5DMkII 1080p Video Imatest MTF50 Resolution Testing Results

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

The test I performed was only for center resolution...

Interesting. Thank you for spending the time to perform the test. I plan to do my own as soon as I get a round tuit.

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

...the limiting factor seems to be the Digic 4 processing which shoulders the task of downconverting the full frame sensor's native resolution to 1920x1080 in realtime.

The aliasing artifacts of a zone plate test indicate that the 5D2 is only reading one out of every three lines and applying some noise reduction in an attempt to suppress the moiré slightly.

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Do you think that your figures for the 5DII actually mean anything in real life? How do you explain the difference between what your test measures & even the most casual recording on the 5DII by users without any talent? Perhaps some kind of optical illusion that fools us into thinking that the picture quality is better than it really is?

Nigel, your post struck me as rude and belittling.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

As an engineer, it is easy to quantify cameras based upon numbers, better numbers equal a higher quality image.

A number can only measure one aspect or dimension of image quality. Higher numbers equal higher quality images only with respect to the specific aspect of quality measured by that number. Problems occur when people assign greater scope to a number than it measures.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

But as an artist, all of this measurement goes out the window.

I find that the most common reason to throw measurements out the window is because they are misunderstood.

For example, someone might throw out Tom's test because the 5D2 has more "clarity" and "stronger colors" than the XH-A1. The mistake is thinking that his test was intended to measure "clarity" when it wasn't. It could be much higher MTF at lower frequencies, less lens flare, or the higher color accuracy of Bayer filter arrays over prism-based systems, or another factor.

Another artist might throw out Tom's resolution test because their eyes tell them that the 5D2 has more "pop" than the XH-A1. The "pop" can just be thinner depth of field.

Again, no single number is going to quantify all aspects of image quality. Just one aspect. To quantify the many important dimensions of image quality, including depth of field, color accuracy, saturation, contrast of all frequencies, etc. would require a lot of numbers, not one; and even then will probably miss a few factors.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

But to my artistic eye, the Panasonic HPX170 looks better. It uses a better codec, has more color space sampling and the color, contrast, gamma curve and matrix are more filmic than the EX1.

Perhaps all of the factors that makes the HPX170 look better to you could be quantified with numbers that are already common in imaging systems, such as Delta-E for color accuracy, etc. Or perhaps a measurement has not been invented yet that can quantify it, though there are a lot of them out there.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

I wonder if we are experiencing the same with the 5D MKII? Most people, in an A/B blind test with the other cameras you mention, would find the picture on the 5D MKII better, more detailed

It seems to me that "most people" like heavy noise reduction and strong aliasing artifacts, so they would prefer the 5D2 over the XH-A1 for those reasons. But they also like oversaturated, bright images, low dynamic range, and poor color accuracy: the XH-A1 matches those descriptions better.

Originally Posted by Dan Brockett

and more filmic.

That depends on how you setup the test. The depth of field, color accuracy, dynamic range, low light, etc. are more filmic than the XH-A1, but the noise reduction, aliasing artifacts, and the auto shutter speed are not very filmic at all.

Originally Posted by Tom Roper

The moire is not going to be apparent in a lot of the intended desirable situations, tighter shots, shallow depth of field etc.

Moiré is only the worst, most obnoxious, and universally disliked manifestation of aliasing. But there are many more and varied aliasing artifacts that affect even shallow DOF shots, including what may be described as jaggies, stair-stepping, unwanted sparkling, "snap to grid", wavy lines, fringing, popping, strobing, noise, or false detail.

Of course, those are precisely the "artifacts" that so many viewers love and enjoy. Most describe them with positive terms such as ”crunchiness”, ”sharpness”, etc. Other photographers perceive the artifacts as highly unnatural, distracting, and a telltale ”digital” look.

I'm surprised that so many people here are in love with the image quality of the 5D2 because I dislike so much about it. I only put up with the image quality problems (shutter speed, aliasing, and noise reduction) to get the thin DOF and low light capability.

[Jay Bloomfield]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

...I'm surprised that so many people here are in love with the image quality of the 5D2 because I dislike so much about it. I only put up with the image quality problems (shutter speed, aliasing, and noise reduction) to get the thin DOF and low light capability.

Just because the resolution of captured still images from the 5d2 may not be as good as some other video cameras, doesn't necessarily mean that the 5d2 video doesn't appear as sharp to the viewer. Unless you're looking at uncompressed frames (and none of the tests listed in this thread, do that), all video straight out of each device is compressed in some fashion. Even the SI video cams use Cineform, which is nearly lossless, but still a wavelet compression. Both the bit rate and compression algorithm affect the way the viewer perceives the video, just as much as actual resolution, color balance, DOF and other factors. The 5d2 captured still images may not look as good as some other video cameras, but the net result may still look better as a video.

