Video Moire/Aliasing!?

[jasonmillard81]

Greetings all,

I was wondering if there is a standard fix for the nasty moire/aliasing that plague the Canon DSLR line for video?

If not then I may be forced to go with a GH2. My last post many of you convinced me that the 60D was the way to go with a few fast primes and a nice zoom.

Now, after watching many videos I am very concerned with the moire/aliasing issue.

Thoughts?

 

[CJRodgers]

mosiac engeneering make an anti aliasing filter for the 5d mkii if thats an option for you?

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

A GH-2 might suit you well, but for sports, its AF may not track fast enough.

Right now, for sports, a Sony A77 that will autofocus while shooting video might be the best choice.

The new Nikon mirrorless cameras are supposed to beat all others when it comes to autofocus, but you lose shallow depth of field due to sensor size, which is the main advantage of video with DSLR.

If you are watching videos on a computer monitor, there are lots of issues that could make them look bad or excellent, a lot of it has to do with skill and post processing tools. Moire can be reduced in post processing, but it is better to remove it at the sensor, which is what we will likely see with new sensors coming out for future models.

Still, thousands of professionals seem to deal with it, even for major motion pictures and television shows.

Unfortunately, DSLR's are not yet developed to operate like consumer or professional camcorders with ready to view output, it takes practice, knowledge, more practice, and a developed skill to get the best results. Thats just one of those disadvantages of early stages of a new technology, still a bit rough around the edges, but good enough to be desirable for those on a budget, and we all are. If you can produce a advertisement, for example, at a cost below the competition and still meet or beat quality standards, you have a advantage.

I would suggest you assess your willingness to put up with a difficult to use technology, having to spend several times the cost of the body in accessories for truly professional results versus just hanging on to your camcorder for one or two more years until they can meet your needs.

In any event, you are looking at alternatives and thats the way to do it. In a fast changing field like video by DSLR, obsolence happens quickly.

 

[Meh]

@jasonmillard81... looking back over your posts from the previous threads along with the most recent posts I'm wondering if for your mostly video shooting that upgrading to a higher-end camcorder wouldn't be the better choice over a DSLR or GH-2. For example, the Sony NEXVG10 has a larger sensor and longer lenses that would give you more control of DoF and might be easier to use than a DSLR form factor.

 

[gene_can_sing]

I've wrestled with the GH2 vs. Canon question for a long time. After trying both cameras side by side and watching countless vimeo videos shot with both cameras, I stuck with Canon.

Why, especially since the GH2 does have a sharper, clearer picture? It comes down to aesthetics for me. My friend summed it up best by saying: "GH2 technically has the better picture, but the Canons have emotionally the better picture."

I think there are 2 major weakness to the GH2 which the Vitality hack cannot fix.

1) It's a 2x crop vs a 1.6x crop on the Canon APS-C. We did a side by side test with my friends GH2, and even he said that the DOF is considerable shallower on the 7D and it's very noticeable. Therefore, Canon's have a more cinematic quality than the GH2

2) Panasonic's colors are not nearly as nice as Canons. Canons colors are much richer and the image is more dimensional look. GH2 looks very flat when compared to the Canons because of the color. There's been a lot of GH2 posts where people ask "How do I get my GH2 colors to look like Canons?" just watch a bunch of vimeo videos and you can clearly see a difference in color between the 2 cameras.

So you just gotta decided what is important to you? Do you want a sharper, clearer image? Or do you want shallower DOF and nicer colors? Panasonic does also have much better 720p 60fps than the Canons because of the aliasing. It's not too bad in 1080p on the Canons.

As for the aliasing, it is there but it's not deal break for me. I tend to shoot shallower focus shots, so it's not as much of an issue.

If you have a 5D, Philip Bloom mentioned that someone came out with an Anti-Aliasing filter that works good, so check on his site.

Something that is strange is that I've had a 7D that got stolen, and I replaced it with a 60D. The 60D seemed to have less aliasing for some reason. Not sure if I'm just imagining things. For video purposes, the 60D is the better camera. It has live histogram during video and the flip screen is really nice for video.

Hope that helps.

 

[gene_can_sing]

Want to add one more thing. GH2 can take any lens, but Canon has much better, constant aperture, fast IS zooms. If you're videoing lots of B-Roll, a fast, constant aperture zoom in essential.

The zooms for the GH2 generally suck IMO. But now Redrock has a made an electronic EOS to micro 4/3rd adapter, so that could change things. But still no IS.

 

[RichST]

I have to agree with Canon having a better aesthetic but ONLY if sharpening is turned off completely in the camera (using neutral or faithful is an easy way to do that). They definitely lack the detail of the GH2 but seem to have a richer color palate and better tonal range. The GH2 comes off looking very crisp but slightly sterile and clinical (though even the threat of moire though is enough to push some videographers away from the Canons). Now having said that there is something about Canon's video sharpening algorithms that are really unpleasant to me, they are coarse and harsh and take away from that "look". It would be great if they offered wider controls over sharpening (didn't their old 1D/1Ds series allow that?)

Can you wait until February?