Cris Daniels: Have you tried the flatter settings with lower sharpness settings as I suggested, to improve resolution ?

Here is one video I had to dug up. I have another one but I will upload it in the morning. You really need to download the file, viewing this stuff on the net is worthless.

5D Moire Example on Vimeo

I have had the sharpness at +1 which is almost off, and the contrast totally flat. I don't use anything other than the built in camera curves. Although the sharpness settings would not influence the moire I am showing here, if anything the shot is soft but the lighting was bad as we had already unplugged the ARRI's to let them cool down so I could pack them. I was only working off available light in a bar, This was either ISO 1600 or 3200 @ f2.8, 1/60th shutter.

The shot is a turd but it does show the moire jumping around. Dont judge the overall quality of the video, the camera can certainly do better, but this is pointing out a specific issue which is unrelated to the quality of the shot.

My next shot will show the wacko aliasing. Usually I delete these kinds of files so it took me a while find some on backup drive.

I shot all morning with the 7D and the footage looks good, sometimes water gives me trouble but not today. I seem to have the most aliasing trouble with water in the shot flowing diagonal or top to bottom versus side to side. And no I can't always just move the camera.

Wow Chris....now that is an amazing eyeopener. I'm not an expert...but from what I am reading on those charts you posted it clearly shows around 800 lines of resolution. That's strange because Barry's test shows lower.
When you're reading a chart, you don't go looking for the smallest area where you can make lines out, you look for the point at which the camera quits representing the chart accurately.

For example -- look at the diagonal lines that are about 2/3 of the way over on the right, the vertical column of 1/3/5/7/9/10/8/6/4/2. Those should be a patch of diagonal lines. The ones that are accurately rendered are 1, 2, 3, and 4. 5 is okay-ish, you can clearly see that there's aliasing happening but it's at least still a rendering where the black and white lines are cleanly separated. In the "6" box you can see the aliasing pattern clearly; where the lines are supposed to be going from upper-left to lower-right, there's a cross-pattern being introduced that makes the whole box look like diamonds. That is not an accurate representation. The camera did not successfully represent what the chart looks like in the "6" box. "7" is completely gone, as are 8, 9, and 10. So you know the real resolution being seen here is somewhere below 600. If the resolution was over 600 lines, that box of diagonal lines should have been cleanly represented, and it wasn't.

For more, look at the row of angled mostly-vertical lines along the bottom. The boxes with a slight lean, from upper-right down to lower-left. Here the last box you can see that looks "right" is the "5" box, the "6" looks funky, and "7" is clearly fuzzed (can something be "clearly" fuzzed?) So, again, pointing to a true res of around 600.

In pure horizontal and pure vertical, you should see a uniform pattern of distinct lines. It looks like in the horizontal lines (the big vertical column about 1/3 of the way from the left) 400 is solid, 500 is arguably pretty good, 600 is pushing it. 600 definitely looks like there's some thicker and thinner lines in that patch. In the pure vertical, which is the row of boxes at the bottom of the chart, you should again see a clearly delineated series of equal-width lines, alternating between black and white, all of the same thickness. Based on that, it starts to look a little "off" at about 550; and by 650 it's clearly not accurately representing the chart anymore.

Okay, so moving on to the resolution trumpets -- these are the wedges in the center and corners of the charts. What you want to see there is a smooth flow of lines with no oddness, they gradually converge. And you're looking for the point where the camera has not accurately represented what the chart looks like. It's not a point of looking to see where you can distinguish any difference from black to white, you're looking for accurate representation. And based on that standard, I'd say the horizontal line trumpets (in the center of the chart) are showing cleanly up to about 550, where you start to see some aliasing kicking in and making stair-steps on the lines. It's hard to see where the point is where it first fails to accurately represent the chart, but my guess is, once again, about 650. If you look at the horz line trumpet in the upper right corner it's a lot easier to see that it can't accurately represent the chart at 650.

The vertical trumpets are of interest are the ones near the top of the chart, just right of the center. The camera does fine with the 100 to 600 trumpet to the left of center, so the one to the right of center is where we'll find the maximum point. And once again, I'd say it's at about 650.