[Jim Giberti]

<<I'm surprised that so many people here are in love with the image quality of the 5D2 because I dislike so much about it. I only put up with the image quality problems (shutter speed, aliasing, and noise reduction) to get the thin DOF and low light capability.>>

Maybe I'm just lacking in visual and artistic acuity but I've been writing and producing professionally for years with some of the best film and video gear, and footage from the 5D MKII looks gorgeous in my work.

I'm shooting field work and narrative, Nikons on crane dolly and tripod and Canon glass with IS handheld and aside from Canon's unfortunate implementation it looks better than my best work with any other rig including cobos with the P&S system.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Jim Giberti

I've been writing and producing professionally for years with some of the best film and video gear, and footage from the 5D MKII looks gorgeous in my work.

All the footage I've seen utilizes the thin DOF, low light, or lenses that aren't available on similarly priced video cameras. Perhaps those are the reasons you think it's gorgeous? Because in other situations (deep DOF, ample light, and normal lenses), I find most aspects of the image quality very poor compared to the XH-A1. Until the image quality issues are fixed, I'll have to keep both cameras.

[Chris Barcellos]

Daniel, how are you handling your footage in post, out of curiosity?

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker
Do you think that your figures for the 5DII actually mean anything in real life? How do you explain the difference between what your test measures & even the most casual recording on the 5DII by users without any talent? Perhaps some kind of optical illusion that fools us into thinking that the picture quality is better than it really is?

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

Nigel, your post struck me as rude and belittling.

It wasn't meant to be rude. I am genuinely bemused as to how these test results are so out of line with what everyone else's subjective opinion of the stellar picture quality of the 5DII. Movies of any kind are in themselves an optical illusion that fools the eye into thinking we are seeing real moving images.

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

I'm surprised that so many people here are in love with the image quality of the 5D2 because I dislike so much about it. I only put up with the image quality problems (shutter speed, aliasing, and noise reduction) to get the thin DOF and low light capability.

You appear to be out of step with everyone else who thinks that the picture quality of the 5DII is amazing. Are we even talking about the same metrics here? Universally when I have shown people footage shot on the 5DII there has a been jaw-dropping 'Wow!' expressed. I have never received that response with any DV or HDV footage that I have demonstrated.

[Nigel Barker]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

All the footage I've seen utilizes the thin DOF, low light, or lenses that aren't available on similarly priced video cameras. Perhaps those are the reasons you think it's gorgeous? Because in other situations (deep DOF, ample light, and normal lenses), I find most aspects of the image quality very poor compared to the XH-A1. Until the image quality issues are fixed, I'll have to keep both cameras.

Maybe it's my fault in some way but in common with several other people posting on this forum I have moved to the 5DII from the XH-A1 just because the image quality to me looks so much better.

Here is a random clip recorded hand held on a 5DII with deep DOF & ample light that surpasses any XH-A1 footage that I have shot. What is poor about image quality that you see here but I don't? Please bear in mind that from this link that the Full HD version of this clip it has been compressed from the original 40+Mbps & 250MB file size to 7Mbps & 44MB with corresponding lower bit rates for the smaller video sizes.
Barkers Videos- powered by SmugMug

Later today I will upload the original file that came off the camera so that you can critique that.

Cheers

Nigel

[Peer Landa]

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Universally when I have shown people footage shot on the 5DII there has a been jaw-dropping 'Wow!' expressed. I have never received that response with any DV or HDV footage that I have demonstrated.

Also I am in jaw-drop-mode after seeing footage from the MKII -- but technically it might be due to other reasons than what Tom tested -- i.e., full frame DOF, or something, I dunno. Still, it would be nice to see a linear A/B test comparing all those cameras side by side.

-- peer

[Tom Roper]

It's coming, round II.

[Jay Bloomfield]

I wish you luck (although the testing effort is very interesting). You should keep in mind that even the way that MPEG determines the quality of video, is by subjective evaluation. They use standardized viewing conditions and ask the audience what they think of the quality of the video.

[Ryan Mueller]

I have a hard time fathoming why people are even arguing this matter. I know why I decided to go with the 5DII. It gives me the opportunity to shoot incredible looking HD footage with some amazing results in regards to DOF for under $4,000. The low light capabilities of this cam are amazing as well.

I don't believe that you can get this type of result with any other cam/adapter setup in this price range. Not to mention it completely cuts the need to set up tons of equipment before a shoot ie. setting up a rail system that has a 35mm adapter on it and then adjusting backfocus, meanwhile I have already pulled my cam out of my bag and am shooting before any lights are even put up. Try trecking the xh-a1 up a 14er with all the equipment necessary to obtain the shots that can be achieved by the 5D with nothing more than a lens that mounts right to the cam.

If I were to try to put together a system with the H1, or any other cam in this price range, that shoots footage comperable to the 5DII in terms of DOF, I would be spending close to 6K. To me the decision to buy the cam was a no-brainer and I am completely pleased with the results even with the lack of full manual control. Once you get to know the camera a bit, it is not that hard to get it to do what you want and create gorgeous shots, even with Canon lenses.

