a detailed test of I-only vs. IPB. I-only is noisy, and appears to have a macroblock issue in PPro (couldn't replicate in FCPX on the Mac, though their sharpen function is Unsharp Mask looking and can't really bring out fine detail since there is no 'radius' option). I could not see any resolution/detail increase by using I-only; still recommend IPB until the issue(s) are worked out.

JasonATL- I have found 'Faithful' works the best so far. You can also sharpen fine detail with an Unsharp Mask (USM) filter with radius set to < 1.0. Local Contrast Enhancement via USM can be achieved with a 30-100 radius.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 27, 2012)

jcs said:


> peederj- I too have found the bitrates to be a bit low: detail is being lost by overcompression.
> 
> I did a detailed test of I-only vs. IPB. I-only is noisy, and appears to have a macroblock issue in PPro (couldn't replicate in FCPX on the Mac, though their sharpen function is Unsharp Mask looking and can't really bring out fine detail since there is no 'radius' option). I could not see any resolution/detail increase by using I-only; still recommend IPB until the issue(s) are worked out.
> 
> JasonATL- I have found 'Faithful' works the best so far. You can also sharpen fine detail with an Unsharp Mask (USM) filter with radius set to < 1.0. Local Contrast Enhancement via USM can be achieved with a 30-100 radius.



The compression loves to compress away any detail in shadows or even fine details that are not of extreme contrast and it tends to go to a very video-type noise look instead of a nice tight 'grained' sort of noise. I think Canon is wayyy too paranoid about anything looking, horrors, grainy, at the non-C300 plus level that they think it better to NR and compress away nicer looking quality in favor of wax or something.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Mar 27, 2012)

Sharpening up a fair amount some original file 5D3 files of twigs and branches that someone posted, there is still something weird. Looking closely I can occasionally see some frame where very fine twigs have parts of the branch missing, almost like something line skipped (but later smeared to avoid AA). Weird. Not quite sure what they are doing to produce the video on the5D3 yet.


----------



## psolberg (Mar 28, 2012)

jcs said:


> peederj- I too have found the bitrates to be a bit low: detail is being lost by overcompression.
> 
> I did a detailed test of I-only vs. IPB. I-only is noisy, and appears to have a macroblock issue in PPro (couldn't replicate in FCPX on the Mac, though their sharpen function is Unsharp Mask looking and can't really bring out fine detail since there is no 'radius' option). I could not see any resolution/detail increase by using I-only; still recommend IPB until the issue(s) are worked out.
> 
> JasonATL- I have found 'Faithful' works the best so far. You can also sharpen fine detail with an Unsharp Mask (USM) filter with radius set to < 1.0. Local Contrast Enhancement via USM can be achieved with a 30-100 radius.



I don't understand how the bitrates can be too low. it is TWICE the bitrate of the 5DII and nearly 3X that of the IPB codec which IIRC is 28mbps. I've seen more detailed footage from nikon's internal IBP codec than from the all-I canon codec. I think the problem is sensor sampling. I suspect the way canon was able to reduce the amount of moire was by trading fine detail. so no matter how much bits per second you throw a it, a soft image is being created early enough before it is even compressed.


----------



## JasonATL (Mar 31, 2012)

I've made a resolution and sharpness test of the 5D3 using a resolution test chart. I'm no pro, so I don't make more of this than it is. Still, I thought it performed quite well. My Canon 600D shows about 700 lines of resultion and this appears to show 800 or more lines. My Sony PMW-EX1 shows the full 1000 lines on the same test, which makes me think I've got it set up close to correctly - but I'm open to pointers and insights.

The video should be live on Vimeo in a few minutes.

https://vimeo.com/39517721


----------



## peederj (Mar 31, 2012)

The bitrates they are advertising are maximum bitrates. In practice I'm getting something close to 60% of the advertised figures on steady-state shots. High-motion shots may get up to those bitrates. It's VBR, and a very stingy one at that. I want a superfine IPB mode with double what we're currently getting, and given ALL-I is rated as streaming 90mbps there's no way they can claim they can't give it to me if they are willing.

crippleware...


