5d Mark III: Sharpness @ 2 not 0...footage looks very nice

P

payal_choksi

Well-known member
Hi all,

Till now i had been shooting with my 5d with sharpness set all the way down to zero. i use to add sharpness in the post. But few days back i shot with 5d and kept the sharpness at 2. Now when i see the result i find a very big difference between shooting with 0 sharpness and in-camera sharpness set to 2, and frankly i like the footage with in camera sharpness set to 2.


Contrary to the widespread notion of shooting with 0 sharpness and add the sharpness in the post, shooting with in-camera sharpness gives a nice sharp image with i was unaware of. Actually i am quite blown away by this new found sharpness in the footage and i find like i was not using the camera to it's full potential. The effect is such that i keep looking at my footage again and again feeling quite happy and amazed.

Am i the only one who thinks that way? i know my final output is going to be 1920x1080 and will not be projected in big cinema theater.

pls share your views and comments.
 
I to prefer to leave sharpness on. With it off it's very difficult to focus. Plus it saves a little time in post.

However with sharpness in camera wound up too high the image starts to look videoish with halos around high contrast edges. I find it easier to tweek on a 17 inch broadcast monitor because I have difficulty setting sharpening on the camera LCD. Once I find a setting I'm happy with I pretty much leave it there. The only exception is green screen work for that I turn sharpening off as it's a little easier to pull a key with the softer edges and sharpen afterwards to taste.
 
There's no rule. If you like it then the power to you.

I also shoot at +2 sharpness. The sharpening is some kind of unsharp mask that enphasizes edges contrast, not lie normal sharpening in premiere, plus adding the sharpening after conpression gives noticeable noise and codec break-up, while the in-camera sharpness is as clean as a whistle. ,
 
i have to admit here that with in-camera sharpness, the image looks pretty clean out of the box. i wonder if i will again go back to shoot with sharpness all the way down to zero.
 
I'll have to give it a try. It makes you wonder about all these comparison tests between other cameras and the 5D3..... what settings were used. Someone should make a video comparing the 5D3 in camera sharpness and post sharpening.
 
Its all so subjective (accept for those pixel peepers that have done side by side comparisons enlarges 200+%)

I like to shoot sharpness at +1 when in Neutral just to help with focus.

Audiences will never care about subtle artefacts/halos etc....they won't get the chance to pixel peep. Whats important is beyond all this technical jargon and lies in the story and shot composition etc.
 
I prefer adding some sharpness in camera as well to be honest, even though i've been told it's best to add it in post.
 
After being impressed with in-camera sharpness on my 5d 3, i now feel that it does not always works nicely. I am of the opinion (which anyone can object to) that when shooting close shots the in-camera sharpness produces nice sharp results, but for wide shots keeping the in-camera sharpness makes the shot look full of artifacts. It doesn't produce smooth image.
 
I personally like to turn sharpness all the way down, but like everyone else has been saying here: it's all about personal preference and how you want your shots to look.
 
In many circumstances, using some sharpness in camera will look just fine—it might in fact deliver that much desired 'pop' that you are getting.

The problem is that in too many situations, in my opinion, you will be able to spot halos in areas/lines with high contrast. A casual viewer will most likely not see this, but under a minimum of scrutiny they will be visible. And impossible to remove in post, whereas sharpening can be added pretty easily in most applications.

Also, adding sharpening globally (in camera) affects the whole image. If you add it in post, you can use a mask and do it selectively for added effect. For one thing, sharpening foliage rarely looks good, and there are many similar examples.

Granted, adding it in post demands more patience and you might not get the immediate satisfaction straight off the memory card if you are anxious to see what you shot. But this patience might be well rewarded. All depending on what you use your footage for.
 
I add sharpening in-camera just because my post sharpening introduces a huge amount of noise and artefacts for some reason. I don't know if it's my specific sharpening tool in Vegas Pro or is this normal with sharpening. I get much more noise and image breaking-up when I sharpen in post vs. In camera where it's perfectly clean. Will post an example of the artefacts introduced. Perhaps there's some kind of 3rd party sharpening plug-in? Many seem to really like sharpening the mk III footage yet when I do it it just gets too much noisy.
 
Ebrahim Saadawi said:
I add sharpening in-camera just because my post sharpening introduces a huge amount of noise and artefacts for some reason.
Click to expand...

It's sounds like you're adding unrestricted sharpening to all of your image. This means you are sharpening everything including small artefacts that were hidden to begin with. Your sharpening should normally be based on some type of masking where only edges of a certain contrast get sharpened. An unsharp mask would be an example of this, where you can set amount, radius and tolerance. In FCPX the sharpen filter doesn't let you set this, but it is already included in the algorithm. Don't quite remember what Premiere Pro looks like since it was a long time ago I used it, but it has a convolution sharpening filter. Da Vinci Resolve Lite gives you among the best options where you can mask, track and adjust the sharpening quite precisely.
 
Thank you for replying Andree.

Here are the 3 Sharpening methods available here, which one should I be using/trying and what settings?

(Left window)

Sharpen:

jzeCJJG.jpg


Unsharp Mask

bzL7mWX.jpg


Convulation Kernel (Is that even a sharpening tool at all? So many settings!)

LrOq2n2.jpg
 
Ebrahim,

The most straight forward here would probably be the unsharp mask. Maybe you know it from photography already?

If not, unsharp mask will allow you to enhance edge contrast (increasing percieved detail), while excluding smoother image areas from the operation, as to not sharpen areas that don't need it.

Amount is how much contrast you add to the edges--the strenght of the effect. Radius is the size of your halos that the operation creates. Threshold is the amount of contrast needed between two adjacent pixels for the filter to affect them.

Set Amount to 150, Radius to 1 and Threshold to 0. I don't know Vegas, but those values should sharpen up all of your image. If nothing happens, try a Radius of 2.

Then, by increasing Threshold you can start to exclude smooth image areas so that they are not sharpened. Try a Threshold of 2-8. Experiment.

These values are pretty over the top in order for you to see what they do to your image. It all depends on what resolution your source material is and maybe the codec.

You probably want a lower radius when you're done. You don't want to see any halos with your naked eye. I don't use this sharpening myself, but you can try it out. On a photo sized around 2000px I would probably use a small radius like 0.3-0.5. Smaller values help pick up small details better. For lower resolution material (photos are mostly high resolution and a HD video is pretty low) you might need a larger radius. Play with it.

Convolution kernel is harder to explain well in short terms. It's based on a matrix, or grid, of pixels. By adjusting their relative relationship you can create many different image effects like embossing, edge detection and also sharpening. Close to the top you have some presets. Try the 'sharpen edges' preset after having played around with Unsharp Mask for a while. If you want to learn more about this effect, I suggest you read up on it in the manual or Wikipedia to better understand it.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top