If Canon did add full manual control through a firmware upgrade, I won't hold my breath, then I would honestly consider this camera to be my dream camera.

My .02

[Tom Roper]

Ryan, the purpose is informational. The reason for doing the Imatest is because the moire in bright, sharply focused situations seems severe enough to adversely impact resolution, or originates from a lower than expected starting point.

I think we're all in agreement we've seen some really spectacular footage. The goal is to expand the uses to include workable video in the broad sense as well.

[Ryan Mueller]

I just now realized that you are in Denver. Hello there neighbor!

If the tests are in fact to figure out ways to overcome some of the cams shortcomings then by all means test away! I personally find the tests interesting, but I think that some people might take them as trying to prove the cam to be an inferior camera for video. I was just trying to point out that even with the shortcomings of the cam, I am still incredibly pleased with it's performance based on size and cost. That's all.

[Daniel Browning]

Originally Posted by Chris Barcellos

Daniel, how are you handling your footage in post, out of curiosity?

I hand it to my editor and say "handle this". :) He's a more talented and experienced editor than I am. In December I helped him get started using CoreAVC and MPEG Streamclip to transcode to uncompressed proxies. Then I think the new Quicktime version came out and we stopped using CoreAVC. Then we switched to rewrapping as MP4 files and then transcoding to Cineform.

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

Universally when I have shown people footage shot on the 5DII there has a been jaw-dropping 'Wow!' expressed. I have never received that response with any DV or HDV footage that I have demonstrated.

Again, the thin DOF, low light, and lenses are what give the 5D2 images that "wow!". To me, that is true in spite of the aliasing and other problems. Without those advantages, the problems make me prefer the image of cameras like the XH-A1.

Originally Posted by Nigel Barker

What is poor about image quality that you see here but I don't?

For one, I see aliasing artifacts. They appear anywhere in your footage that there is very fine detail. You probably don't see them as artifacts, but as "sharpness", "zing", "resolution", or "crunch". If you want to know what 5D2 video would look like without aliasing artifacts, just try shooting a raw file and resample it to 1920x1080 with a quality lanczos algorithm. You might find that it is a "creamy", "soft", or "dreamy" look compared to an image with aliasing artifacts. To you that might be a negative, but it is the look that I prefer.

If you want to read more about aliasing, I suggest the following:

http://www.pbase.com/jps_photo/image...3/original.jpg
Aliasing and Moire patterns
Sigma SD9 Digital Camera Review: Test Results & Conclusion

Most people like aliasing artifacts, but I don't. I would rather have an ounce of real detail than a pound of false detail. The 5D2 in still mode is correctly anti-aliased. It's only in video mode where Canon is forced to forego anti-aliasing because they have to skip two out of three lines when reading the sensor. False detail is the natural and unfortunate result.

Preference for aliasing is like many other aspects of an image. Take sharpening for example. Some people prefer just a slight USM. Others prefer to sharpen until ringing/halo artifacts become very strong. All of our local news stations, for example, go way overboard on the sharpening, which is on top of the aliasing and interlace artifacts. Many syndicated shows, too, have a ton of aliasing and oversharpening artifacts.

Saturation is another one. Some people love vibrant blues, hyperrealistic greens, and Velvia reds. Others prefer accurate colors. Desired dynamic range, too, varies by taste. Some like ultra-high contrast with blown whites and clipped blacks. Others prefer a more low-contrast image to keep more detail in the highlights and shadows. It's a matter of taste.

The 5D2 has the worst aliasing I've seen in any video camera in at least the last 5 years, but the thin DOF, low light, and lenses are the reasons I keep using it anyway.

[Josh Dahlberg]

Originally Posted by Daniel Browning

All the footage I've seen utilizes the thin DOF, low light, or lenses that aren't available on similarly priced video cameras. Perhaps those are the reasons you think it's gorgeous? Because in other situations (deep DOF, ample light, and normal lenses), I find most aspects of the image quality very poor compared to the XH-A1. Until the image quality issues are fixed, I'll have to keep both cameras.

i agree with you Daniel. I just shot a documentary intercutting footage between an XH-A1 and 5D. This was shot in and around a forest.

We shot at night in a cabin lit by candlelight, and the 5D was amazing. Likewise for close up shots of flowers/plants and insects in which I could use macro lenses and get incredible depth of field control.

But for deep depth of field shots of landscapes in full daylight, the XHA1 footage was clearly more detailed and did not contain the nasty artifacts you mention (I too have issues with moire and other image problems the 5D exhibits).

The 5D is a wonderful tool but it has a number of shortcomings which mean in most situations (for me anyway) it needs to be paired with a more traditional camcorder with manual control and fewer foibles.

Thank you for performing the test Tom. Personally I don't find the figures surprising, and do appreciate your time. It's interesting to know.