----------



## psolberg (Apr 1, 2012)

interesting post at EOSHD

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase

apparently, the soft video output of hte 5DmkIII may be due (at least in part) to the sensor OLP filter. This means anybody hoping that either a bitrate increase or a firmware update would result in more resolutions needs to keep their expecations in check. The problem may very well be hardware and if the data being sample is already smudged, then the image quality is as good as it is going to get.


----------



## peederj (Apr 1, 2012)

psolberg said:


> interesting post at EOSHD
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/7727/james-miller-removes-optical-low-pass-filter-from-5d-mark-iii-for-resolution-increase
> 
> apparently, the soft video output of hte 5DmkIII may be due (at least in part) to the sensor OLP filter. This means anybody hoping that either a bitrate increase or a firmware update would result in more resolutions needs to keep their expecations in check. The problem may very well be hardware and if the data being sample is already smudged, then the image quality is as good as it is going to get.



Easily disproven: take a look at the resolution 10x live view ("focus assist") gives you vs. what streams out of the cripple codec. The hardware is more than fine, and can generate amazing resolution.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 1, 2012)

peederj said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > interesting post at EOSHD
> ...



I don't know that I agree with your assesment but removing the OLP filter seems to help. I'm sure more testing will be done to prove or disprove that modification as a way to fully realize the potential of the camera. I guess stay tuned.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 1, 2012)

I'm with peederj on this on. This is simply illogical. If the optical low pass filter is, indeed, optical, then it is in hardware. In live view, zoom in as peederj suggests. The resolution is there on the sensor AFTER the optics of the camera. So, any softening would logically come from the downconversion AFTER the sensor and the optics. 

Having said that, if you provide an even sharper (dare I say even aliased) image to the same downscaling algorithm, it seems plausible to me that the result might appear sharper. But, that won't necessarily make a better image overall.

I won't be running out to mod my 5D3 any time soon, assuming this is even serious.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 1, 2012)

JasonATL said:


> I'm with peederj on this on. This is simply illogical. If the optical low pass filter is, indeed, optical, then it is in hardware. In live view, zoom in as peederj suggests. The resolution is there on the sensor AFTER the optics of the camera. So, any softening would logically come from the downconversion AFTER the sensor and the optics.
> 
> Having said that, if you provide an even sharper (dare I say even aliased) image to the same downscaling algorithm, it seems plausible to me that the result might appear sharper. But, that won't necessarily make a better image overall.
> 
> I won't be running out to mod my 5D3 any time soon, assuming this is even serious.



just curious, did you watch the video? phillip bloom had his own take
http://philipbloom.net/2012/04/01/a-drastic-solution-to-increasing-sharpness-with-the-5dmkiii/

To my eyes, it looks better, but as I said, I'm sure we'll find out more in time.


----------



## jcs (Apr 2, 2012)

I compared P.Bloom's sharpened material to J.Miller's OLPF hack on a computer monitor and on an HDTV (D8000). Though it's not the same subject matter, I don't see any significant advantage to no-OLPF vs. post sharpening*. I did see aliased edges with the no-OLPF footage, however.

*There is at least one disadvantage to post sharpening- it effects edges of bokeh. Fortunately, sharpening can be controlled, per shot. When noise is added as 'film grain' (not straight Gaussian noise- processed a bit), it helps fix issues caused by sharpening in post: https://vimeo.com/39523633 (link to instructions on dvxuser).


