Canon 5D Mark III - Resolution Review

[jcs]

Hey Jordan- thanks for posting the test shot. Can you shoot the same scene again using IPB and the same settings along with sharpening in post- set in-camera sharpening to 0 (it will look initially softer than ALL-I)? I can see macroblocking (Honda billboard, in shadow, NBC billboard), and aliasing (Subway sign).

[jlev23]

Hey Jordan- thanks for posting the test shot. Can you shoot the same scene again using IPB and the same settings along with sharpening in post- set in-camera sharpening to 0 (it will look initially softer than ALL-I)? I can see macroblocking (Honda billboard, in shadow, NBC billboard), and aliasing (Subway sign).

no i can't because I'm not even in that state now, but again this had to be compressed to mp4 for vimeo, i don't see any aliasing or macro blocking in the original, unless i don't know what that is, because it looks cleaner then anything I've shot on a dslr before. with the MK2 is was unwatchable because of all the moire. but why would IPB be better when its not compressing each frame individually and relying on previous frames information, like the definition here:
"The new Canon EOS-1D X has two video compression options, intraframe ALL-I and interframe IPB. So just what are the differences between the two?

First it’s important to note that ALL-I is in-TRA-frame and IPB is in-TER-frame. Easy to over look that slight spelling difference.

The edit friendly intraframe ALl-I only compresses information in the current frame and does not use any temporal processing. Meaning the compression algorithm is not doing any type of comparison between frames. Think of it as a continuous series of still images that are each individually compressed. Intraframe compression is easier to edit with because the computer does not need to interpolate any data between each frame. With intraframe ALL-I, quality is higher, file size is larger, and the video files will use less computer processing power.

The file size conscious intraframe IPB uses some complex algorithms to compare neighboring frames and tries to find similarities from one frame to another. It can then achieve higher compression rates because it deals less with the parts of the image that stay the same from frame to frame. With interframe IPB, quality is lower (although Canon says not by much), file size is smaller, and the video files will use more computer processing power."

[jcs]

The file size conscious intraframe IPB uses some complex algorithms to compare neighboring frames and tries to find similarities from one frame to another. It can then achieve higher compression rates because it deals less with the parts of the image that stay the same from frame to frame. With interframe IPB, quality is lower (although Canon says not by much), file size is smaller, and the video files will use more computer processing power."

Thanks for the explanation Jordan (I work with these codecs at the software level in my day job). My low level analysis of video frames shows artifacts present in ALL-I but not in IPB (part of the issue is PPro CS5.5.2). Thus, my findings show IPB is higher quality vs. ALL-I (especially lower noise, and less macroblock artifacts). ALL-I is useful for editing on slower computers; IPB provides higher quality (please post images from video frames if you find otherwise). I understand it's counter-intuitive, however I have tested it. You too can test it. More info here: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?279229-Canon-5D-Mark-III-IPB-contains-more-detail-and-has-less-artifacts-than-ALL-I/page3

[jlev23]

wow, really? I'm just going by what canon says in the manual, as well as some tech articles, this is shocking to me.
why would canon say one is better than the other when its not?

[jlev23]

hmmm, well thats just you saying that on the other thread. it seems like others say their A-I is fine, and it mentioned its better on osX then premiere, i don't get how its better on one then the other, but most people i know use fcp.
and i still don't know why canon would say one is better and you say its not. why would they do that?
i think I'm sticking to the one they say is better, because i don't see the difference.

[LetTheRightLensIn]

With the advent of large sensor interchangeable lens video-specific cameras that are affordable (fs-100, fs-700, etc.) I think the days of DSLR video are more or less coming to an end anyway. It will fall back to being what it was intended for: a convenience facility for photojournalists that primarily shoot stills and don't want to carry two cameras. I shoot both stills and video roughly equally and would like to be able to have my 5d3 as a B-cam and even an A-cam for narrow DOF shots, but Canon has, sadly, crippled the resolution. 

The D800 is of no interest to me; my next stills camera move will probably be to medium format. Medium format video would be truly awesome.

Canon is going to try to wring some money out of people (via the overpriced C300) as they ramp up their cinema division, something they can only do because of the runaway success of the 5d2 and the subsequent vestment of all that EF glass. But with the fs-700 easily adaptable to EF or any other glass, and the Zeiss CP primes having interchangeable mounts, those margins will not be sustainable for Canon. I think they have made a big mistake here with the 5d3 resolution: they could have sustained that branding and that franchise, undercutting Sony and Panasonic, but they've had internal interference with their own opportunity. Positioning a 1080p cam against RED's 4K cam for a similar TCO was a blunder they shouldn't be protecting.

