Was teetering over the edge (5d mark II) but have come back to the ledge

[Daniel Browning]

?????????

Graeme's image shows that the 5D2 has the so-called aliasing "artifacts". Aliasing artifacts are a highly desirable feature that all photographers love, camera designers strive for, and makes the image easy to compress.

Canon achieved a technological breakthrough with the 5D2 which allows it to have more aliasing than any other camera to date. It's a revolutionary technique where they skip two out of three lines on the sensor. That's right, only 1 out of 3 pixels are ever used! This amazing idea (Patent Pending) never occurred to RED and other manufacturers, because they have been doggedly sticking to old-fashioned and outdated ideas about camera design, such as reading every line on the sensor. Pfft. Luddites. (I hear the 5D3 will skip 9 out of 10 lines -- that will be even better!)

Until now, aliasing-lovers have had to make do with poor imitations such as interlace twitter and aliasing added in post-production. But now we can have it directly in our original camera footage!

You think that would be enough, right? Not for Canon. Line skipping doesn't just cause aliasing artifacts such as moire, jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, and false detail. It also causes many other image enhancements, such as macroblocking, artificially-smoothed areas, posterization, and poor resolution. Only a bold visionary like Canon could achieve all these features in one fell swoop. That's the reason why the 5D2 is a revolutionary camera: it's is going places that no other manufacturer will touch! (Not with a ten foot pole.)

Of course, there are some dolts who think line skipping, aliasing artifacts, and so-on actually have a *negative* impact on the image. They say they can't watch the 5D2 artifacts without clawing their eyes out. They learned the hard way: DO NOT LOOK INTO 5D2 FOOTAGE WITH REMAINING EYE.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

GRAEME! NSFW Tags... geeze. A little heads up. Come on man... you know better.

D5 looks pretty good as long as nothing moves. I almost picked one up as a stop gap to scarlet but I'm certain I would regret it. For stills I'm more than happy with my Canon F1.

 

[Gerald Menclik]

Graeme's image shows that the 5D2 has the so-called aliasing "artifacts". Aliasing artifacts are a highly desirable feature that all photographers love, camera designers strive for, and makes the image easy to compress.

Canon achieved a technological breakthrough with the 5D2 which allows it to have more aliasing than any other camera to date. It's a revolutionary technique where they skip two out of three lines on the sensor. That's right, only 1 out of 3 pixels are ever used! This amazing idea (Patent Pending) never occurred to RED and other manufacturers, because they have been doggedly sticking to old-fashioned and outdated ideas about camera design, such as reading every line on the sensor. Pfft. Luddites. (I hear the 5D3 will skip 9 out of 10 lines -- that will be even better!)

Until now, aliasing-lovers have had to make do with poor imitations such as interlace twitter and aliasing added in post-production. But now we can have it directly in our original camera footage!

You think that would be enough, right? Not for Canon. Line skipping doesn't just cause aliasing artifacts such as moire, jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, and false detail. It also causes many other image enhancements, such as macroblocking, artificially-smoothed areas, posterization, and poor resolution. Only a bold visionary like Canon could achieve all these features in one fell swoop. That's the reason why the 5D2 is a revolutionary camera: it's is going places that no other manufacturer will touch! (Not with a ten foot pole.)

Of course, there are some dolts who think line skipping, aliasing artifacts, and so-on actually have a *negative* impact on the image. They say they can't watch the 5D2 artifacts without clawing their eyes out. They learned the hard way: DO NOT LOOK INTO 5D2 FOOTAGE WITH REMAINING EYE.

no one could say it better .... how stubborn are we? Always looking for the best possible picture with the least possible artifacts in production ... :head_explode:

 

[David Rasberry]

Well put Dan.

 

[David Rasberry]

It looks like the HDMI out has a full time focus box on it or something. Nevermind, I guess my idea to capture HDMI is not really possible. Too bad, this would be a good way to bypass the H.264.

Output from HDMI would be H.264 or some other flavor of MPEG2/4 as that is what the TV's are able to decode. It is a TV output for direct display of footage.

 

[Daniel Lipats]

Output from HDMI would be H.264 or some other flavor of MPEG2/4 as that is what the TV's are able to decode. It is a TV output for direct display of footage.

Where are you getting that? TV's can't decode MPEG2/4 or H.264, and the HDMI has nothing to do with them...

HDMI is an interface for transmitting uncompressed digital data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Standard is:

• xvYCC 4:4:4
• sRGB 4:4:4
• YCbCr 4:4:4
• YCbCr 4:2:2

 

[Bryce O]

Graeme's image shows that the 5D2 has the so-called aliasing "artifacts". Aliasing artifacts are a highly desirable feature that all photographers love, camera designers strive for, and makes the image easy to compress.

Canon achieved a technological breakthrough with the 5D2 which allows it to have more aliasing than any other camera to date. It's a revolutionary technique where they skip two out of three lines on the sensor. That's right, only 1 out of 3 pixels are ever used! This amazing idea (Patent Pending) never occurred to RED and other manufacturers, because they have been doggedly sticking to old-fashioned and outdated ideas about camera design, such as reading every line on the sensor. Pfft. Luddites. (I hear the 5D3 will skip 9 out of 10 lines -- that will be even better!)

Until now, aliasing-lovers have had to make do with poor imitations such as interlace twitter and aliasing added in post-production. But now we can have it directly in our original camera footage!

You think that would be enough, right? Not for Canon. Line skipping doesn't just cause aliasing artifacts such as moire, jaggies, stair-stepping, sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, bands, patterns, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, and false detail. It also causes many other image enhancements, such as macroblocking, artificially-smoothed areas, posterization, and poor resolution. Only a bold visionary like Canon could achieve all these features in one fell swoop. That's the reason why the 5D2 is a revolutionary camera: it's is going places that no other manufacturer will touch! (Not with a ten foot pole.)

Of course, there are some dolts who think line skipping, aliasing artifacts, and so-on actually have a *negative* impact on the image. They say they can't watch the 5D2 artifacts without clawing their eyes out. They learned the hard way: DO NOT LOOK INTO 5D2 FOOTAGE WITH REMAINING EYE.

The 5D still is revolutionary. It might not be perfect, but it's more than enough for most projects. Do you really think if you made some amazing film someone is going to stop and say "wait, it looks like the camera you used only sampled 2 out of 3 lines from the sensor, I guess that means your movie is garbage... sorry." Obviously the 5D's compression is not the most professional, but it still does capture amazing images. Bottom line is, if you can't make something decent on a full-frame progressive (even if it isn't 24) interchangeable lens camera... Then you suck. Don't save up for a scarlet, don't save for a epic, just sell all you film making crap because it isn't for you. Capture codecs and artifacts are not a legitimate excuse.

 

[Daniel Browning]

The 5D still is revolutionary. It might not be perfect, but it's more than enough for most projects. Do you really think if you made some amazing film someone is going to stop and say "wait, it looks like the camera you used only sampled 2 out of 3 lines from the sensor, I guess that means your movie is garbage... sorry."

You're right. Line skipping doesn't matter. Because when the 5D2 artifacts ruin the image, the viewer wont care *why* it's happening, they'll just turn it off.

Capture codecs and artifacts are not a legitimate excuse.

I'll agree to disagree. Artifacts do matter. Especially when they are as bad as the 5D2. Some people can't tell the difference between youtube on a mobile phone and a proper 4K theater. The artifacts wont matter to them. And although I was sarcastic earlier, there actually are many people, even photographers, who actually like aliasing. (Poor, backwards folk; what trauma they must have gone through to become that way.)

The 5D2 artifacts are so bad that I don't even like to use it for personal home videos; let alone something intended for an audience. (Though I must admit that the convenience of a combined still/video camera is very nice, so I am indeed using it for my kid's birthday parties and such.)

 

[Daniel Lipats]

Daniel Browning is right about aliasing. There are artifacts and under some conditions and they can in fact become a problem. If they mater or not is pretty subjective.

Having used the camera on a number of projects since December 2008 I can say that it has rarely ever caused any trouble. Maybe just out of my dumb luck... I can't say that you won't have problems, it really depends on the subject, focus, the lens, f/stop, filters, etc...

You can eliminate the visible aliasing artifacts caused by line skipping by using some light diffusion, or put the problem area slightly out of focus.

Technically speaking, there is no doubt that the 5D video is flawed... but so is the grain on some 35mm stock. Does that make it useless too? The 5D is just another tool in the box.

If you plan to make a career out of shooting resolution charts, defiantly the wrong camera.

 

[David Rasberry]

Where are you getting that? TV's can't decode MPEG2/4 or H.264, and the HDMI has nothing to do with them...

HDMI is an interface for transmitting uncompressed digital data. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI

Standard is:

• xvYCC 4:4:4
• sRGB 4:4:4
• YCbCr 4:4:4
• YCbCr 4:2:2

I stand corrected. However it looks like Canon's HDMI output is decoded MPEG4. Is it even available in live view mode? Can you shoot with a monitor attached?

 

[Thomas Koch]

I shot some great Scarlet footage this past weekend at a Taekwondo tournament. Switching between stills and video was super simple and it worked flawlessly.

Oh, wait, that was the 5D.

 

[Tom Frisch]

You can shoot with HDMI monitor attached, but it turns off the LCD when you hook up the HDMI.

When you hit record, it also switches to some low-res output and is black for the first 3 seconds of recording. In a word, it sucks. But it's better than nothing.

5D has MANY problems- framerate, codec, sound, aliasing, zebras, etc. But it also can be a great tool in certain situations- low light, doc work, low-profile (looks like you're shooting a still) etc.

I can't wait till there is a Scarlet that shows us all what we've been missing in small, lightweight, large-sensor, low-light, raw aqusition that has the filmmaker in mind, rather than as an unloved stepchild locked in the 30P basement.

-Tom

 

[Daniel Lipats]

Hudson over at Cinema5D has been working on a firmware hack. No release yet but should not be too long. From what I understand, the implemented features so far are:

• Zebra
• On screen audio levels
• Automatic audio gain disabled
• On screen guides
• Simple peaking
• Composite cable no longer disables LCD, not sure about HDMI

Here is a video demonstrating some of the new features: http://vimeo.com/4858670

 

[Daniel Browning]

Having used the camera on a number of projects since December 2008 I can say that it has rarely ever caused any trouble. Maybe just out of my dumb luck... I can't say that you won't have problems, it really depends on the subject, focus, the lens, f/stop, filters, etc...

I've used the camera since December 2008 too, and I haven't seen *any* footage that had both high resolution and no artifacts at the same time. Either the shot is soft (thin DOF, missed focus, diffraction, lens aberrations, diffusion, etc.) or it has artifacts. Most of the footage I've seen (including my own) uses extremely thin DOF, so the artifacts only occur around a very tiny portion of the image. Eyeglasses, for example, can be one of the most frustrating places to see aliasing, since it distracts the viewer from the eyes. But if the DOF is thin enough, even the glasses can be out of focus, taking care of one of the worst problems.

So, essentially, if one only needs to deliver 480p instead of 1080p, then it's possible to remove enough resolution from the 5D2 optically that the artifacts are not a problem.

I would much rather have real 480p over an aliased 1080p, because once aliasing contaminates the image, it can't be removed.

EDIT:

Technically speaking, there is no doubt that the 5D video is flawed... but so is the grain on some 35mm stock. Does that make it useless too?

The difference is that grain is pretty and aliasing is (very) ugly.

The 5D is just another tool in the box.

True. It's a matter of taste. And some don't have any.

 

[Daniel Lipats]

I agree film grain can look nice in moderation, but that was not the point. Besides, not all stock is the same... and you never want too much of a good thing

All of my clients have been extremely pleased with the results, and in the end that's what maters. It's just a camera, as soon as I can get my hands on a better one I am jumping ship.

We agree to disagree, to each his own! :beer:

 

[Roberto Lequeux]

The 5D still is revolutionary. It might not be perfect, but it's more than enough for most projects. Do you really think if you made some amazing film someone is going to stop and say "wait, it looks like the camera you used only sampled 2 out of 3 lines from the sensor, I guess that means your movie is garbage... sorry." Obviously the 5D's compression is not the most professional, but it still does capture amazing images. Bottom line is, if you can't make something decent on a full-frame progressive (even if it isn't 24) interchangeable lens camera... Then you suck. Don't save up for a scarlet, don't save for a epic, just sell all you film making crap because it isn't for you. Capture codecs and artifacts are not a legitimate excuse.

Agreed on the "you suck" part. But this thread was about Red vs. 5D... 5D sucks in that context. Now if you want something pro-sumer then the 5D could then be called revolutionary so I'd agree on that part too, though you failed to point out that you were talking about pro-sumer quality.

I want a 5D with 24fps for myself, really bad... but I won't shoot the same stuff on it that I plan to shoot on DSMC. The ONE thing I think the 5D will have over DSMC will be that you'll be able to go anywhere with it and nobody would look at you... even a stripped down DSMC will turn heads thanks to Jannard's edgy style. However it will operate like a DSLR if you chose to go that way only while giving you better than Red One quality... That is revolutionary in the Pro realm. In the Pro realm DSMC completely eclipses the 5D.

 

[Bryce O]

Agreed on the "you suck" part. But this thread was about Red vs. 5D... 5D sucks in that context.

Yea, I defiantly agree with that. The Red one is amazing and the Scarlet will be amazing too. I'm just saying that if you have the talent, using a 5D over a Scarlet isn't going to make a difference (in most cases). They're both pretty revolutionary. Although, I really like the full frame sensor on the Canon. If the 5D had better compression and adjustable frame rates it would kill the scarlet hands down... but obviously, it doesn't. On the other hand, the Scarlet doesn't even exist yet, so we'll have to see...

In the mean time though, the 5D is a great tool to begin learning the craft of full-frame 35mm photography. WAY different than shooting on a 1/3" prosumer camera. That's what makes it revolutionary, because otherwise, 35mm photography would be too far out of reach (at least for me).

 

[Daniel Lipats]

Speaking of RED vs 5D, here is a video with some interviews. Gets really interesting at 03:00.

http://blog.planet5d.com/2009/06/21st-century-road-movie-shot-with-the-canon-eos-5d-mark-ii/

 

[Bryce O]

Here some of my test footage with the 5D. Transcoded to 24 fps (AIC) right in quicktime and colored in FCP. Nothing special, but I wanted to shoot something at a beach to see how it would hold up to detail in the sand and water. There's a little bit of artifact at full 1080 but nothing too horrible. Proress422 would probably yield better results but I don't have access to FCP 6.

http://www.vimeo.com/5056173

 

[ericyoung]

...5D has MANY problems- framerate, codec, sound, aliasing, zebras, etc. But it also can be a great tool in certain situations- low light, doc work, low-profile (looks like you're shooting a still) etc...-Tom

I think the fact that the Scarlet does NOT look like it's a normal DSLR is it's only downside at the moment - we won't be able to pass it off as just a tourist stills camera, which is a shame for low profile work.