New Olympus E-5 tests…
Robin Wong (Click here to read) posted a new E-5 test. This time he tested the Low Light performance: “What I can tell you is that, there is a noticeable improvement. At ISO3200, the noise level was evident, but still the details are well maintained. Overall sharpness was very good too, but of course that was due to the presence of luminance noise all over. One good news is how the JPEG engine handles the chroma noise. Up to ISO3200, I almost did not detect (yet again, some people have super magnifying eyes that can spot pixels 6 feet away from the computer screen) any chroma noise. Even at ISO6400, the majority of the noise is luminance, and I do not mind much luminance noise, which was of course, again my preference.”
Great work Robert!
One more E-5 test: Fotopolis.pl (google english translation) previewed the E-5.
High quality ISO 3200 E-5 RAW filed developed by OlympusClub user ‘qbic’ – using Lightroom 3 (2shared.com)
Share
Recent comments
Comment from Jason: Obviously your monitor is not up to par....
Comment from Brandon: Duarte, you handled Kincaid well. He fai...
Comment from Duarte Bruno: It didn't get parsed. Perhaps a direct l...- Comment from Duarte Bruno: They are blocking artefacts. They are mo...
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |The video compression looks terrible. I know this is almost a worst case scenario with lots of non linear motion but the bitrate is clearly insufficient in this case, resulting in massive amounts of blocking artefacts.
Now the question: is this a camera problem or youtubes’s?
Gasper
2 years ago |Robin Wong: “The original file was 2 minutes long, at 509MB. I cannot upload the full size due to my internet connection limitations (blame lousy Malaysia broadband services), so I have cut down the video to 40 seconds with Windows Movie Maker and published it as a 720 HD video. I uploaded to YouTube, and I suspect a lot of compression has been done over the original file, through Windows Movie Maker and also the YouTube for size/quality optimization.”
Vlado
2 years ago |thx info, explain a lot
.
napalm
2 years ago |windows movie maker… not the best to use for videos hehehe
Jason
2 years ago |The video seems pretty good to me. It seems like this particular lens focuses very well. I did not see the compression issues that one of the commenters mentioned. I’m guessing he forgot to turn the video up to 720p, had a slow connection, a poor screen – or all of the above….
Robin also posted images with the 50mm f2.0 macro attached to the E-5, and the results were quite good.
http://robinwong.blogspot.com/2010/10/olympus-e-5-review-extreme-low-light.html
This review alone has almost convinced me to drop the money for a new E-5. If the price goes down, the decision will be that much easier.
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |“I’m guessing he forgot to turn the video up to 720p, had a slow connection, a poor screen – or all of the above….”
Not really Jason, none of the above, 720p I do have a calibrated screen and a fast connection too (not that it means one bit!).
The artefacts are there and I’ll prove it in my next post.
KJS
2 years ago |That video should be good enough for any of those who call themselves photographers. I am glad Oly included it, so I have something else to play with. But I am a photographer, not a video editor. I welcome whatever they decide to add to the camera, but I personally will not dwell on it. I will be a happy owner of the new E-5.
I-Engineer
2 years ago |I loved the macro photograph in his 3rd review and I agree with you regarding the price. Oly should bring it down to $1300 or so
Jason
2 years ago |I bet Olympus will drop the price to about $1,399 within a month of its actual release.
blastingmill
2 years ago |I suspect that Windows Movie Maker and Youtube are causing the video file to be twice compressed. It would be nice to see the original file. Other than the compression artifacts, the video looks really smooth and seems to handle all the moving action without any problems.
I’m curious to know the bitrates for the E-5′s video.
Dana Curtis Kincaid
2 years ago |“Duarte Bruno
10 hrs, 55 mins ago
The video compression looks terrible. I know this is almost a worst case scenario with lots of non linear motion but the bitrate is clearly insufficient in this case, resulting in massive amounts of blocking artefacts.
Now the question: is this a camera problem or youtubes’s?”
You know, there ARE tools out there that you could research yourself and then answer your own question about bit rate and such. Hmmm? Let us know when you’ve done some actual research.
Jason
2 years ago |I forgot that my LED monitor has 2ms response time, that must be why I cannot see what you guys are seeing. It’s your monitors…..
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |They are blocking artefacts. They are most noticeable on dark areas (but not restricted to those) and show up on places where the bitrate can’t keep up with all the non linear movement and texture. Fire and water are usually the ultimate test for a codec.
I don’t know if the link will bw parsed but here it is on a frame from the video at 0m:39s:
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |It didn’t get parsed. Perhaps a direct link will work: http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4090/5058395574_8bec436745_b_d.jpg
Duarte Bruno
2 years ago |Before I even began to taking digital pictures I was already a regular doom9 forum contributor, so I already knew my way around video compression way before Canon broke the DSLR market with the EOS 300D.
Now, if you can tell which tool can answer me whether the artefacts were there in the first place or were introduced by youtube’s compression I’ll be more than thankful! Let me know if it will give me the Loto numbers too!
Brandon
2 years ago |Duarte, you handled Kincaid well. He fails every time he posts; kneejerk, ill-informed, boastful without rights, and baring the tell-tale stank of a noob that fancies himself learned. Nothing is more annoying or dangerous than arrogance and ultracrepidation combined. Anyone on this forum recall Kincaid getting in a point worth sharing? He’s already been kicked off other forums, let him die here as well.
Yes there’re artifacts…uploads to YouTube can be optimized…Movie Maker can be used professionally in a pinch…without source material the fault remains an open question… and stop discussing your monitors: they have zilch to do with compression artifacts, or can’t you distinguish one artifact type from another?
Jason
2 years ago |Obviously your monitor is not up to par…