----------



## psolberg (Apr 2, 2012)

jcs said:


> I compared P.Bloom's sharpened material to J.Miller's OLPF hack on a computer monitor and on an HDTV (D8000). Though it's not the same subject matter, I don't see any significant advantage to no-OLPF vs. post sharpening*. I did see aliased edges with the no-OLPF footage, however.
> 
> *There is at least one disadvantage to post sharpening- it effects edges of bokeh. Fortunately, sharpening can be controlled, per shot. When noise is added as 'film grain' (not straight Gaussian noise- processed a bit), it helps fix issues caused by sharpening in post: https://vimeo.com/39523633 (link to instructions on dvxuser).



yes. sharpening just to achive what IMO should be the output we should get unedited blows big time. Not only do you have to be selective which ads work in post but you have to watch out the amount or introduce artifacts. I know there are ways to improve the footage we've seen so far but it is just so annoying to have to add it each and every time...... :-\


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 2, 2012)

psolberg said:


> JasonATL said:
> 
> 
> > I'm with peederj on this on. This is simply illogical. If the optical low pass filter is, indeed, optical, then it is in hardware. In live view, zoom in as peederj suggests. The resolution is there on the sensor AFTER the optics of the camera. So, any softening would logically come from the downconversion AFTER the sensor and the optics.
> ...



It still doesn't look at all as sharp as the C300 though. It's hard to see how it could help more than a modest little bit. I mean take an unmodded 5D3 22MP still and downsample to 2MP and it looks way sharper than the video a stock 5D3 produces AND simply look at a 100% view of a 22MP still and it still looks way sharper, so if the AA is so strong as to blur up 2MP off the sensor then how can a 22MP look at the sensor look so much vastly crisper?

I still think they need to add a 2x2 1.6x cropped true 1920x1080p mode on the 5D3. A crop mode would be useful at times anyway. Nikon and the others offer cropped modes. But Canon and their stupid protectionism are shooting themselves in teh foot. They could've had raves beyond raves for this had they just added zebra strips, zoom focusing while shooting, a true 1920x1080 mode even if it perhaps could only happen at 1.6x crop due to technical limitations (3x3 may be too large block for the internal AA filter to help enough so maybe they had to blend things, or perhaps, as some suggest 3x3 doesn't work well and they are doing 4x4 but at reduced resolution then).

I wonder if they didn't cripple the 5D3 to save the Cinema line.... and yet it was the 5 series video were they actually were the revolution, with their new cinema line they will just be one among many.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 4, 2012)

> It still doesn't look at all as sharp as the C300 though. It's hard to see how it could help more than a modest little bit. I mean take an unmodded 5D3 22MP still and downsample to 2MP and it looks way sharper than the video a stock 5D3 produces AND simply look at a 100% view of a 22MP still and it still looks way sharper, so if the AA is so strong as to blur up 2MP off the sensor then how can a 22MP look at the sensor look so much vastly crisper?



I don't know the details of the sampling canon does for video versus stills, but the quality without the OLP is undeniably better which means that at least part of the issue is hardware related and not firmware. If the OLP filter played no part in the final output, then the video footage would look nearly identical with the exception of slightly more aliasing. However I'm seeing a noticeable increase in detail and it has yet to be explained away by those that don't think the OLP makes any difference. I agree it is no C300, but that's besides the point, it is better than the stock 5DIII and that's our reference point. Until I see otherwise, I can only believe what I see, and what I see is a noticeable impact of the OLP sensor based on empirical evidence.


----------



## peederj (Apr 4, 2012)

Has the guy who removed the OLPF posted the absolute most dead obvious first step of a resolution chart shot with modded and unmodded bodies with downloadable direct from camera files and enough information to 100% reproduce the results? If not, he's hiding something, and I think his inducing people to damage their $3500 cameras is seriously outrageous if he is.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 4, 2012)

peederj said:


> Has the guy who removed the OLPF posted the absolute most dead obvious first step of a resolution chart shot with modded and unmodded bodies with downloadable direct from camera files and enough information to 100% reproduce the results? If not, he's hiding something, and I think his inducing people to damage their $3500 cameras is seriously outrageous if he is.



I agree with the idea that a resolution chart (comparison) would be useful here. As much as I like resolution charts, it is picture quality in the real world that matters most. A resolution chart would tell us if resolution is really improved, but it wouldn't necessarily answer how much aliasing shows up on certain objects (though it should show some aliasing, if it exists).

I don't think James Miller is really trying to pull one over on people, nor is he necessarily encouraging anyone to damage their own cameras. Anyone who does so based only on his two videos might deserve a $3500 paper weight.