The tough thing about using an ISO12233 like this is -- where did it come from? Is this the downloaded/printed one? Because if so, how high was the resolution on the printer? If the printer doesn't have enough res to accurately represent those finer lines, then it's not too useful as a true indicator of resolution. When I was using one of these, my tactic was to print it at 4x size, that way it helps remove the printer inaccuracies from the equation.

Nothing beats having a properly-designed res chart such as the DSC Labs Chroma Du Monde with resolution trumpets, or the MegaTrumpets 4K (which is way overkill for DSLRs, since the chart starts at 500 lines and the DSLRs can barely register on the chart before they've aliased out.

Finally, look at the color version of Chris's chart again -- the black and white one lets you see the limits of the resolution, but it's hiding what's really going on. The color chart should have been entirely black and white. That chart is black and white, as printed on a black and white printer. Anywhere that you see color at all, that's false. That was an artifact introduced by aliasing. That is not an accurate reproduction of the chart. Anywhere you see orange or purple on that chart, that's an artifact coming from the camera's aliasing.

Barry:

This chart was printed from an available on line .pdf, the printer was a Brother 9700 Laser. They are 600 dpi x 600 dpi.

Thank you for the information about how to read these. I was also concerned, as stated in my post, as to how good a chart like this could be relied on.

In meantime, I am curious if you think shooting with reduced sharpness and the "superflat" Picture Style or one similar that has posted that provide a flat and unsharpened image that can be enhanced in post can help resolve some of issues. Have you done any experimenting there.

The author of superflat now says "don't bother, just use Neutral and set the contrast and sharpness to minimal." I haven't seen that post, so I don't know about the accuracy of it.

I've tested the SLRs with res charts six ways from sunday, and the contrast and detail settings don't really have any effect on the aliasing. I mean, juicing up the contrast can accentuate the visibility of the jaggy lines, but they're still jaggy even at minimal contrast, so it's all still there.

If you printed your chart at normal size, I don't think it's doing you any favors. Try printing it at 4x size and reshooting the chart, you might see cleaner results. I have a "1200x1200 dpi" laser, and ... it's bogus. It can't print a 600dpi zone plate to save its life. So if you want the best results you can get from that chart, try printing it at 4x size.

If you want to overcome the aliasing and remove it from your equation, there's pretty much only one way to do it, and that's to lower the amount of overall detail that's getting passed to the chip. Whether through an on-chip anti-alias filter, or through something like the Caprock Anti-Moire filters, or through just defocusing the lens a little. Aliasing happens when the lens is passing too-sharp image information for the sampling system to properly and accurately represent, so (since you can't put in a better sensor in there) the only solution is to stop the lens from passing too much detail.

The cost of doing so, of course, is that the resulting image will lose all its HD "snap". It'll become a good, solid, clean image, but it'll be more along the lines of a 720p image, because that's about what the DSLRs can cleanly resolve.

Thanks, Barry !

Never got into this resolution issue much, but thought it might be smart to learn a little bit about it when the subject comes up, by shooting a chart or two. I will try your recommendation of printing 4x.

Nothing beats a properly designed chart, but it's not the best way to pull a number. For example, Barry is looking for accurately rendered uniform lines, or the point where the camera quits representing the chart accurately, but at what contrast level does it happen at? MTF100? 90? 80? 70? You get a different resolution number for each step in contrast. Two people won't even read the chart and be within 100 numbers. What's the value in that?

When it comes to pulling a number absolute, this is where I think Imatest is the better way to go. The software also normalizes in-camera sharpening to a standard level, usually 2 pixel radius.

Now what I told you Chris, (you didn't seem to listen) when I said you can't compare your numbers or my numbers to someone else's, (which you did) because everybody uses different methods. If you photographed your chart the same way as Barry, and he interprets your chart he should come up with similar numbers to what he already reported, using whatever level of contrast is appropriate to his eye, as long as he is consistent. But you are trying to say his numbers are wrong, somebody else read them higher. And now you have seen that Barry reads your chart more conservatively than I, so you should see the folly of trying to use a number.

