misunderstandings...

[csv]

Hi
I read a lot, please believe me! And I wonder if I am stupid or something like that because these are a few points I absolutely don't understand.
But I need to understand: my aim is to buy a camcorder, and I am hesitating more and more each day. One of my options is the 5DM3 with ML.
First and foremost I have to thank the ML team: what a remarquable work! And please forgive me if my questions are stupids!
My questions are about the 5DM3, in raw, and especially about ratio and card compatibility. Let's ask:
1-the 5DM3 have a 4K sensor. Why is the video only usable at 1920*1080 max in raw?
2-or, I saw that it was possible to "crop" and use more of the sensor. But, at that point, I am lost: if one use a larger space on a sensor, he would expect that the field of view is larger (with the same lens, of course)! But it seems to be less large! I do not understand.
And I would like to use more of 2K to make movies, in RAW, with a larger field of view.
3-SD cards seem to be very short for making long footage. Can we expect that the 5DM3 will use brand new SD cards, which could accept filming at 2.5 or 3K in raw more than a few seconds?
Thanks very much for your helping (and sorry for my bad English...)
CS

[Walter Schulz]

ML team found a way to grab the data stream sent to the cameras display in video mode. And using a 5D3 native display resolution is just 1920x1280. (Other Canon DSLRs have lower resolutions. See here.)

This mode uses the sensor's full area but not every pixel! That's your first misunderstanding.

In crop mode every pixel is used but not the whole sensor area. It's cropped.
Quite an oxymoron: Crop mode therefore uses a smaller area but is able to use more pixels.

And SD in 5D3 is limited to about 21 MByte/s transfer speed. Not able to keep up recordings in high resolution RAW video mode for more than a few seconds.

Ciao, Walter

[rainless]

Buddy you've got a loooooooong way to go

First I hope you're aware that the 5D3 records to SD and Compact Flash... and that CF can write around 160mbs if you have a fast one.

Also it's not about size... it's about speed. The higher the resolution... the faster a write speed you need.

Other than that Walter already covered everything. (You might also want to check out my 2014 Raw video Capabilities thread.)

[chmee]

This mode uses the sensor's full area but not every pixel! That's your first misunderstanding.

I just thought about the 1x Filmmode and the technique behind it. Is it proven, it's not using every pixel? Is there any "Merger/Binning" between Sensor and Buffer, that is doin the job? Because the Aliasing/Moiré-Artifacts are not as aggressive, as it should state for a skipping-technique.. (talking 'bout 5DIII)

regards chmee

[a1ex]

If somebody takes some regular and silent pictures of a resolution chart from a really sturdy tripod (of course, with remote release, not by touching the camera), it should help clearing the mystery.

I said silent pictures and not video frames because silent pictures are not cropped, and I'm also looking for pixel-perfect alignment between the "noisy" picture and the LiveView frame. Mirror movement will interfere with this alignment; locking up the mirror with some adhesive tape should help minimizing the vibrations. A long exposure or Canon's LiveView silent shooting might help too, since the vibrations would get some time to settle.

[ted ramasola]

@chmee,

the mkIII has a more "agressive" OLPF than the previous mkII thats why in h264, this makes it appear better in handling the issues caused by line skipping(aliasing) but its there, it even appears softer than the mkII in h264 with all settings being equal. However in raw the OLPF seems to work to the mkIII's advantage as the mkII suffers more pronounced aliasing and moire in raw than in h264 mode due to less powerful OLPF, thats why it needs "another" in the form of the mosaic VAF. The mkIII does not need the VAF anymore.

[a1ex]

If it would be OLPF, it would be also soft for stills (just like VAF).

Hint: http://www.chipworks.com/en/technical-competitive-analysis/resources/blog/full-frame-dslr-cameras-canon-stays-the-course/

"Canon's X030334 uses an additional transistor (T5) that can be used to  sum the FD nodes of three rows of even (or odd) pixels of the same  color."