What he has indicated will be forthcoming this week is a side-by-side comparison with an unmodded 5D3 and his modded 5D3.


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 5, 2012)

I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than myself can help us interpret this.

Here is capture from the same source video as in the resolution chart tests that I did (video linked above in this thread). In this capture, the video is on the bottom and the still (scaled to 1920x1080p) is on the top. I applied an EXTREME amount of sharpening to the video (more than anyone in their right mind would even dream of applying to real shots) and some to the still. 

Under the theory (as I understand it) that sharpening cannot create resolution, I wonder what is going on in this chart? There are distinguishable groups of lines near the "10" (1000 lines) mark.

Does this mean that the 5D3 might have more true resolution than we think?

I don't think the actual resolution makes or breaks this camera. Though I want to get more real-world footage, I'm happy with what I'm seeing so far. I'm downright amazed at how much sharpening I can apply to real shots and it still look very nice. I'm just curious about this and had already shot the charts (a bit of a painstaking process - and it probably still wasn't done perfectly).

I'm just hoping someone can improve my understanding of how to read and interpret what we see in these charts.

Thanks!


----------



## psolberg (Apr 5, 2012)

> Under the theory (as I understand it) that sharpening cannot create resolution, I wonder what is going on in this chart? There are distinguishable groups of lines near the "10" (1000 lines) mark.



you're just enhancing whatever is there and introducing artifacting in the process. garbage in garbage out per se. black and white lines are as ideal to the algorithm as it gets, and not really representative of what you'll actually achieve in the field where less dramatic contrast and irregular edges will make sharpening fall appart. you simply can't extrapolate this result to what you'll capture in the field.


----------



## jcs (Apr 5, 2012)

JasonATL said:


> I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than myself can help us interpret this.
> 
> Here is capture from the same source video as in the resolution chart tests that I did (video linked above in this thread). In this capture, the video is on the bottom and the still (scaled to 1920x1080p) is on the top. I applied an EXTREME amount of sharpening to the video (more than anyone in their right mind would even dream of applying to real shots) and some to the still.
> 
> ...



Hey Jason- as the lines approach the resolution limit of the camera, the information begins to alias. As we move farther right, the aliasing becomes so strong that we can no longer see clear black-white line pairs. The limit in your chart example is around 850 lines, which is consistent with every other line chart test I have seen (including my own). The lines you are seeing past 850 are aliased and so-called 'false detail'. At one point based on your vimeo test I estimated 890 lines, however 850 is probably more fair. 1000+ would be nice but 850 is good enough for now.

I too have asked to see a line chart with the NO-OLPF mod. My guess is that it will show 900+ lines. I estimate that removing the OLPF might not alias too badly for video based on the low-pass filtering effect of pixel binning (2x2 or 3x3, etc.). Also requested pan shots on high detail image- sounds like they are coming.

It's possible to have the OPLF mod done for $450 by maxmax.com. They'll also put an optical glass in place to keep the optics correct. Ideally they'll find a way to also make the dust cleaning system work (or perhaps Canon will provide the parts, including optical glass, to make this work: another way to make a buck).


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 5, 2012)

No, those lines don't count at all.
You are supposed to stop counting as soon as you first hit a pair where you don't have a clear and normal looking separation. You can always get some here and there that pop up later on if they hit the right aliasing alignment or something. And there is more than resolution, the MTF can be really weak at higher frequencies. Without sharpening, black bars on the 5D3 already start fading out contrast even above just 400. Sharpening is absolutely required for 5D3 video otherwise the micro-contrast at all but really lo res scales is terrible.






JasonATL said:


> I'm hoping that someone more knowledgeable than myself can help us interpret this.
> 
> Here is capture from the same source video as in the resolution chart tests that I did (video linked above in this thread). In this capture, the video is on the bottom and the still (scaled to 1920x1080p) is on the top. I applied an EXTREME amount of sharpening to the video (more than anyone in their right mind would even dream of applying to real shots) and some to the still.
> 
> ...


