Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Removed the AA filter on my 5D MkII  (Read 24362 times)
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 26, 2009, 10:26:32 AM »
ReplyReply

I finally had the chance to do abit of testing with a friend's 5D.
First thing's first:
it's near impossible to get everything aligned.
Slight variance in positioning due to things like the release plate not being exactly at the same spot...The two files are cropped down abit to match up in terms of positioning.

Next is colour temperature variance...not sure if the colours between different units of 5D mkII cameras are different but one camera was definitely more magenta, one was more on the green side. The modification of the glass definitely plays a role here. The difference in colour cast probably has an effect in the contrast of the image.

focusing variance was also an issue. out of the 10 different series of shots we did this was the most close series of pictures we had in terms of focus from two different cameras using the same lens
85mm f1.8 wide open

focus is supposed to be right smack in the centre of the picture, on the right edge of the grey speckled pillar.
To compensate for focus error I guess you'll have to compare detail of the closest object to the furthest object.

Nonetheless, certain interesting details can be observed when zoomed in to 400%, visible at 200% too.

Would love to do a stricter test to see the effect of this modification, when I have the time

full size (slightly cropped) jpegs here
Processed in ACR, with sharpness set at 10 radius 1.0, noise reduction at 2

http://superhyperreal.com/compare1.jpg
http://superhyperreal.com/compare2.jpg
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #21 on: June 26, 2009, 03:04:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jing q
It's near impossible to get everything aligned. [...] Focusing variance was also an issue.
Obviously. The two images you posted are focused at very different distances.


Quote from: jing q
... using the same lens, 85 mm f/1.8 wide open.
Huh!?  

You want to demonstrate the effects of a removed AA filter, and for the test shots you're using a fast lens wide open? Are you nuts?


Quote from: jing q
Nonetheless, certain interesting details can be observed when zoomed in to 400 %, visible at 200 % too.
In those two images, actually nothing interesting can be observed ... except that the photographer was unable to focus at the same distance twice.


Quote from: free1000
... watch out for the wonderful 'greek patterns', they are impossible to get rid of, unlike regular moire. When I get those patterns it usually means four hours in Photoshop rebuilding part of the image with a paintbrush.
After all, there's a reason why digital cameras have AA filters.

-- Olaf
« Last Edit: June 26, 2009, 03:30:06 PM by 01af » Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #22 on: June 26, 2009, 03:36:53 PM »
ReplyReply

removed.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 03:39:57 AM by jing q » Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #23 on: June 26, 2009, 04:16:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jing q
I put both cameras on the same tripod. Huh?
Why are you huh-ing? When the shooting distance is the same then the focus distance should be the same, too, or the image won't be comparable. Isn't that obvious?


Quote from: jing q
I want to demonstrate the effects of a removed AA filter, and I used a lens wide open? Am I nuts? I must be, after all that's just how I use my camera. Sorry it didn't fit in with your idea of how I should use my camera.
Okay, let's see ... you are using your lenses mostly wide open, you cannot focus consistently, and you are less than happy with the sharpness in your images at high magnification---so you got your AA filter removed ...  


Quote from: jing q
Post some information to share and you get assholes talking shit.
Actually, it's misinformation you're sharing. You should keep that for yourself rather that putting bees in the bonnet ...

-- Olaf
Logged
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #24 on: June 26, 2009, 05:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

Hmm, any other pictures you can share? How do you like it after the change. To be honest I'm a bit disappointed with the results of the before/after test. I keep telling myself that the 5DII would have much higher image quality without the AA filter, but your comparison shot doesn't really show what I was hoping to see. Perhaps I'm heading to Sony land.

To frame my comments, I switched from Canon to Leica a few years ago and ascribed a lot of the difference to the absence of the AA filter on the DMR. I'm sure that contributed to the look, but perhaps not as much as I thought.