[chmee]

@ted ramasola
if the OLPF would be that aggressive, the sharpness-decrease would be visible in the nocrop-ml-videoframes as well, but it isnt. imho the details-difference between h.264 and nocrop-ml is caused by the "suboptimal" raw->jpg->h.264-transcoding-routines.

regards chmee

[csv]

Thank you very much!
Yes, maybe a long way to understand everything. I'm coming from video and cine, so DSLR are a very strange world for me.
I do understand now how cropped footage works!
I didn't notice that the 5DM3 uses CF at 160 Mb/s. But, since it uses it, how isn't it possible to shoot more than a few seconds in 2.5 or 3K? It's not at 160, but around 100/120 I think...
Thanks again!
CS

[Walter Schulz]

100 MByte/s? At 24 fps you will have to have RAW size about 4 MByte. Don't think the numbers match with 14 bit RAW at 3k ...

[chmee]

@csv simple Maths - one Frame[bytes] = width*height*14/8

example A: 1920*1080*14/8 = ~3.6MB -> *24fps =~87MB/sec (5DIII, unlimited rec possible with one fast CF-Card)
example B: 2500*1080*14/8 = ~4.7MB -> *24fps =~114MB/sec (5DIII, limited rec possible with one CF-Card due to CF-Slot-Limitations, unlimited with CF+SD)
example C: 3000*1276*14/8 = ~6.7MB -> *24fps =~160MB/sec (5DIII, limited some seconds?)

[csv]

Thank you Chmee, you answer the question as I wouldn't expect! So CF or SD, due to limitation, no more than 2K. Not so bad, of course, but I extacly would like to do something like 2500*1080. Too sad...
Why is CF limited??? 

[chmee]

as a (ml)optimization theres is the combined mode, where you record on CF and SD-Card simultaneously. you'll get about 120-125MB/sec.

I cant tell you, why canon built such a CF-bus-controller inside, having in mind, 166MB/sec is just the theoretical max-speed - and being gentle, it is enough to do photos (the main purpose of this piece of electronics). with the komputerbay 1000x card i nearly can shot ~30 RAW-Pictures at 6fps, then it get hickups, but its quite fluid to shot without a pause.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N6HWreyyo1g

[csv]

Whaou! Combined mode! Workflow must be terrific!
But you are right, of course: these are made for photos...

[eoshq]

@ted ramasola, You need to put your thinking cap on and stop posting BS about the 5D3. The 5D3 in stills mode is the highest resolving Canon DSLR to date. This obviously would not be possible if it had a super aggressive OLPF.

With every lens tested on both by DXO, it out resolves the 5D2, often by a larger percentage than the increase in megapixels would suggest. This actually lends evidence to the 5D3 having a weaker OLPF than the 5D2.

This is a good example:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Sonnar-T-Star-F2-135-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Sonnar-T-Star-F2-135-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___1017_795_1017_483

@chmee,

the mkIII has a more "agressive" OLPF than the previous mkII thats why in h264, this makes it appear better in handling the issues caused by line skipping(aliasing) but its there, it even appears softer than the mkII in h264 with all settings being equal. However in raw the OLPF seems to work to the mkIII's advantage as the mkII suffers more pronounced aliasing and moire in raw than in h264 mode due to less powerful OLPF, thats why it needs "another" in the form of the mosaic VAF. The mkIII does not need the VAF anymore.

[ted ramasola]

@ted ramasola, You need to put your thinking cap on and stop posting BS about the 5D3. The 5D3 in stills mode is the highest resolving Canon DSLR to date. This obviously would not be possible if it had a super aggressive OLPF.

With every lens tested on both by DXO, it out resolves the 5D2, often by a larger percentage than the increase in megapixels would suggest. This actually lends evidence to the 5D3 having a weaker OLPF than the 5D2.

This is a good example:
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Sonnar-T-Star-F2-135-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-Zeiss-Carl-Zeiss-Apo-Sonnar-T-Star-F2-135-ZE-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II___1017_795_1017_483

I'm not talking about stills. I'm talking about video, especially h264 video native to both 5D2 and mk3. The OLPF even in older models are tuned for stills, that's why these cameras are so popular for stills. When the 5d2 became popular in video by "accident" it was not something canon expected, that's why 24p was added later due to the clamor.

The 5D3 produced cleaner video images compared to 5D2, lesser aliasing and color moire, but it "appears" softer as a tradeoff, this was actually not because the 5d@ was sharper but rather they appeared sharper due to the aliasing and enhanced edges.so many early adapters were surprised with this, a few daring souls even resorted to removing the OLPFs. However the OLPFs worked well with the ML raw dngs.

[eoshq]

ted, You still don't get it and you never will. Your logic is failed. You have been going around saying the "the mkIII has a more "agressive" OLPF than the previous mkII". When it is pointed out that this cannot be true, your EGO has you talking nonsense in circles, instead of just admitting you are wrong. There is no hope of understanding with you.

[rainless]

ted, You still don't get it and you never will. Your logic is failed. You have been going around saying the "the mkIII has a more "agressive" OLPF than the previous mkII". When it is pointed out that this cannot be true, your EGO has you talking nonsense in circles, instead of just admitting you are wrong. There is no hope of understanding with you.

Yeah but you seem to be more of a dick about it... You're talking about CAMERAS... why don't you chill the hell out?

Who cares if the 5DmkIII has more OLPF or not? Is anybody arguing that, given the choice between either camera for free, somebody's going to choose the 5DmkII?

No.

And in that case all the bickering is pointless.

[chmee]

@eoshq what about this: not the OLPF is the problem, but the microlenses-structure, its gapless in the 5DIII. think about it instead of complaining.

[reddeercity]

What Ted said is right for Video, it a known fact to anyone that shot video on the full frame Canon's

[Audionut]

@eoshq

Is your only evidence, a misunderstanding based on DxO results?

[eoshq]

@chmee

The gapless microlens structure is not acting like a VAF OLPF in the 5D3 for video. If it were, it would at the same time destroy the resolution of the optical system for 22 megapixel stills.

The key to the 5D3's lack of moire in video has everything to do with (5760 x 3840) and the Digic 5 processing. The fact that the 5D3 is 22.1 megapixels and not more or less, is no coincidence. That resolution was chosen to make it a better video camera. Think about these two numbers (5760 x 3840) again carefully and I think it will become quite obvious.

@eoshq what about this: not the OLPF is the problem, but the microlenses-structure, its gapless in the 5DIII.

[eoshq]

@reddeercity,

We can't divide the 5D3's optical system into one for video and a different one for full resolution photos. Any idea that suggest such a theory is nonsensical. It is the same camera in both modes and anything that has been done in the optical system to minimize moire in video would also affect the optical system in photo mode.

As we can see with the VAF add-on OLPF's for the 5D2, 6D, 7D, D800, etc. An OLPF strong enough to stop moire and aliasing in these cameras can only be used in video mode and must be removed for photos, because it destroys the resolution of the camera. Obviously no such thing is going on with 5D3 as it has higher resolution in photo mode than the 5D2.

What Ted said is right for Video, it a known fact to anyone that shot video on the full frame Canon's

[eoshq]

@eoshq

Is your only evidence, a misunderstanding based on DxO results?

@audionut,

This is a pretty classic attack method you have chosen against me. You have said that I don't understand DXO's lens testing without saying why. You want to discredit me somehow, but you are to lazy to explain yourself or you actually don't know what you are talking about. Either way, I challenge you. Explain yourself or be quiet about it.

I will even give you a hint. DXO's sharpness test are just another way of presenting the same data that has always been used to express the resolution of an optical system. Go ahead and make my day.

[chmee]

@eoshq
you're not capable doin' a smart, friendly dialog. using the wrong words. Dude, not with me, and me not with you. shame.