For eyeballing a chart, the best way is to shoot the same chart the same way with two cameras, and view the chart with your eyeballs and choose the camera with the more pleasing rendition. That's a valid test.

I also said that the 5DMkII tested lower resolution than the HV10, XH-A1 or EX1, in a side by side comparison using the same Imatest method. But you locked in on the number "800" which was what Imatest reported for the XH-A1, not the 5DMkII. It clearly is ahead of the 5DMkII.

The folly of resolution testing...

"Now what I told you Chris, (you didn't seem to listen) when I said you can't compare your numbers or my numbers to someone else's, (which you did) because everybody uses different methods. If you photographed your chart the same way as Barry, and he interprets your chart he should come up with similar numbers to what he already reported, using whatever level of contrast is appropriate to his eye, as long as he is consistent. But you are trying to say his numbers are wrong, somebody else read them higher. And now you have seen that Barry reads your chart more conservatively than I, so you should see the folly of trying to use a number."

As I indicated to Barry in my last post, I am interested in learning about testing. I fully intend to test against my own HV20, and my FX1, as you suggested, so I can get relative values. Again, I am not really worried about numbers I get out of any of them, and I certainly am not going to debate the merits of the 5DII based on my tests. My reference to your post in this thread talks about using the flat settings, and does refer to you post in the other thread, and wondering if others could check it out. I merely stated that at least one person interpreted at 800. But I am curious how the tests themselves are conducted, and if the use of super flat type settings can influenece the end result. It is not my intention to start a pixel counting war. Thanks for your input on this too.

....thanks guys. I've learned something new about using charts.

Chris, I accused myself of being a pixel peeper, but I'm not sure anyone really called you one here (unless I missed it). My point is that I think it is a mistake to say that the 5D II is not capable of true 1080p. It has resolution and artifacting issues for sure, but none of the cameras we talk about on dvinfo could be said to have true 1080p or 1080i if you are using resolution tests as the key benchmark. That doesn't mean it's inappropriate to test them and to base decisions on those tests.

It's pretty obvious that the 5dII and & 7D are in a class by themselves: they are capable of doing things that hugely expensive cameras can't come close to and at the same time they can't do some basic things as well as the least expensive cameras. I know that in my hands at least the 5DII is capable of really ugly or really stunning video, and I am having to learn how to manage things in ways I never had to worry about with other cameras.

I share your frustration with their limitations and excitement about their capabilities.

Pat

I'd shoot super 16 before I did a feature on a 5D. Any DP that would CHOOSE to make a major feature on a 5D is fairly crazy, wait till he gets to pass off the moire and rolling shutter to post. Oh yes, no time code anywhere, so you get to slate everything and line up audio waveforms in post to remarry the outboard sound recorder (dont even tell me he is using on-board 12 bit audio with

Except that you are completely off base. 5D has been used in several major features, including the upcoming George Clooney film Up in the Air.

Cris Daniels makes a valid point. He would shoot 16mm before he shot this camera. He is not willing to take the tradeoffs required to accept the benefits. And that is the issue, really, can this camera be acceptable to mainstream shooters? To Mr. Daniels it is not. It doesn't fit his existing workflow, and the historical methods of film production. He is not willing to shoot around the 5D flaws, though he is willing to shoot around 16mm flaws.

I see this camera as doing an end around traditional film production. That threatens many, as they have a process they have invested in. The problem with the 5D and 7D cameras, is they give those of us who have never been there the chance to develop a different process free of what the traditions of celluloid film making. That seems to hurt peoples sensibilities at times.

Chris, I've shot 35mm, super16mm, every flavor of HD, SD and DV. Would I choose super16mm over the 5D/7D? Sure I would, everytime. As long as the job both demanded film and I had the right budget, crew and equipment. But this week I'm shooting on the 7D, last week I shot on digi and next week I'll be shooting HD with both a panasonic varicam and a 7D - in each case the camera is my choice for the production based on what we have to achieve and the budget we have to do it with.