The 5d3 does beat the D800 in video, soundly. But who cares? Nikon is a non-player in video, even though it had the first DSLR video, and Canon has far bigger threats on its horizon.

We will check back after NAB.

+100000000000

[LetTheRightLensIn]

It appears that the D800 is line skipping, only using one row out of three. This would explain its noise performance compared to the Mk III. It also appears that the Mk III is binning, using the entire sensor.

http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html

Yup and thus the D800 has much worse color moire, a bit worse aliasing, a slightly sharper image, 1.5-2 stops worse SNR across the entire ISO range and 1.5-2 stops worse dynamic range ISO1600 and up, worse DR at ISO800, probably similar DR at ISO400 and maybe around 2/3 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 5D3.

[psolberg]

The 5d3 does beat the D800 in video, soundly. But who cares? Nikon is a non-player in video, even though it had the first DSLR video, and Canon has far bigger threats on its horizon.

well it depends on your needs. the D800 has MUCH better resolution IMO and with the 4:2:2 uncompressed out that the 5DmkIII totally lacks, it has a big edge in image quality for a lot of practical shooting conditions. I'd much rather have extra detail since moire has rarely been a problem with the 5DII for me. Other than the moire issues, for which there are already filters in the works by the same companies that helped the 5DmkII, the D800 camera is on very solid ground video wise. While nikon may have lagged in the past, they are pretty serious now and getting a lot of good press. I wouldn't dimiss them in the slightest. I'm still looking for good comparison of the HDMI out on the D800. Unless you're really going to shoot night videos, I don't see a single feature in the 5DmkIII that is so far ahead to make it a default choice. The fact I'm even considering it speaks volumes to how nikon has not only matched but exceeded the 5DIII in some ways. competition is great and 2012 is going to see a lot of Nikon video all over. It was far overdue and a great thing to see for if they had done it sooner, the 5DIII would likely be much better than what we got.

Yup and thus the D800 has much worse color moire, a bit worse aliasing, a slightly sharper image, 1.5-2 stops worse SNR across the entire ISO range and 1.5-2 stops worse dynamic range ISO1600 and up, worse DR at ISO800, probably similar DR at ISO400 and maybe around 2/3 stop better DR at ISO100 than the 5D3.

I think it has a LOT better resolution. see below from EOSHD

...the D800 reads every 3rd line of the sensor from a 1.095x crop in FX mode. When the sensor output is demosaiced to a near-final RGB image, resolution is an impressive 2240 x 1260.
 
This is then downsampled (presumably in a pretty decent way) to 1920 x 1080.
 

...so the D800 is a 1260P camera downsizing to 1080p, in contrast to the canon:

From that, I can already conclude that the 5DmkIII reads out all its sensels, i.e., does no line skipping. However, I didn't run a resolution analysis for the 5DmkIII. However, hearing about resolution complaints for 5DmkIII video, I think they bin pixels before read out. This improves noise and aliasing performance but unlike downsampling, doesn't help the resolution.
 

http://falklumo.blogspot.de/2012/04/lumolabs-nikon-d800-video-function.html

I'm looking forward to a similar analysis of the 5DmkIII by the blog above. EOSHD reckons that the 5DmkIII doesn't even deliver true 1080p but how far below the 1260P resolution of the nikon it is remains to be tested.

Also, EOSHD removed his OLP on the 5DmkIII. I'm sure we'll see some side by side comparisons from him soon and validate if such drastic modification is the only way to bring the 5DmkIII on par with the D800 in particular if you slap the D800 with one of these babies to solve the moire problem.
http://www.eoshd.com/content/7809/mosaic-engineering-working-on-nikon-d800-anti-moire-filter


interesting times.

[psolberg]

eosHD finally had it with the sub standard resolution of the 5DmkIII and removed the OLP filter

http://www.eoshd.com/content/7813/how-i-opened-my-5d-mark-iii-and-why-you-have-to-be-crazy-to-do-it

from his blog:

SO…Is the camera resolving closer to GH2 levels of detail without the low pass filter? I’d say I am very happy with the image so far. Absolutely no sign of moire or aliasing and a nice feel to fine detail. It is very close to the GH2 / C300. But full frame!!

very interesting.