Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1] 2 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Video resolution on Canon 5D2 pathetic  (Read 6781 times)
spotmeter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« on: June 30, 2011, 10:29:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Anyone know why the HD video resolution of the 5D2 is so pathetic?

When I play the footage on my Sharp 43" LCD screen, it's not any better than my Canon XF305, which has only 1/3rd" sensors, when I am shooting landscapes with lots of small detail.

I'm using a Zeiss ZF 50mm macro lens on the D2.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #1 on: July 01, 2011, 02:38:45 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the video resolution of the 5Dmk2 is limited by the ability of the high-resolution (still-image optimized) sensor to read out pixels at 24-60 frames per second. The way they do this is by reading every n-th line of sensels, then trying to estimate 1080p full-color pixels from that (similar to Demosaic).

-h
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #2 on: July 01, 2011, 10:07:22 AM »
ReplyReply

When I play the footage on my Sharp 43" LCD screen, it's not any better than my Canon XF305, which has only 1/3rd" sensors, when I am shooting landscapes with lots of small detail.

How are you connecting the two cameras to your LCD?
Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
spotmeter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #3 on: July 01, 2011, 10:38:43 AM »
ReplyReply

How are you connecting the two cameras to your LCD?

Via the HDMI ports
Logged

Kirk Gittings
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550


WWW
« Reply #4 on: July 01, 2011, 10:46:56 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm a real newbie at DSLR video so.....FWIW, I did not notice a problem like this with the "House" episode that was shot with a 5DII. I also have a friend who shoots art videos with his and the finalized files looked great on a n HD tv setup. So there must be something in your setup that is off. I have shot a fair amount with mine but not played in on anything larger than my computer screen. I hope to learn something from this discussion.
Logged

Thanks,
Kirk

Kirk Gittings
Architecture and Landscape Photography
WWW.GITTINGSPHOTO.COM

LIGHT+SPACE+STRUCTURE (blog)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #5 on: July 01, 2011, 12:56:39 PM »
ReplyReply

You might find this post interesting:
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?187165-GH1-meet-the-DSC-MegaTrumpets-res-chart
Quote
Net conclusions? The GH1 and the 7D (and the 5D) don't display true high-def images. The GH1 and 7D look like they probably have about the same amount of real detail in 1080p mode, which would be the amount of detail you could expect from a 720p camera. They do, however, render a much sharper-looking image because of all the false detail they let through. Even though their overall true detail might be comparable, the GH1 is clearly much better behaved on the charts, showing less aliasing and less bothersome color contamination.
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #6 on: July 01, 2011, 01:32:50 PM »
ReplyReply

The OP isn't doing anything wrong - that's just how the 5D2 works and measures. The video function doesn't read all the sensor and skips lines, and some rather serious shortcuts are taken in the production of the moving images. I've measured the 5D2 and it's resolution is vastly lower than 1920x1080, and quite corrupt with aliasing from the line skipping.
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2011, 01:45:33 PM »
ReplyReply

Does someone knows about the GH2 in that aspect?
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2011, 02:06:17 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the GH2 uses a different method than the 5D2, but I'm not sure of it's precise nature. We can tell it's a different method due to the lack of chroma moire which the 5D2 is rather prone to. The thing to do if you own one of these cameras is to lock the camera off, and shoot a still of a scene, then a quick video. Take the still and crop / scale in Photoshop to match the aspect ratio and framing of the video and compare. What you'll see is what the shortcuts are doing to the image and be able to evaluate what the video looks like, compared to what it would be like if the full sensor had been used then downsampled properly.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #9 on: July 01, 2011, 02:14:33 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the GH2 uses a different method than the 5D2, but I'm not sure of it's precise nature. We can tell it's a different method due to the lack of chroma moire which the 5D2 is rather prone to. The thing to do if you own one of these cameras is to lock the camera off, and shoot a still of a scene, then a quick video. Take the still and crop / scale in Photoshop to match the aspect ratio and framing of the video and compare. What you'll see is what the shortcuts are doing to the image and be able to evaluate what the video looks like, compared to what it would be like if the full sensor had been used then downsampled properly.

Graeme

Thanks Graeme.
Logged
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #10 on: July 01, 2011, 03:26:18 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the GH2 uses a different method than the 5D2, but I'm not sure of it's precise nature. We can tell it's a different method due to the lack of chroma moire which the 5D2 is rather prone to. The thing to do if you own one of these cameras is to lock the camera off, and shoot a still of a scene, then a quick video. Take the still and crop / scale in Photoshop to match the aspect ratio and framing of the video and compare. What you'll see is what the shortcuts are doing to the image and be able to evaluate what the video looks like, compared to what it would be like if the full sensor had been used then downsampled properly.

