# EOSHD 5DmkIII OLP delete verdict



## psolberg (Jun 18, 2012)

interesting read for those consdering remove the OLP filter to improve on the soft video output of the 5DmkIII.

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8201/canon-5d-mark-iii-without-optical-low-pass-filter-the-verdict


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jun 19, 2012)

psolberg said:


> interesting read for those consdering remove the OLP filter to improve on the soft video output of the 5DmkIII.
> 
> http://www.eoshd.com/content/8201/canon-5d-mark-iii-without-optical-low-pass-filter-the-verdict



Interesting. I am not too surprised. Since it didn't seem like the scale of the AA filter would likely have any tremendous affect on video, although I could imagine just a trace.

I still am going with my theory that the AA filter was made for single photosite scale but since video gets each pixel from 3x3 blocks the AA filter is too weak so they need to AA it in post processing to make it look smooth but that is a bit of fakery and to make it work they have to do it to a degree that you are not longer left with a truly crisp 1920x1080.

I also have a theory that if they gave it crop modes, like they should, and it could do a 2x2 sampling like C300 does and deliver full 1920x1080 at about 1.6x crop factor that since that would be closer to the AA scale they wouldn't need to soften it as much in post and you could get like a regular 35mm sized frame with better fine detail and micro-contrast than from the FF mode. The mode would have worse SNR but sometimes that doesn't matter as much. Same for DOF changes. And for widlife the extra reach would be a huge plus (and even greater than 1.6x mode, in addition, would also be nice, although it would have to suffer from line skipping and such).


----------



## psolberg (Jun 20, 2012)

^yeah. but utlimately, it is all just bandaids over something that we shouldn't be dealing with in second gen cameras and some as expensive as these full frame things. Or maybe finally the foolish goal of trying to make a camera that can deliver detail on stills and excel in video is finally becoming apparent. The C line from canon and FS line from sony excel because they are video cameras first.


----------



## bp (Jun 20, 2012)

psolberg said:


> Or maybe finally the foolish goal of trying to make a camera that can deliver detail on stills and excel in video is finally becoming apparent.



foolish goal? Uh.... they succeeded in that goal. Are you trying to argue that DSLR's do not excel in video? Or are you just saying that they do not surpass the quality of dedicated video cameras? Because those are two very different statements

The last 4 years have proven beyond any reasonable argument that exceptional video can be produced on DSLR's (and micro 4/3 cams like your favorite blogger loves to harp on ad nauseum)

However, they are hybrids. If your primary goal is to get the absolute best "Video" camera money can buy, perhaps you should buy a camera that was made to shoot video only. But to say that trying to produce a hybrid that excels in both is foolish is just... foolish


----------



## psolberg (Jun 21, 2012)

bp said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > Or maybe finally the foolish goal of trying to make a camera that can deliver detail on stills and excel in video is finally becoming apparent.
> ...



RANT:
lame excuses. nobody is asking 4K at 960 fps. nobody is asking 1080p at 240 fps. nobody is asking even 1080p at anything other than just 1080p...LIKE IT SHOULD. You know.... as in not the equivalent of 720 or less upscaled to a muddy 1920x1080 frame you get out of a 3000 dollar plus camera.

I originally ranted a lot more. But I think I'll just leave it like this:
what's the point of "1080P" high definition, if it ain't that. If point and shoot panasonic offers better video quality than every Canon/Nikon/Sony DSLR...maybe, just maybe customers should expect a little more. 
/RANT.


----------



## bp (Jun 21, 2012)

meh - not worth an argument

personally, I don't think the GH2 offers better video quality. Very crisp picture, yes, but resolution is not the only criteria I look at. but thats just my opinion


----------



## bp (Jun 21, 2012)

Look - I should probably clarify MY stance. Everyone has their own perspective, and I appreciate that. Its very possible that in the sort of things you shoot, perhaps crisp resolution IS the most important thing to you, and I don't mean to diminish that.

In MY experience, and the projects that I've shot with DSLR's, I've personally never had a single client question the sharpness of the picture, or ask about why something isn't sharper than it is. I HAVE, however, had to deal with very irritated, paying clients who wanted to know what the heck was up with dancing lines. Explaining moire, with my tail between my legs, and offering to schedule a reshoot was MY low point. 

So for me (and this is only for ME), when Canon released the Mk3, I could not possibly have been happier. In side by side tests against my Mk2 (which my clients were already impressed with), I saw slightly better resolution, footage that holds up better to post processing, and NO MOIRE. I know for a lot of people that doesn't mean much, because they're lucky in never having had to deal with it. 

I do understand people wanting to see more progress in other areas though, such as the resolution. didn't mean to demean your points, just pointing out my vantage point as well, and got off topic in the process. My original point was simply that DSLR's do excel at video. The length to which they excel is going to be in the eye of the beholder.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jun 21, 2012)

bp said:


> meh - not worth an argument
> 
> personally, I don't think the GH2 offers better video quality. Very crisp picture, yes, but resolution is not the only criteria I look at. but thats just my opinion



I pretty much agree, but the Gh2 is less than 1/3 the price of a 5D3, so in terms of quality to price ratio, i give an edge to the gh2.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 21, 2012)

bp said:


> meh - not worth an argument
> 
> personally, I don't think the GH2 offers better video quality. Very crisp picture, yes, but resolution is not the only criteria I look at. but thats just my opinion



well, good quality muddy video is ok for some I suppose. Me? maybe I just think a state of the art DSLR should deliver what says in the box.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jun 22, 2012)

I think the apparent muddying of the picture is a result of the 4:2:0 chroma sampling. Is there a dslr that will put out progressive 4:2:2?


----------



## psolberg (Jun 22, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I think the apparent muddying of the picture is a result of the 4:2:0 chroma sampling. Is there a dslr that will put out progressive 4:2:2?



that is what you get with the D800 using the uncompressed HDMI out. But I don't think that is the problem either because althought the D800 does resolve more perceived detail than the 5DmkIII 1080p footage, it isn't really on par with the quality of 1080 footage you get from some dedicated video cameras. So I'm calling out both cameras as lacking true 1080p resolution even if they can output a 1920x1080 frame. It is just a question of which is the least bad at it. Whatever sampling of the sensor nikon and canon are doing seems to yield significant loss of perceived detail.


----------



## HurtinMinorKey (Jun 22, 2012)

I thought the 1080 hdmi out from the d800 was interlaced, not progressive. I think the video on Nikon cameras is beholden to the will of Sony because of the way they license the sensors. Thus, Nikon will always be a step behind with video, not because of capability, but because Sony wants to protect their v-cams.


----------



## bp (Jun 22, 2012)

You are correct - D800 is only progressive at 720. 1080 is interlaced


----------



## syder (Jun 26, 2012)

bp said:


> In MY experience, and the projects that I've shot with DSLR's, I've personally never had a single client question the sharpness of the picture, or ask about why something isn't sharper than it is. I HAVE, however, had to deal with very irritated, paying clients who wanted to know what the heck was up with dancing lines. Explaining moire, with my tail between my legs, and offering to schedule a reshoot was MY low point.
> 
> So for me (and this is only for ME), when Canon released the Mk3, I could not possibly have been happier. In side by side tests against my Mk2 (which my clients were already impressed with), I saw slightly better resolution, footage that holds up better to post processing, and NO MOIRE. I know for a lot of people that doesn't mean much, because they're lucky in never having had to deal with it.
> 
> I do understand people wanting to see more progress in other areas though, such as the resolution. didn't mean to demean your points, just pointing out my vantage point as well, and got off topic in the process. My original point was simply that DSLR's do excel at video. The length to which they excel is going to be in the eye of the beholder.



Basically this... Everyone who actually makes work with DSLRs and relies on them to make money absolutely loathed moire issues. That the 5DM3 basically resolves the single biggest image quality issue with these cameras. I've also never had a client complain about resolution, but I have had numerous well-paid jobs where the client (who have been people who've worked in production for decades) have been absolutely gushing with praise over the quality of the images produced by a DSLR - and that's after watching them back on a 40ft cinema screen. That said I don't film wide shots of detailed landscapes for a living - and if I did I probably wouldn't choose to use a DSLR because it would be the wrong tool for the job.

The only other issue that came close to moire for irritation was sound (it was workable, but a pain in the ass, I've never had to reshoot because sound had horrible noise issues). and while ML gave those of us who hacked cameras audio monitoring and audio levels/controls, they're now baseline features. Zebras and focus peaking would have been nice too, but I guess we'll wait for ML or a possible firmware upgrade to have those up and running... 

I think people forget how frustratingly limited the 5DM2 was for video when it 1st came out, it's only been a long succession of firmware upgrades and ML that made it as powerful a filmmaking tool as it has been for the last couple of years. Hopefully we'll see a similar improvement over the life-cycle of the 5DM3.

The biggest disappointment for me is the codec/bitrate. Broadcast (in the UK) is 100mb/s intraframe and 50mb/s long GOP... The 5Dm3 currently pitched to be just under both so that it isn't a broadcast solution that steps on the C300's toes. There was no other reason why the camera didn't use the 50mb/s 4:2:2 long GOP codec Canon used in the XF100. Unlike resolution that genuinely is an issue which limits the utility of these cameras for video work.


----------



## psolberg (Jun 27, 2012)

HurtinMinorKey said:


> I thought the 1080 hdmi out from the d800 was interlaced, not progressive. I think the video on Nikon cameras is beholden to the will of Sony because of the way they license the sensors. Thus, Nikon will always be a step behind with video, not because of capability, but because Sony wants to protect their v-cams.



no. it is 1080p. You need the right recorder.



bp said:


> You are correct - D800 is only progressive at 720. 1080 is interlaced



nope. 1080p at 4:2:2 color. the claim the D800 could only do 1080i was because the atomos ninja could not, until their recent firmware, identify itself as capable of recording 1080p to the D800. So the D800 would send it a 1080i signal as most devices will understand that. However, once atomos worked the protocol out, the D800 sends it a true 1080p 4:2:2 color signal.

http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/04/22/nab-2012-nikon-d800-and-atomos-ninja-2-now-working-in-harmony/

as you can see from the sample video in that page, the 1080p uncompressed ninja footage edits much more nicely. Unlike with compressed internal footage you can both grade it and be a bit more daring on sharpening which you can't do without sharpening artifacts on cameras like the 5DmkIII.

But although resolution is slightly better than on the 5DmkIII in both internal and external modes, it is still no true 1080p. Yes you can sharpen uncompressed video better but sharpening doesn't bring detail that isn't there. It just make you perceive more detail.

I like the set of stills below for comparison purposes. It also shows how bit-rate doesn't really create a sharper image. Folks hoping that a higher bit rate can cure the 5DmkIII resolution issues will likely be dissapointed since likely the issue is low level sensor readout and processing pre-encoding.

http://proofs.iamron.com/Personal/Atomos-Ninja-VS-D800-In-Camera/

the second to notice is that you can all but eliminate codec artifacts in high motion scenes. every dslr to date falls appart in this regard, and the D800 is no different. However, by allowing you to record pro-res externally at much much higher bit rates, you can get an artifact free image impossible using internal codec based cameras.

I have a ninja 2 on order. But I'm left wanting more. So I'm all but convinced a Sony FS100 or FS700 is going to become my video rig. DSLR video is just not keeping up.


----------



## syder (Jun 28, 2012)

psolberg said:


> I'm all but convinced a Sony FS100 or FS700 is going to become my video rig. DSLR video is just not keeping up.



Canon 5Dm3 = a sub £3k pro stills camera with very capable video features
Sony fs700 = a £6500 dedicated video camera

Seriously, on what planet would a dedicated video camera which costs more than twice as much be inferior to a hybrid device? Whining that a DSLR isn't better than a FS700 makes about as much sense as whining that a FS700 isn't better than an Alexa or an Epic.


----------



## Jettatore (Jun 29, 2012)

+1


----------



## psolberg (Jul 6, 2012)

syder said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > I'm all but convinced a Sony FS100 or FS700 is going to become my video rig. DSLR video is just not keeping up.
> ...



sorry but that there is a better camera, doesn't excuse canon or any other DSLR from not delivering decent 1080p period. Mention not the fact lesser cameras can deliver better resolution than a 3500 dollar DSLR. 

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7722/5d-mark-iii-vs-gh2-vs-nex-7

excuses excuses. I want results not excuses.


----------



## syder (Jul 6, 2012)

psolberg said:


> syder said:
> 
> 
> > psolberg said:
> ...



?! If you think the gh2 is a better camera for your video needs than a 5DM3 then buy one. But for the 99.9% of filmmakers who don't rely on wide landscape shots to make their money that simply isn't the case. Posting links to a hobbyist who has a massive resolution fixation isn't going to make the blindest bit of difference to people who actually make a living through video work. Resolution wasn't a problem for Act of Valour or the Avengers in using Canon DSLR's - what is it that you do that is so much more demanding than those productions?

If you genuinely believed that a gh2 is the way forwards, why state that you think you're going to buy a FS700? If you think it's unreasonable that a DSLR which can be had for £2500 isn't a better device than a £6500 dedicated video camera I'm sorry but I don't think I can help your ridiculous expectations. You may as well be arguing that a 650d should be better than a 1dx irrespective of cost. Oh hang on... the 650d has the same resolution for stills and video as the 1dx... How the hell can Canon possibly justify charging more for one than the other!? 

If you want results, go buy a camera and stop whining on the Internet. If you think a gh2 is an amazing camera, great: go buy one. If you think a FS700 fits your needs: great, go buy one. If you expect any manufacture to suddenly release a DSLR which will outperform video cameras which cost several times as much in every situation, put down the crackpipe and come back to reality.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Jul 6, 2012)

syder said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > syder said:
> ...



You do have to admit it is a bit soft and the lack of focus peaking, crop modes and zebras is pretty ridiculous after 3.5 years and $800 increase. Even Canon admits for regular shooting as people often do with DSLR focus peaking is critical (as part of their explanation for why they left it out of the 1C hah claiming the ways those shot would be different from DSLR so it wouldn't be critical). The latter stuff, at the least, was 100% all Canon marketing MBA droids causing their useless havoc again and just further agitating their user base and getting the cams "meh, ok" reviews instead of raves.


----------



## psolberg (Jul 17, 2012)

syder said:


> psolberg said:
> 
> 
> > syder said:
> ...



again, just excuses. All just a bunch of nonsensical justification for a problem that shouldn't exist. I want a camera that can deliver decent 1080p. the fact a 3500 dollar camera can't, is not in any way justifiable period. And the fact a cheap micro 4/3's body can spank it in terms of detail is just downright shameful. Even the D800, which manages more effective resolution doesn't really match the output quality of the lesser m4/3's bodies. That is downright shameful for nikon/canon, but specially for canon since they are supposed to be the "leader" of dslr video....uh except off course if you want image quality it appears....

This isn't 2008 when the 5DmkII could be given a pass because it was first. This is 2012 and we're stuck with 2008 image quality which is not acceptable after you spend that kind of money. Again nobody is asking 1080p at 240fps or 4K video. Just DECENT 1080p as in what is produced by cheapper less cameras. To accept anything less is to settle, or make lemonade out of lemons at they say. Hardly a choice when there is no choice in the full frame dslr segment that delivers nothing more than muddy video.


----------



## bp (Jul 17, 2012)

psolberg, why do you keep reawakening the thread with the same hysterics over and over?
go buy a dedicated video camera and find some peace in your life.



syder said:


> Seriously, on what planet would a dedicated video camera which costs more than twice as much be inferior to a hybrid device? Whining that a DSLR isn't better than a FS700 makes about as much sense as whining that a FS700 isn't better than an Alexa or an Epic.





syder said:


> If you want results, go buy a camera and stop whining on the Internet. If you think a gh2 is an amazing camera, great: go buy one. If you think a FS700 fits your needs: great, go buy one. If you expect any manufacture to suddenly release a DSLR which will outperform video cameras which cost several times as much in every situation, put down the crackpipe and come back to reality.


----------

