# How bad is moire?



## BokChoiTV (Feb 10, 2013)

Is moire that bad of a problem or is it more of a Pro's "OCD" type of thing.
I'm close to investing in a 6D for video, well aware of the Moire issues, but people tell me to save for the Mk III.
My question is, is the moire difference enough to justify the extra $$$?
I planned on getting an L glass with the money I saved getting a 6D.
Also, is the moire worse than a 5D MkII's?


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Feb 10, 2013)

I consider myself a total snob when it comes to IQ and honestly moire is one of the last things i notice. Of the zillion clips i've watched, i've never said to myself, "that would have been perfect, except for the moire."

Then again, maybe the people who do everything else right are good at avoiding moire too. 

That being said, you might want to consider the gh3 as a more dedicated dslr for video. You'll save a bunch on lenses too.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 10, 2013)

There are ways to control moire, whilst shooting and in post.

If you are buying a camera to do video seriously, the 5D3 has a few better ways of doing things, such as a wider range of codecs, some less compressed, some more efficient, and (at last!) a headphone socket for monitoring audio at the camera.

It's a heck of a lot more money, but if you are doing video very seriously or professionally you might want to go for the 5D3... sorry, just go that bit further and get a C100 instead.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 10, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> It's a heck of a lot more money, but if you are doing video very seriously or professionally you might want to go for the 5D3... sorry, just go that bit further and get a C100 instead.



I know that paul doesn't use it, but I'd like to mention that unlike the c line the 5d3 (also 6d) runs Magic Lantern which can be a big plus for many video applications. 

From everything I read (which basically is paul13walnut5 ) you can remove moiré in post, but unprocessed it is a major hassle in some scenes and might irritate your clients a lot, just look at some samples with moiré in it like whirring rooftops or brick walls - so personally if I'd do video I'd go for the 5d3 which has superior anti-aliasing above many competing dslrs.


----------



## Policar (Feb 10, 2013)

It's bad. Way worse than betacam, which was bad in the first place. You can't really remove moire in post. There are ways to mitigate it. But download that sample video in the 6D thread and try acceptably removing that in post. It won't happen.

And seriously look at 6D sample footage. To me it looks terrible, worse than the older generation, which had serious problems. That said, I own and operate a 5D Mark III and a C100 and the best footage I've shot has been on my old t2i and a rented 5D Mark II. So it depends on the project. For wide shots or for fabrics I think the 6D might be a small disaster, at least as bad as the 5D Mark II, 7D, etc. if not much worse. Just look at the sample footage. Does it bother you? If it does, don't buy it. No one else can make this decision for you.

That said, I'd get a t3i, used Mark II, Mark III, or C100 for video if you need Canon. Or a GH3. In fact I'd just get the C100. This camera is great! But failing that the GH3 seems to be the thing to get if you're not tied into the EOS system.


----------



## Radiating (Feb 10, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Is moire that bad of a problem or is it more of a Pro's "OCD" type of thing.
> I'm close to investing in a 6D for video, well aware of the Moire issues, but people tell me to save for the Mk III.
> My question is, is the moire difference enough to justify the extra $$$?
> I planned on getting an L glass with the money I saved getting a 6D.
> Also, is the moire worse than a 5D MkII's?



The moire is not a pro OCD issue buy will utterly destroy some shots and make it look like the camera is broken. Footage will be completely unusable. Don't do it. Get the 5D3 or 5D2, the moire on the 6D is much worse than the 5D2.


----------



## dmosier (Feb 11, 2013)

Policar said:


> That said, I'd get a t3i, used Mark II, Mark III, or C100 for video if you need Canon.



A T3i? Meh... I think that wouldn't be a good choice. A 60D or 7D would be better. Same sensor, but with better hardware and firmware wrapped around it. 7Ds are tanks and the 60D still has the flip out screen. Both of them have better ISO options as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 11, 2013)

dmosier said:


> Both of them have better ISO options as well.



... unless of course you use Magic Lantern  ... but the swivel screen on the 60d definitely is a plus for video amongst other things as landscape/macro tripod work.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2013)

BokChoiTV said:


> Is moire that bad of a problem or is it more of a Pro's "OCD" type of thing.
> I'm close to investing in a 6D for video, well aware of the Moire issues, but people tell me to save for the Mk III.
> My question is, is the moire difference enough to justify the extra $$$?
> I planned on getting an L glass with the money I saved getting a 6D.
> Also, is the moire worse than a 5D MkII's?



I'd rather shoot with a 5D3 and whatever glass than a 6D and L glass when it comes to movies. Both are softish and give low micro-contrast video anyway. Moire and aliasing can show up a lot at times, but using an L vs non-L probably won't show up much for video.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 11, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> paul13walnut5 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a heck of a lot more money, but if you are doing video very seriously or professionally you might want to go for the 5D3... sorry, just go that bit further and get a C100 instead.
> ...