Graeme

Graeme,

I did this early on with the 5d2.

Both are full resolution, native crop.

http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg

IMO

BC
Logged
spotmeter
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 310


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 01, 2011, 03:29:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I think the GH2 uses a different method than the 5D2, but I'm not sure of it's precise nature. We can tell it's a different method due to the lack of chroma moire which the 5D2 is rather prone to. The thing to do if you own one of these cameras is to lock the camera off, and shoot a still of a scene, then a quick video. Take the still and crop / scale in Photoshop to match the aspect ratio and framing of the video and compare. What you'll see is what the shortcuts are doing to the image and be able to evaluate what the video looks like, compared to what it would be like if the full sensor had been used then downsampled properly.

Graeme

Thanks, Graeme, for your thoughtful and informative post.  I shot a still of the scene after viewing my original footage just to make sure there was nothing wrong with the camera or my connection to the screen.  Sure enough, the still was stunning on a 43" screen, but the video was pathetic.  Hopefully on the D3 they will use the full 16:9 center of the sensor and downsample properly as you suggest.

Sampling every second or third line of a sensor is like viewing the world through thin venetian blinds turned partially closed.  You just have to guess what is behind each blind.
Logged

hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1683


« Reply #12 on: July 01, 2011, 03:35:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Sampling every second or third line of a sensor is like viewing the world through thin venetian blinds turned partially closed.  You just have to guess what is behind each blind.
If you could do proper smoothing before, it might not be that bad. But the 5D AA filter is of course not optimized for that mode.

It seems that the reason they are doing this is that either the sensor is overheated, or it does not support the bandwidth needed for moving that large amounts of pixels per second.

-h
Logged
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #13 on: July 01, 2011, 03:46:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Although...

Yesterday I bought a Zeiss Sonnar, it's an optic that I like. In the 50's-60's, the russian industry did several copies of the Sonnars. I wasn't born.
They are extensive testings available on resolution and as expected the Zeiss have a better overall resolution, center and edges,
But despite everything on the paper, every testing, I still prefer how a Jupiter delivers the images than the Zeiss.
In fact, I will end to buy the russian copy because of the look and feel.

What I mean is that a lot of good stuff have been done with the 5D2 so far.
Logged
Sareesh Sudhakaran
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 547


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 01, 2011, 11:17:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Did you know the HDMI in record mode on the 5D2 is not 1080 but only SD? It is full HD only in live view mode. Were you using live view or record mode? For all intents and purposes, the HDMI on the 5D2 is useless for HD video work, even when using a monitor.

Can you give us screen grabs of the 5D2 vs the XF305? In HDMI and via SDHC on a computer screen (separately?) Just wanted to know what you meant by 'crappy'.

Are you using a consumer LCD panel or a professional ultra-HD monitor? Have you seen the zacuto shootout series? There is no way you would see that big a difference in resolution on any LCD panel. How far away are you viewing the video from the screen?


Logged

Get the Free Comprehensive Guide to Rigging ANY Camera - one guide to rig them all - DSLRs to the Arri Alexa.
Alex MacPherson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 292



WWW
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2011, 03:00:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Graeme,

I did this early on with the 5d2.

Both are full resolution, native crop.

http://ishotit.com/rundsmc.jpg

IMO

BC


That's amazing. Wow... I just got my 5Dii a few days ago. I can't wait to try it out!

Logged

Alex MacPherson

Visit My Website
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2011, 09:00:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Great test! If I take your full rez and downsample it so that it matches the video shot it exhibits the very same effect that I first noticed when investigating this. The video side doesn't look too bad until you compare it with what it should be like and you can see what is missing.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
bcooter
Guest
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2011, 12:30:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Great test! If I take your full rez and downsample it so that it matches the video shot it exhibits the very same effect that I first noticed when investigating this. The video side doesn't look too bad until you compare it with what it should be like and you can see what is missing.

Graeme


None of us users, really knows what goes on inside the camera.  I'm sure the Canon softens and lines skips and somehow makes a a 20 megapixel sensor a lot less for video, because sometimes we see moire or artifacts.

But heck it's a $2,500 camera that shoots good motion and great stills, so it's kind of hard to complain about it.

Then again I don't know why our RED One with the MX sensor is 4k and with the Epic 5k.  I guess it's processing power, though  something is getting tossed, but in reality all I care about is the final look.

We've used stills from our RED One in print and usually they're fine as long as the subject is waist up.  Full length on a horizontal format becomes more challenged, but I'm not 1000% convinced that one camera can do everything anyway, for still or motion projects.

We primarily shoot the RED, but until we get an Epic, it's a beast and the 5d is a great camera for quick set ups, tight quarters like a quick window mount and low low light.

We're also adding that Sony FX 100 or 1000 or whatever it's called because it does some things the 5d/7d/ and the RED don't do. though once again, the A camera is usually the RED.

Every camera has limitations.  The RED has good resolution and a thick file though it requires a more thoughtful professional approach to shooting, the Sony is fast and runs for 10 hours but it takes care in shooting not to blow highlights and some post work to make it un video looking, the 5d can be amazing or awful depending on the subject.  Also the 5d2 can get hot and degrade the image so care has to be taken in how long you run a series of sequences.

To match our cameras the one thing that seems to help is to go to ziess lenses all around.    I can visibly see more detail and sharpness from that change that anything else.

What I don't think the original poster realizes is the smaller cameras usually shoot 8 to 10 bits, and are 4:1:1 or 4:2:2 where the RED is 12 bits and 4:4:4.    Also in any common NLE it all goes back to 10 bits.

I also don't think he realizes that even if you drop 50 grand that's not a lot in the motion imaging world.  Not for a camera, heck not for anything.

I can't show it because our last few projects haven't been released, though the client selected 16 still images from the RED and after post production and some retouching, anyone would be hard pressed to know if they were shot with a still or motion camera.


IMO

BC
Logged
Graeme Nattress
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 582



WWW
« Reply #18 on: July 02, 2011, 02:17:37 PM »
ReplyReply

No, we, not working in Canon engineering, don't know exactly what is going on - we can only measure the results and see if they're suitable or unsuitable for our needs, and that's an individual choice.

I do know on the RED side what we do there, and it's basically three things: a sensor capable of a high native full-sensor fps, serious horse power in the chips to deal with that data, and a really nice raw compression engine. Each one is expensive enough on it's own, and massive data throughput also costs more in terms of heat dissipation too.

Every camera does indeed have it's pros and cons, which is why it's vital you test a camera for it's intended use - and as you point out, you really need to test a "camera system" and not ignore the contribution good glass makes to the image.

Graeme
Logged

www.nattress.com - Plugins for Final Cut Pro and Color
www.red.com - Digital Cinema Cameras
fredjeang
Guest
« Reply #19 on: July 02, 2011, 03:47:08 PM »
ReplyReply

No, we, not working in Canon engineering, don't know exactly what is going on - we can only measure the results and see if they're suitable or unsuitable for our needs, and that's an individual choice.

I do know on the RED side what we do there, and it's basically three things: a sensor capable of a high native full-sensor fps, serious horse power in the chips to deal with that data, and a really nice raw compression engine. Each one is expensive enough on it's own, and massive data throughput also costs more in terms of heat dissipation too.

Every camera does indeed have it's pros and cons, which is why it's vital you test a camera for it's intended use - and as you point out, you really need to test a "camera system" and not ignore the contribution good glass makes to the image.

Graeme

Graeme, You should be decorated of the merit cross ! for those words indeed.

In the photo discutions at least, it's sensor, sensor, and more sensor. But much more discrete are the lenses impacts. It's tremendous in digital. IMO, lenses in digital are 70% of the final result.

You can notice it on the "high" but even on the "low". For ex in the "crap" side, there is a fashionable imagery now where a lot of people apply vigneting within digital filters. It looks flat, redneck and horrible.  Put a C mount good glass on a digital and you obtain an analogic way of natural vigneting that can be truly beautifull. Digital will not render that way. Even in the crappy really crap, used properlly, certain glasses like the CTVlenses (but not all) can give a sort of view camera look to a video footage. In the high-end, no need to say that the lens contribution to the image is key in one way or another and determines a lot the personality.

A good sensor with a regular lens is like having a regular sensor and vice-versa. Of course a good sensor and top lens is the grail.(but not necessary always)

But in the end it's more a question of personality of the combinations. One tool tends to give that look, the other this look...it's like a paintor's palette. Each camera is a palette and each lens a color. Does a painter use just one color and palette?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 03:51:40 PM by fredjeang » Logged
Pages: [1] 2 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad