Show posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Show posts Menu

Topics - Volumetrik

As the title says, I just picked up a 5D III for absolutely dirt cheap. 1000 cad for a 107k shutter 5D3, battery grip AND a 24-105. Got the original boxes and everything. The 5D3 is a bit battered on the outside, but the LCD is not scratched and everything works. Only thing I need to fix is the aperture cable on the 24-105 and it will be like brand new.

So, would anyone be interested in direct comparisons between the 5D2 and 5D3 ? I have the VAF filter on the 5D2 so I can compare the quality of Full frame 1080p on both. I can do crop rec comparisons, 4k modes, write speeds benching on both with the same cards, etc. I have CineLog so we can test between the two as well.

What would you guys like to see ?

Here is some threads where I did some tests on the 5D2 :

VAF-5D2 Optical Anti-Aliasing Filter Test on 5D2

MLV RAW 14-Bit vs 12-Bit vs 10-Bit Comparison on 5D2

I wanted to test out the effect of the VAF filter on the video on the 5D Mark II. As you all know, the 5D2 suffers from aliasing in the full frame mode. On close up subjects it can be fine and not show at all, but on repeating patterns, clothing and fine contrasting detail it can completely ruin the video.

The hypothesis :

I think the VAF filter will eliminate the aliasing problem for full frame video. I also think that it may reduce sharpness.
Additionally, I think using a VAF filter AND crop mode will yield reduced sharpness, but I don't know to what degree.

Variables :

Canon 5D Mark II 2.1.2 w/94k actuations
Canon 35mm F/2 IS @ F/8
Canon EF-S 10-18 STM @ F/8
VAF 5D2 AA Filter
SanDisk ExtremePro 32Gb UDMA 7 160MB/s CF card

magiclantern-crop_rec-3k_Updated_Center_4.20pm-5D2-eXperimental.2019Nov14.5D2212 from Reddeercity
100 ISO
FF mode : 1866 x 1248 1.00x Crop @ 23.976 fps 1/50s
Crop mode : 2784 x 1080 2.01x Crop @ 23.98 fps 1/50s

The setup :

Using a tripod, I shot multiple different scenes using the same settings with the VAF filter and without the VAF filter. For the first scene, I tested two lenses : a 35mm and a 10-18 Ultra-wide zoom meant for EF-S. Since I have the original VAF-5D2 filter and not the updated VAF-5D2b filter specifically designed for wide angles, I expect the performance of the VAF to be less using the 18mm focal length. Since I am using an EF-S lens on full frame, I expect the corners to be blurry and with vignetting, so I will use center crops only for comparisons. All of these shots are within 30 seconds of each other.

Here is my exposure for this test. Note the picture is at F/7, but I later changed this to F/8. The RAW zebras were only green in the sky, not green and blue like pictured.

Here are the tests. I added labels to aid in comprehension :

Click on each of these photos to see them in full size.

Initial conclusions :

Full frame video has now no aliasing when viewed at 100%. An interesting side-effect is the reduction of compression artifacts. This can be viewed clearly in the grass in both full frame tests. The reduction in sharpness is (to my eye) due to the elimination of false sharpness created by the aliasing. I most definitely think that the resulting image with the VAF filter is better when using FF.

Crop mode is straight up not usable. The sharpness reduction is dramatic. The shots look out of focus, but I can assure you I focused using the 10x liveview and autofocus on the central part of the image multiple times. I even re-did the whole test again because when I viewed the footage on the computer, I thought I made a mistake. We can conclude that using the VAF in conjunction with crop mode will yield poor results at best.

More testing :

After this initial test, I set out to test out different scenes to see the actual difference in real world tests. Since this filter was not intended for crop mode video and just for full frame, the later tests are all tested on full frame with the 35mm F/2 IS USM.

You can make your own observations. Here are the original files used in the test.

More conclusions :

With the further testing I did, I can say with confidence that for FF video in RAW on the 5D2, the VAF filter does its job very well. It reduces aliasing and compression artifacts to almost invisible levels when viewed at 100%. Crop mode is not to be used with the VAF filter. I do not think it was designed for that so I cannot fault it in that aspect.

Hope you found my tests useful !
I wanted to see for myself the differences that full frame MLV raw video bit depth does on the 5D2 so here is a quick test I did.

First the variables :

Canon 5D Mark II 2.1.2 w/94k actuations
Canon 35mm F/2 IS @ F/7
VAF 5D2 AA Filter
SanDisk ExtremePro 32Gb UDMA 7 160MB/s CF card

magiclantern-crop_rec-3k_Updated_Center_4.20pm-5D2-eXperimental.2019Nov14.5D2212 from Reddeercity
100 ISO
1866 x 1044 1.00x Crop @ 23.976 fps 1/50s

I shot the same scene with both highlights and shadows clipping so we can have a good sense of dynamic range.

Using the ML spot-meter, the sky is 100%, the wall in-between the two windows is 55% and the towel is 1%.

Here is an example of the ACR settings I used. I only changed two things : Highlights and Shadows

First test : ACR settings : -100 Highlights & +100 Shadows : This is an extreme test, you can see banding so this is not usable footage, but a good example.

Second test : ACR settings : -70 Highlights & +70 Shadows : This is the highest shadows I could push before seeing banding, so I would consider this the limit of usable footage.

You can click on the images to view in full resolution. Areas to look at are the electric baseboard as it shoes the color shifting very clearly. Towel shoes the banding and the wall in between the two windows shows the effects on middle exposure (55%).

EDIT : Here are the three original DNG's extracted from the folder MLVFS created : MLV Bit-Depth Test

Conclusion :

I found that the cleanest was the 14-Bit (not surprising) compared to the two others. However, this is not a continuous setting on the 5D2 as it starts skipping frames around 24-26 seconds. The 12-Bit sounds like a good compromise as I can pretty much get it continuous with sound. It does have a very slight color shift towards green in the -100+100 test and a bit more banding visible on the towel, but in the -70+70 it looks (to my eye) 99% the same as the 14-Bit. The 10-bit is the worst of the bunch (again, not surprising) but I was very surprised at the green color shifting in the shadows. It was much more visible than I anticipated. Finally, the banding is less severe in the towel, but the green noise takes over that whole area anyways. Overall, the highlight retention of all the bit depths seem to be roughly equal, as I cannot see a difference between them.

Conclusion of the conclusion :

I will be using the 12-bit for 95% of shooting scenarios, especially ones where I need longer takes than 24-26 seconds. I'll use 14-Bit if I am in a low-light situation where I know I will need to pull up exposure and shadows. Finally, I'll never touch 10-bit as the color shifting is too severe for my taste.

Hope you found my tests useful !