Does the 7D have moire? Yes. Can the 7D produce cool looking interviews and shallow depth of field,? Yes. Is the 7D a great little camera? Yes. Is the 7D right for every job? No.

Does the 7D threaten me as veteran of the film and video industry? Now, you've got to be having a laugh. I suggest you spend some time on a movie set, you might be surprised how open people are to new ideas and innovation - I hope that doesn't hurt your sensibilities:)

Liam, I spent a little bit (just a very tiny little bit). My experience in my limited contacts is that there are those that won't budge and try the "new", whatever it might be, and then there are those that are daring and will plow new ground.

In another thread, I was the chastized by people because my DIY gear didn't look professional They want to have equipment that looks acceptable. I indicated that my experience in seeing sets real filming is that film makers are open to anything taped together or otherwise that will get the shot.

And my point about Cris Daniels post does not really differ from yours. Perhaps you didn't catch my drift. He won't go elsewhere if he has the ability to shoot it with 16mm. You say it is the same with you. But I am saying there is a whole cadre of new film makers out there who are going to step around celluloid, and never ever use it. Whether that is good or bad is another issue, but I believe that is what is threatening to those who have invested in celluloid.

Celluloid is going out... whether its this year, next year, or 25 years from now, it is going to be leaving the scene as dynamic range and other celluloid like benefits can be added to the process. These DSLR's are the first chinks in the celluloid fortress for the small time shooter, and forward looking shooters are going to take advantage.

What was the point of this thread again? Oh yeah, another useless debate of this vs that, and nowhere in the original question does in mention digital vs analog.

Debating the virtues of digital and the demise of film is pointless. Film with be with us for the rest of our lives and probably our grandchildren's lives.

Remember after the desktop revolution we were going to be paperless? Funny thing is in the US we consume three times the amount of paper we did a decade ago. Do you think as a society we're consuming less film now or more? I'll give you a hint - that's a trick question.

So instead of arguing the finer points of 5D vs 7D why don't we put our collective genius together and figure out ways to make these cameras work as well as they possibly can. Lets start being more constructive and supportive as a community and stop wasting time debating the future of film.

I purchased a 7D because of a shot we did on a "film" shoot with a 5D. It worked great, but for the most part these cameras have a limited role to play in film production, lets see if we can collectively expand the role.

"So instead of arguing the finer points of 5D vs 7D why don't we put our collective genius together and figure out ways to make these cameras work as well as they possibly can. Lets start being more constructive and supportive as a community......for the most part these cameras have a limited role to play in film production, lets see if we can collectively expand the role."


Spot on Chuck!

Ansel Adams got those amazing negs using large format equipment, not a polaroid or an APS camera. So in the right hands, the right tools do make a difference. In the wrong hands, well, nothing will override the rule "garbage in/garbage out".


He was the master of the black and white Polariod image! He produced many famous images using Polariod products

Check out and download Phil Blooms film here. The download version will impress you.

Skywalker Ranch on Vimeo

Supposedly blew them away on a 40' foot screen. So I now ask....what is everyone huffing and puffing about?

Supposedly blew them away on a 40' foot screen. So I now ask....what is everyone huffing and puffing about?

It's really lousy at filming test charts ;)

Ha ha...good one.

Supposedly blew them away on a 40' foot screen. So I now ask....what is everyone huffing and puffing about?

Do you even care?

Supposedly blew them away on a 40' foot screen. So I now ask....what is everyone huffing and puffing about?

It's really lousy at filming test charts ;)

Not the best on tracked motion either....

First of all I have to say that I have to agree that the 5d looks like it has slightly more dynamic range. Maybe not 1 stop but a little noticeable when shooting in low light. Nevertheless, the 7d has more dynamic range than an ex1, xh a1, and hvx combined lol.


I remember I was really impressed to hear "28 Days Later" (the zombie movie not the Sandra Bullock flick) was shot with the XL1. That's mini-DV and fewer lines of resolution than the 7D (barely). Although, the skew would kill a film like that, I still see more "film-like" footage from my 7D than my XL1-s, GY-HD100 and even an EX1 I did testing with. Of course, this experience is all user related.