----------



## JasonATL (Apr 5, 2012)

Thanks all for the explanations! I suspected that the lines at the higher frequencies "didn't count" or thought that they probably shouldn't count, even if they might count on some technicality. 

In my tests, my Sony EX1 looks "clean" in this regard -- without having to sharpen it. But, as I've said elsewhere, I often prefer the end result of the real world footage from the 5D3 (even my 600D in many cases) to my EX1.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 7, 2012)

JasonATL said:


> Thanks all for the explanations! I suspected that the lines at the higher frequencies "didn't count" or thought that they probably shouldn't count, even if they might count on some technicality.
> 
> In my tests, my Sony EX1 looks "clean" in this regard -- without having to sharpen it. But, as I've said elsewhere, I often prefer the end result of the real world footage from the 5D3 (even my 600D in many cases) to my EX1.



your tests did hint that the EX1 might be prone to aliasing


----------



## psolberg (Apr 8, 2012)

has anybody found a comparison of the 5DIII vs the HDMI 4:2:2 of the D800? I think the internal codec of the D800 easily wins in detail to even the "all I" mkIII one. But I'm really curious if the detail will improve using the HDMI out because both the D800 and 5DMKIII are still VERY SOFT compared to a still downscaled to 1080.


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 8, 2012)

It appears that the D800 is line skipping, only using one row out of three. This would explain its noise performance compared to the Mk III. It also appears that the Mk III is binning, using the entire sensor.

http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html


----------



## jcs (Apr 8, 2012)

psolberg said:


> has anybody found a comparison of the 5DIII vs the HDMI 4:2:2 of the D800? I think the internal codec of the D800 easily wins in detail to even the "all I" mkIII one. But I'm really curious if the detail will improve using the HDMI out because both the D800 and 5DMKIII are still VERY SOFT compared to a still downscaled to 1080.



ALL-I stores less detail than IPB (ALL-I stores more noise & artifacts, which can look sharper/more detailed before post processing. PPro CS5.5's decoder exacerbates the ALL-I quality problem (macroblocking), whereas FCP7/Compressor's decoder does a better job). Post sharpening works great on IPB (and to a lesser extent on ALL-I due to noise & artifacts; it can become chunky/granular if sharpened too much).

Tested static shots, moving shots, low & high detail- haven't yet been able to get ALL-I to exceed IPB in detail stored. If anyone has an example showing ALL-I exceeding IPB, please post it (+100% still frame crops) along with camera settings (http://carousel.hu/c300/?page_id=395 shows ALL-I not looking worse than IPB, however the scene is not detailed).


----------



## peederj (Apr 8, 2012)

jcs said:


> ALL-I stores less detail than IPB (ALL-I stores more noise & artifacts, which can look sharper/more detailed before post processing. PPro CS5.5's decoder exacerbates the ALL-I quality problem (macroblocking), whereas FCP7/Compressor's decoder does a better job). Post sharpening works great on IPB (and to a lesser extent on ALL-I due to noise & artifacts; it can become chunky/granular if sharpened too much).
> 
> Tested static shots, moving shots, low & high detail- haven't yet been able to get ALL-I to exceed IPB in detail stored. If anyone has an example showing ALL-I exceeding IPB, please post it (+100% still frame crops) along with camera settings (http://carousel.hu/c300/?page_id=395 shows ALL-I not looking worse than IPB, however the scene is not detailed).



And would Canon kindly provide us an IPB that runs at ALL-I's max of 90mbps? The camera can handle streaming that much data; ALL-I is virtually worthless in practice...and so...why not let us use everything we paid for... :-\


----------



## Stephen Melvin (Apr 8, 2012)

peederj said:


> Interesting analysis of D800 resolution, with commentary on 5D3:
> 
> http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html



Wish I'd said that. 



Stephen Melvin said:


> It appears that the D800 is line skipping, only using one row out of three. This would explain its noise performance compared to the Mk III. It also appears that the Mk III is binning, using the entire sensor.
> 
> http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html


----------



## psolberg (Apr 8, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> It appears that the D800 is line skipping, only using one row out of three. This would explain its noise performance compared to the Mk III. It also appears that the Mk III is binning, using the entire sensor.
> 
> http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html



interesting but, I don't care much for moire from my experience with the 5DII. Detail, as close as true 1080p is what I'm after and so far the D800 delivers more than either the 5DII or III. I'm still looking for that HDMI 4:2:2 footage comparison, but apparently external recorders are having trouble doing the handshake with the D800 for full 1080p and OEMs have not yet provided firmware updates. namely the atomos ninja.


----------



## peederj (Apr 8, 2012)

With the advent of large sensor interchangeable lens video-specific cameras that are affordable (fs-100, fs-700, etc.) I think the days of DSLR video are more or less coming to an end anyway. It will fall back to being what it was intended for: a convenience facility for photojournalists that primarily shoot stills and don't want to carry two cameras. I shoot both stills and video roughly equally and would like to be able to have my 5d3 as a B-cam and even an A-cam for narrow DOF shots, but Canon has, sadly, crippled the resolution. :'(

The D800 is of no interest to me; my next stills camera move will probably be to medium format. Medium format video would be truly awesome.

Canon is going to try to wring some money out of people (via the overpriced C300) as they ramp up their cinema division, something they can only do because of the runaway success of the 5d2 and the subsequent vestment of all that EF glass. But with the fs-700 easily adaptable to EF or any other glass, and the Zeiss CP primes having interchangeable mounts, those margins will not be sustainable for Canon. I think they have made a big mistake here with the 5d3 resolution: they could have sustained that branding and that franchise, undercutting Sony and Panasonic, but they've had internal interference with their own opportunity. Positioning a 1080p cam against RED's 4K cam for a similar TCO was a blunder they shouldn't be protecting.

The 5d3 does beat the D800 in video, soundly. But who cares? Nikon is a non-player in video, even though it had the first DSLR video, and Canon has far bigger threats on its horizon.

We will check back after NAB.


----------



## Jedifarce (Apr 8, 2012)

jcs said:


> Received a 5D3 this morning; quick resolution test: http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39795



With the Sony NEX FS 700 just around the corner all these analyses could be moot. Shame really, I hate to say it but Canon could be left behind.


----------



## jcs (Apr 8, 2012)

I'm shooting my movie, now with 2 5D3s. I've got Canon lenses, and I am familiar with Canon's software (custom profiles), menu systems, and can get pro audio out of in-camera recording when necessary (using a preamp).

I can sharpen and add custom noise to IPB in post that looks crisp, clean and detailed enough for my needs at this time.

If the D800 were all around better, would you sell all of your Canon glasses and switch?

The FS700 is more than twice as much as the 5D3, requires an expensive adapter for Canon lenses (Metabones), requires a full support rig and a lot more gear to make into a useful tool. Granted the results will be excellent, however run & gun and discrete shooting options go away.

Hopefully the release of the FS700 will bring down the price of the C300, which I would prefer over the FS700 (the FS700 won't do 4k at release).

For the manufacturers, yes, it is a contest of sorts. However for us consumers, the release of new cameras doesn't prevent our current cameras from working. Nothing stopping us from completing our projects.

Also note that a $450 maxmax.com OLPF removal mod may bring the 5D3 up closer to 1000 lines of resolution. If they can make the dust cleaning system operational, I might consider this option (after more examples have been posted showing no major issues with aliasing and moire (at least similar to C300 performance)).


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 8, 2012)

if this is soft then I'm ok with soft. to me this is so sharp that i can read all the little tiny wording on all the billboards. also this look super clean to me, shot at night at 640iso f4 on the 24-105mm kit lens, in I-mode!
i also had to compress this for vimeo to a mp4, seems as clean and sharp as i would ever need out of DSLR.
fyi i also shot in times square last year too, but with a 5DMK2 and its was moire all over the place, none here!
ps, just noticed if you look at it on this page then its not playing in HD, so it probably does look soft, so press the vimeo button in the corner and make sure you watch in HD. the native file is even sharper.
5DMKIII night time video test


----------



## jcs (Apr 8, 2012)

Hey Jordan- thanks for posting the test shot. Can you shoot the same scene again using IPB and the same settings along with sharpening in post- set in-camera sharpening to 0 (it will look initially softer than ALL-I)? I can see macroblocking (Honda billboard, in shadow, NBC billboard), and aliasing (Subway sign).


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 8, 2012)

jcs said:


> Hey Jordan- thanks for posting the test shot. Can you shoot the same scene again using IPB and the same settings along with sharpening in post- set in-camera sharpening to 0 (it will look initially softer than ALL-I)? I can see macroblocking (Honda billboard, in shadow, NBC billboard), and aliasing (Subway sign).


no i can't because I'm not even in that state now, but again this had to be compressed to mp4 for vimeo, i don't see any aliasing or macro blocking in the original, unless i don't know what that is, because it looks cleaner then anything I've shot on a dslr before. with the MK2 is was unwatchable because of all the moire. but why would IPB be better when its not compressing each frame individually and relying on previous frames information, like the definition here:
"The new Canon EOS-1D X has two video compression options, intraframe ALL-I and interframe IPB. So just what are the differences between the two?

First it’s important to note that ALL-I is in-TRA-frame and IPB is in-TER-frame. Easy to over look that slight spelling difference.

The edit friendly intraframe ALl-I only compresses information in the current frame and does not use any temporal processing. Meaning the compression algorithm is not doing any type of comparison between frames. Think of it as a continuous series of still images that are each individually compressed. Intraframe compression is easier to edit with because the computer does not need to interpolate any data between each frame. With intraframe ALL-I, quality is higher, file size is larger, and the video files will use less computer processing power.

The file size conscious intraframe IPB uses some complex algorithms to compare neighboring frames and tries to find similarities from one frame to another. It can then achieve higher compression rates because it deals less with the parts of the image that stay the same from frame to frame. With interframe IPB, quality is lower (although Canon says not by much), file size is smaller, and the video files will use more computer processing power."


----------



## jcs (Apr 9, 2012)

jlev23 said:


> The file size conscious intraframe IPB uses some complex algorithms to compare neighboring frames and tries to find similarities from one frame to another. It can then achieve higher compression rates because it deals less with the parts of the image that stay the same from frame to frame. With interframe IPB, quality is lower (although Canon says not by much), file size is smaller, and the video files will use more computer processing power."



Thanks for the explanation Jordan (I work with these codecs at the software level in my day job). My low level analysis of video frames shows artifacts present in ALL-I but not in IPB (part of the issue is PPro CS5.5.2). Thus, my findings show IPB is higher quality vs. ALL-I (especially lower noise, and less macroblock artifacts). ALL-I is useful for editing on slower computers; IPB provides higher quality (please post images from video frames if you find otherwise). I understand it's counter-intuitive, however I have tested it. You too can test it. More info here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?279229-Canon-5D-Mark-III-IPB-contains-more-detail-and-has-less-artifacts-than-ALL-I/page3


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 9, 2012)

wow, really? I'm just going by what canon says in the manual, as well as some tech articles, this is shocking to me.
why would canon say one is better than the other when its not?


----------



## jlev23 (Apr 9, 2012)

hmmm, well thats just you saying that on the other thread. it seems like others say their A-I is fine, and it mentioned its better on osX then premiere, i don't get how its better on one then the other, but most people i know use fcp.
and i still don't know why canon would say one is better and you say its not. why would they do that?
i think I'm sticking to the one they say is better, because i don't see the difference.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 9, 2012)

peederj said:


> With the advent of large sensor interchangeable lens video-specific cameras that are affordable (fs-100, fs-700, etc.) I think the days of DSLR video are more or less coming to an end anyway. It will fall back to being what it was intended for: a convenience facility for photojournalists that primarily shoot stills and don't want to carry two cameras. I shoot both stills and video roughly equally and would like to be able to have my 5d3 as a B-cam and even an A-cam for narrow DOF shots, but Canon has, sadly, crippled the resolution. :'(
> 
> The D800 is of no interest to me; my next stills camera move will probably be to medium format. Medium format video would be truly awesome.
> 
> ...



+100000000000


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Apr 9, 2012)

Stephen Melvin said:


> It appears that the D800 is line skipping, only using one row out of three. This would explain its noise performance compared to the Mk III. It also appears that the Mk III is binning, using the entire sensor.
> 
> http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html



Yup and thus the D800 has much worse color moire, a bit worse aliasing, a slightly sharper image, 1.5-2 stops worse SNR across the entire ISO range and 1.5-2 stops worse dynamic range ISO1600 and up, worse DR at ISO800, probably similar DR at ISO400 and maybe around 2/3 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 5D3.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 11, 2012)

> The 5d3 does beat the D800 in video, soundly. But who cares? Nikon is a non-player in video, even though it had the first DSLR video, and Canon has far bigger threats on its horizon.



well it depends on your needs. the D800 has MUCH better resolution IMO and with the 4:2:2 uncompressed out that the 5DmkIII totally lacks, it has a big edge in image quality for a lot of practical shooting conditions. I'd much rather have extra detail since moire has rarely been a problem with the 5DII for me. Other than the moire issues, for which there are already filters in the works by the same companies that helped the 5DmkII, the D800 camera is on very solid ground video wise. While nikon may have lagged in the past, they are pretty serious now and getting a lot of good press. I wouldn't dimiss them in the slightest. I'm still looking for good comparison of the HDMI out on the D800. Unless you're really going to shoot night videos, I don't see a single feature in the 5DmkIII that is so far ahead to make it a default choice. The fact I'm even considering it speaks volumes to how nikon has not only matched but exceeded the 5DIII in some ways. competition is great and 2012 is going to see a lot of Nikon video all over. It was far overdue and a great thing to see for if they had done it sooner, the 5DIII would likely be much better than what we got.




> Yup and thus the D800 has much worse color moire, a bit worse aliasing, a slightly sharper image, 1.5-2 stops worse SNR across the entire ISO range and 1.5-2 stops worse dynamic range ISO1600 and up, worse DR at ISO800, probably similar DR at ISO400 and maybe around 2/3 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 5D3.



I think it has a LOT better resolution. see below from EOSHD


> ...the D800 reads every 3rd line of the sensor from a 1.095x crop in FX mode. When the sensor output is demosaiced to a near-final RGB image, resolution is an impressive 2240 x 1260.
> 
> This is then downsampled (presumably in a pretty decent way) to 1920 x 1080.



...so the D800 is a 1260P camera downsizing to 1080p, in contrast to the canon:


> From that, I can already conclude that the 5DmkIII reads out all its sensels, i.e., does no line skipping. However, I didn't run a resolution analysis for the 5DmkIII. However, hearing about resolution complaints for 5DmkIII video, I think they bin pixels before read out. This improves noise and aliasing performance but unlike downsampling, doesn't help the resolution.


http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html

I'm looking forward to a similar analysis of the 5DmkIII by the blog above. EOSHD reckons that the 5DmkIII doesn't even deliver true 1080p but how far below the 1260P resolution of the nikon it is remains to be tested.

Also, EOSHD removed his OLP on the 5DmkIII. I'm sure we'll see some side by side comparisons from him soon and validate if such drastic modification is the only way to bring the 5DmkIII on par with the D800 in particular if you slap the D800 with one of these babies to solve the moire problem.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7809/mosaic-engineering-working-on-nikon-d800-anti-moire-filter


interesting times.


----------



## psolberg (Apr 11, 2012)

eosHD finally had it with the sub standard resolution of the 5DmkIII and removed the OLP filter

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7813/how-i-opened-my-5d-mark-iii-and-why-you-have-to-be-crazy-to-do-it

from his blog:


> SO…Is the camera resolving closer to GH2 levels of detail without the low pass filter? I’d say I am very happy with the image so far. 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!!



very interesting.


----------