You can remove some of it by making already soft for 1920x1080p even yet far softer still but good luck fixing up color moire when white dots of light keep changing colors, yeah you can do that, but do you want to write some complex auto-mate software to help you do it or sit there and hand paint frame by frame??

Perhaps once they release a video filter for it, it won't be too bad though (although if you want to also use it for stills it becomes a pain).

Another way to avoid some of the aliasing is to keep the focus just a trace soft, yeah another way to then make the L lenses you spent the money on instead even yet more of a waste.

If you shoot a lot of natural world stuff or one of stuff I'd go for 5D3. If you shoot only 100% controlled scenes maybe you can get away with the 6D moire much more easily then eve as is, or, when the filter for it comes out maybe you can consider it if you don't plan to constantly swap between stills and video.

I'm quite sure how the 6D scales, if it line skips as much as the 5D2 then it will have much worse SNR than the 5D3, although perhaps it is doing something different and can come closer to 5D3 video SNR.


----------



## BokChoiTV (Feb 11, 2013)

Thanks for all the advice guys! My budget is pretty limited, but went ahead and got the Mk III tonight. Have yet to try it out, but thanks!


----------



## bycostello (Feb 11, 2013)

nice, good luck with it


----------



## Policar (Feb 12, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dmosier said:
> 
> 
> > Both of them have better ISO options as well.
> ...



T3i has a swivel screen and is the cheapest with equal image quality. Magic lantern takes care of ISO options. For stills I'd take the other two, but for video the T3i is the best bang for the buck. All decent options, though!


----------



## dmosier (Feb 12, 2013)

Policar said:


> Marsu42 said:
> 
> 
> > dmosier said:
> ...



I know this probably sounds like a minor quibble, but I can't stand that I have to hold down a button with my thumb while turning a dial to change my f/stop on the T3i. To me it is worth the extra cash just to get the better form of the 60D body. But to each their own, of course.


----------



## Marsu42 (Feb 12, 2013)

dmosier said:


> I know this probably sounds like a minor quibble, but I can't stand that I have to hold down a button with my thumb while turning a dial to change my f/stop on the T3i. To me it is worth the extra cash just to get the better form of the 60D body.



Same here, I'd never want to use a camera body w/o back wheel since I often change exposure compensation and currently try to shoot full m more often - both a pita on a Rebel-style camera.


----------



## Policar (Feb 13, 2013)

For whatever reason the lack of two dials never really bugged me, but for stills I could see it being annoying. I guess all these cameras are so inexpensive that a few hundreds dollars here or there doesn't really detract from the fantastic bang for the buck.

Fwiw, if you haven't invested in lenses yet and want to shoot video exclusively, consider the GH3. The image quality seems to be a lot better and it's way cheaper than the 6D and 5D III. Though the full frame look can be cool and the EOS system is fun. Canon has nice interfaces, too.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 14, 2013)

The big thing against the GH3 for me is the choice of lenses. I know you can adapt, I guess I'm just a bit wary.


----------



## Policar (Feb 14, 2013)

paul13walnut5 said:


> The big thing against the GH3 for me is the choice of lenses. I know you can adapt, I guess I'm just a bit wary.



Agree 100%. There are ways around it (the 12-35mm zoom, some of the expensive fast lenses, hopefully the speedbooster will be a good option), but the m43 sensor size is not ideal for video. FF and super35 are much better.

But if I were starting off and wanted a video camera kit (dSLR style) under $3,000 with lenses I'd still get the GH3. The GH2 really impressed me and this looks even better.


----------



## paul13walnut5 (Feb 14, 2013)

agreed the footage looks great, I read a head to head 'for video' review that also confirmed the GH3 footage was technically better, the reviewer still said they would choose the T3i as an overall systemic camera package.


----------



## Policar (Feb 14, 2013)

For stills, sure. But if it's a video-only investment I'd pick otherwise. It's all personal opinion, of course, but even the GH2 has WAY better image quality (when hacked) than the t3i does.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Feb 28, 2013)

Marsu42 said:


> dmosier said:
> 
> 
> > I know this probably sounds like a minor quibble, but I can't stand that I have to hold down a button with my thumb while turning a dial to change my f/stop on the T3i. To me it is worth the extra cash just to get the better form of the 60D body.
> ...



Yeah the non-Rebel Canon UI is so much more friendly to use. I love the UI on the xxD,7x,5x and now startign with 1DX 1 series UI a ton, way more than Rebel or Nikon UI.


----------