I thought the only one who still owned an xl1! Even a little hv30 or hfs100 can beat the crap out of it. (I have the original xl1 not the s). Is that embarrassing? How does the 7d only have slightly more resolution than an xl1, my hfs100 basically has twice that resolution on a consumer camera.

Anyway at my work during the summer (the company was a small liberal video/photo journalist company) and we were deliberating between an hpx170 and the 5d mark II (it was during the summer so the firmware update already existed). For 3 weeks my colleague was testing the footage between the two and every single time the 5d mark II just looked so much better. He told me "disregarding the shallow dof, the colors and resolution look so much better". He was so determined to explain why the resolution was better that he explained and demonstrated that the real resolution from the hvx/hpx is really 960x720 (because of the sensor resolution and underlying compression).

So it has been proven that the 7d and 5d shoot better video (in some cases) than the hpx/hvx, Why are people complaining?
I think the next generation of dvslr will fix the moire, but i don't think they'll integrate xlr inputs soon or better ergonomics for video.
I don't understand how people can complain with these video slrs. Try using a crappy flip video camera and then you'll see how much you miss that annoying rolling shutter on the slr.

Thank you Chuck for trying to get this back on track, start being constructive, and helping each other move forward.

Do you even care?Yup. I do.


...ok not really... ;)

Not the best on tracked motion either....
I recall this being an issue with the 5Dll also. Didn't stop me from buying a 7D last week (I understand you will also).

Didn't folks have a lot to say about the EX-1 (and still do today)? It has proven itself over and over....but some find reason to fault it....still. I just don't get it. That's why I made the comment about the 7D.

Y

Didn't folks have a lot to say about the EX-1 (and still do today)? It has proven itself over and over....but some find reason to fault it....still. I just don't get it. That's why I made the comment about the 7D.

Generally speaking, if a particular camera gets trashed on the web, that's a sign it's a keeper. Yep EX1, JVC HD100 and now the 7d were all relentlessly belittled. So it's a good thing.

Didn't folks have a lot to say about the EX-1 (and still do today)? It has proven itself over and over....but some find reason to fault it....still. I just don't get it. That's why I made the comment about the 7D.

All I heard about for months before and after I got the EX1 was rolling shutter this and skew that. It tested it, posted results on Vimeo and here, and other than my torture tests, I haven't had a single issue with each "pervasive" problem. It's been 1.5 years now.

Same thing with the 5D and 7D. Though I was somewhat disappointed that the code broke up on a couple shoots during our movie, I understand why they happened. It's really not too distracting on the small screen. I'll get it projected at the theater later this week and see how it looks again. I've also graded the footage since then and stabilized it, so hopefully it won't show up too much.

I think fault finding is important. I think it's important to know the limits of your gear. But badgering a camera or it's owners is just silly. However, pretending that the issues aren't there is just as silly. Recognize where it fails, avoid those scenarios as best you can, and just got on with it.

...
While I am in total agreement that it is not necessarily the tools, but the operator, it doesn't always jive. Citizen Kane could not have been made on some current HD $1000 camcorder from Best Buy.
...

Actually I bet it could a lot closer than all think. "Citizen Kane" had very deep focus and an enormous amount of effort went into lighting it. There are a lot of very cinematic films that do not have shallow DOF.

...but none of the cameras we talk about on dvinfo could be said to have true 1080p or 1080i if you are using resolution tests as the key benchmark.

Seems like the Sony EX1 comes pretty close in resolution tests, which makes sense given that it really is 1080 resolution from the sensor to the recording format. Granted, it doesn't have a million dollar piece of glass or record RAW data, but it's as close to 1080p as we've seen for the price.

By comparison, it sounds like the 7D suffers a little trying to "downsample" from the multi-megapixel sensor to the relatively modest resolution of HD video. Perhaps they can improve that sampling process in future versions and/or firmware.