Perhaps to convey to us the difference that you are seeing, can you tell us the difference in capture sharpening that you are using. On the Canons I needed quite a lot, less so on the Nikon D2x and just a hint of LCE on the Leica.
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6890


WWW
« Reply #25 on: June 26, 2009, 10:47:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

AFAIK it is recommended that the image is sharpened with a high amount (like 300) and small radius (like 0.2 or 0.4) to compensate for the AA-filter. IMHO it would be more adequate to compare the images with optimal sharpening.
The effect of the AA-filter would probably be most significant at medium apertures as very few lenses can achieve optimal sharpness fully open.

Best regards
Erik


Quote from: jing q
I finally had the chance to do abit of testing with a friend's 5D.
First thing's first:
it's near impossible to get everything aligned.
Slight variance in positioning due to things like the release plate not being exactly at the same spot...The two files are cropped down abit to match up in terms of positioning.

Next is colour temperature variance...not sure if the colours between different units of 5D mkII cameras are different but one camera was definitely more magenta, one was more on the green side. The modification of the glass definitely plays a role here. The difference in colour cast probably has an effect in the contrast of the image.

focusing variance was also an issue. out of the 10 different series of shots we did this was the most close series of pictures we had in terms of focus from two different cameras using the same lens
85mm f1.8 wide open

focus is supposed to be right smack in the centre of the picture, on the right edge of the grey speckled pillar.
To compensate for focus error I guess you'll have to compare detail of the closest object to the furthest object.

Nonetheless, certain interesting details can be observed when zoomed in to 400%, visible at 200% too.

Would love to do a stricter test to see the effect of this modification, when I have the time

full size (slightly cropped) jpegs here
Processed in ACR, with sharpness set at 10 radius 1.0, noise reduction at 2

http://superhyperreal.com/compare1.jpg
http://superhyperreal.com/compare2.jpg
Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6890


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 26, 2009, 10:55:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I don't think that Sony is any better than Canon, Nikon or anything else. I have a Sony Alpha 900, and it is a good camera but I don't see any magic around it.

In order to achieve optimum sharpness we need to put the camera on a steady tripod, adjust autofocus for each lens, use mirror lockup and cable release/self timer and use optimal aperture.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: Gandalf
Hmm, any other pictures you can share? How do you like it after the change. To be honest I'm a bit disappointed with the results of the before/after test. I keep telling myself that the 5DII would have much higher image quality without the AA filter, but your comparison shot doesn't really show what I was hoping to see. Perhaps I'm heading to Sony land.

To frame my comments, I switched from Canon to Leica a few years ago and ascribed a lot of the difference to the absence of the AA filter on the DMR. I'm sure that contributed to the look, but perhaps not as much as I thought.

Perhaps to convey to us the difference that you are seeing, can you tell us the difference in capture sharpening that you are using. On the Canons I needed quite a lot, less so on the Nikon D2x and just a hint of LCE on the Leica.
Logged

jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #27 on: June 27, 2009, 12:42:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: 01af
Why are you huh-ing? When the shooting distance is the same then the focus distance should be the same, too, or the image won't be comparable. Isn't that obvious?



Okay, let's see ... you are using your lenses mostly wide open, you cannot focus consistently, and you are less than happy with the sharpness in your images at high magnification---so you got your AA filter removed ...  



Actually, it's misinformation you're sharing. You should keep that for yourself rather that putting bees in the bonnet ...

-- Olaf

there is variation in focusing distance when you are comparing 2 different camera bodies, even though they're the same camera model.
Also, since one camera has been modified, it is hard to say whether the change in filter glass has an effect on the focusing distance.
Call me paranoid but I believe using live-view is a better way of focusing for a test like this.

Taking the same lens at the same focusing distance and putting it on another camera body will introduce error in focusing. You should give it a try to see what I mean.

I focused through live-view for each camera at 10x magnification to get as exact as possible.
Before you diss me I suggest you try it yourself to see that it's not as simple as taking a lens off and putting it on another body at the same focusing distance.

Before you judge someone you should consider looking at the person's work too. My website is in my info page.
If you don't like the "misinformation" perhaps you'll like to STFU?
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 12:48:10 AM by jing q » Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 27, 2009, 12:52:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

AFAIK it is recommended that the image is sharpened with a high amount (like 300) and small radius (like 0.2 or 0.4) to compensate for the AA-filter. IMHO it would be more adequate to compare the images with optimal sharpening.
The effect of the AA-filter would probably be most significant at medium apertures as very few lenses can achieve optimal sharpness fully open.

Best regards
Erik

hi Erik
trust me I already do that (optimal sharpening)
my concern with DSLRs in the first place is to do with pixel smearing. You can sharpen an original file to bring out some detail, but the fact remains that in the first place some detail is lost when the photograph is taken
This becomes even more obvious when the image starts getting resized larger and larger. When sharpened, alot of the edges are abit muddy.

I'm basing this comparison between capturing with a medium format digital back (two different backs actually...a hassy and a leaf) and a DSLR.

I will probably try with a medium aperture when I have more time. First thing's first, trying with a wide aperture on a very narrow fous point was to see the effect on a specific spot on the image, together with the effect the modification has on the "texture" of the picture and the pixels, and to see if there is an overall increase in resolution
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 27, 2009, 01:10:21 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Gandalf
Hmm, any other pictures you can share? How do you like it after the change. To be honest I'm a bit disappointed with the results of the before/after test. I keep telling myself that the 5DII would have much higher image quality without the AA filter, but your comparison shot doesn't really show what I was hoping to see. Perhaps I'm heading to Sony land.

To frame my comments, I switched from Canon to Leica a few years ago and ascribed a lot of the difference to the absence of the AA filter on the DMR. I'm sure that contributed to the look, but perhaps not as much as I thought.

Perhaps to convey to us the difference that you are seeing, can you tell us the difference in capture sharpening that you are using. On the Canons I needed quite a lot, less so on the Nikon D2x and just a hint of LCE on the Leica.

Hi Gandalf
I recently used the 5DmkII and a H3DII on a beauty shoot. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised at the look of the 5DmkII.
Usually it takes a round of sharpening to bring out the texture of the skin, but this time the image felt more "3 dimensional" right away upon capture.
To put it in context, when shooting with my medium format digital backs I rarely see a need for sharpening the image. Better microcontrast for sure.
With a DSLR sharpening is always necessary.

After the modification the amount of sharpening I use has decreased.

On a pixel level, edges are more distinct
I always felt that the difference between my MF files and DSLR files was that the DSLR image was always abit flatter. I attribute this to the way that pixels on the edges tend to blend into each other abit.
I believe that's why also you see a difference with your leica

Overall I was hoping that the effect would be more prominent but I am aware that the modification removed only one AA filter, (the horizontal one?) whereas the other AA filter (vertical) is stuck onto the sensor itself. Maybe that's why the Leica has a more distinct look?

But for me every single bit of resolution counts in the kind of work I do which is detail intensive, alot of small edges and details. It's abit of a psychological effect too seeing the image straight out of the camera looking nice and crisper to a degree (slightly better microcontrast)

To clarify, I'm speaking from my experience using a 1Ds MkII and a 5D MkII

Hopefully I have more examples to share in the future!
Logged
01af
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 294


« Reply #30 on: June 27, 2009, 02:17:16 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jing q
Taking the same lens at the same focusing distance and putting it on another camera body will introduce error in focusing. You should give it a try to see what I mean.
Unlike you, I know what you mean. I wasn't talking about apparent focus distance on the lens' distance scale but real focus distance in the final images. And the real focus distances in your test images above are significantly different---no matter how hard you tried got get them right. Just open your eyes and look at them, and you'll see what I mean!


Quote from: jing q
I focused through live-view for each camera at 10x magnification to get as exact as possible.
If that really is the best you can get then removing the AA filter was a complete waste of time.


Quote from: jing q
Before you judge someone you should consider looking at the person's work too.
Your work---and the quality thereof---has nothing to do with your two test images above. Those are just crap.


Quote from: jing q
Hopefully I have more examples to share in the future!
Hopefully, indeed. I am looking forward to them. And put them up for us to see with no capture sharpening applied, please!

-- Olaf
Logged
jing q
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 589


WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 27, 2009, 03:27:52 AM »
ReplyReply

you win, you win. Your logic is infallible.
I'm going to stop here with you.
 
« Last Edit: June 27, 2009, 03:42:04 AM by jing q » Logged
Gandalf
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 70


« Reply #32 on: June 30, 2009, 11:21:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks Jing, that was very helpful. The Leica is basically an Imacon/Hasselblad sensor and electronics crammed in a 35 mm body. Aside from extreme resolution, it has all the inherent advantages of a MFDB (16-bit color, no AA filter) and disadvantages (very slow, a little glitchy) as well. I know I won't match the look with another DSLR, but hoping to pick up a lot of advantages too.

-Bill

Quote from: jing q
Hi Gandalf
I recently used the 5DmkII and a H3DII on a beauty shoot. I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised at the look of the 5DmkII.
Usually it takes a round of sharpening to bring out the texture of the skin, but this time the image felt more "3 dimensional" right away upon capture.
To put it in context, when shooting with my medium format digital backs I rarely see a need for sharpening the image. Better microcontrast for sure.
With a DSLR sharpening is always necessary.

After the modification the amount of sharpening I use has decreased.

On a pixel level, edges are more distinct
I always felt that the difference between my MF files and DSLR files was that the DSLR image was always abit flatter. I attribute this to the way that pixels on the edges tend to blend into each other abit.
I believe that's why also you see a difference with your leica

Overall I was hoping that the effect would be more prominent but I am aware that the modification removed only one AA filter, (the horizontal one?) whereas the other AA filter (vertical) is stuck onto the sensor itself. Maybe that's why the Leica has a more distinct look?

But for me every single bit of resolution counts in the kind of work I do which is detail intensive, alot of small edges and details. It's abit of a psychological effect too seeing the image straight out of the camera looking nice and crisper to a degree (slightly better microcontrast)

To clarify, I'm speaking from my experience using a 1Ds MkII and a 5D MkII

Hopefully I have more examples to share in the future!
Logged
douglasf13
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 546


« Reply #33 on: June 30, 2009, 11:50:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Hi,

I don't think that Sony is any better than Canon, Nikon or anything else. I have a Sony Alpha 900, and it is a good camera but I don't see any magic around it.

In order to achieve optimum sharpness we need to put the camera on a steady tripod, adjust autofocus for each lens, use mirror lockup and cable release/self timer and use optimal aperture.

Best regards
Erik

  Agreed, although I've seen Andrey Tverdokhleb (RPP designer) mention that the A900 has a relatively weak AA filter.  Also, it depends on the subject.  With the near-MFDB color separation of the A900, you get more details in the blues than Canon, so, like Jinq q mentioned about the 5Dii, skin details are better with A900....but, we're splitting hairs as usual.  

Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1083


« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2009, 04:32:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: jing q
Overall I was hoping that the effect would be more prominent but I am aware that the modification removed only one AA filter, (the horizontal one?) whereas the other AA filter (vertical) is stuck onto the sensor itself. Maybe that's why the Leica has a more distinct look?

But for me every single bit of resolution counts in the kind of work I do which is detail intensive, alot of small edges and details. It's abit of a psychological effect too seeing the image straight out of the camera looking nice and crisper to a degree (slightly better microcontrast)


Ahh, very good to know that there is still 1 filter that stays.  That is likey why the Kodak SLRc or n, and the leica are very noticably sharper vs this hotrodding.  I think you did fine on the test for what you intended to get out of it, but I don't see much of a difference. I don't know if the peppery subject matter helped or hindered the detection?

Thanks for posting, as I think it is informative.  I think putting your tests public is a good thing, it can only perfect it.  But often there are those that squeel to have superior image..(hehe pun) .

I too would like to see another example. Would also help if you circle the area you did critical focus on.(preferable in the center of the lens.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2009, 04:36:52 PM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Pages: « 1 [2]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad