I was able to exceed perceived sharpness with a little post processing of the WITH OLPF frame (areas missing detail might be due to ALL-I compression):
A resolution chart is the only way to know for sure if there is any benefit to removing the OLPF.
5D MKIII specs
- Thread starter squig
- Start date
I was able to exceed perceived sharpness with a little post processing of the WITH OLPF frame (areas missing detail might be due to ALL-I compression):
A resolution chart is the only way to know for sure if there is any benefit to removing the OLPF.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
There are not only numbers on here but perception. FF is all about it. Adding a 3rd dimensional range through the quality of DOF (and bokeh for sure). There's a different DOF. Please do not confound 'DOF' with 'shallow DOF'. They are truly distinct things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field
To me, the post processing can hurt the DOF -- wth we'd go FF after all?
This doesn't happen with Philip's (Bloom) or Christopher (dustylense) samples though. Why? The same hasn't occurred with the outcome from Andrew Reid anyway. Some steps below. I've even inquired him, but he didn't add an input yet. Still waiting.
https://vimeo.com/39086741
Simon Shasha
Well-known member
What would be great is if Canon really saw the value of this, and released a version of the 5DMK3 without the AA-Filter. Perhaps even under $3000. This plus a CBR bitrate would make an awesome combination sub-$3000.
True, extreme sharpening can hurt edges of DOF blur regions. Something to watch out for but easy to correct: sharpen less for those scenes. There is no perfect camera (yet!); these are the work-arounds needed for the 5D3 in its current state to improve sharpness.
Danielvilliers
Veteran
Frankly, now that see that this could be a solution for the lack of sharpness of the 5d3, I mean removing the olpf. What your example shows me is that all this talk about post sharpening was a a bit exagerated if your example are as the above. I see big halos around the object like on the room, I would kill myself if I had to sharpen and image that much. It would look atrocious on human beings.
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
The point is DOF (as said, 'DOF' is not the same as 'shallow DOF') offers a different dimensional range on FF. A distinct ' texture '...
Any digital processing during post should take it in observance.
Philip (Bloom) has shown now more than ever before, he's not only a shooter but a true skilled digital talent, because he has got a perfect match/balance between the elements in framing to post process.
Then, sharpness on post processing can shine. As for instance, digital DOF never did. A solution from the analogic world (like the optical removal) will always shine brigther and lossless in any case.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...lution&p=1986115243&viewfull=1#post1986115243
Any digital processing during post should take it in observance.
Philip (Bloom) has shown now more than ever before, he's not only a shooter but a true skilled digital talent, because he has got a perfect match/balance between the elements in framing to post process.
Then, sharpness on post processing can shine. As for instance, digital DOF never did. A solution from the analogic world (like the optical removal) will always shine brigther and lossless in any case.
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...lution&p=1986115243&viewfull=1#post1986115243
Last edited:
Emanuel
Cross-Examiner
As you can follow from my previous post, I follow your concern. However, here is a sample (from our Christopher aka dustylense) already mentioned where it is possible whatsoever to check the virtues of the technique if/when properly done:
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Or you could just use a D800 and be done with it (plus you get clean live HDMI out & a 36MP digital still cam).
Of course if one has $K's invested in Canon lenses, I understand.
In any event, NAB is upon us: Don't buy anything for at least a few days.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
And thats over sharpened and when I was setting the in cam sharpness to 2 clicks up from zero. I have gone with 1 click up from zero since. This camera is NOT the C300 by any means, but it can be sharp. Some of the footage I've shot and post sharpened just looks great to me. This is my feeling, but the cam feels like a big giganto gh2 when you hit the mark. In other words, sharper than my af100. It's that shallow DOF that throws you off...
dustylense
Veteran
But I see moire in the d800. Aliasing as well. I do applaud Nikon with the d800 and d4 however for FINALLY getting into the game. But they can't even make their own sensors, so what do you expect. They have zero video history.Or you could just use a D800 and be done with it (plus you get clean live HDMI out & a 36MP digital still cam).
In any event, NAB is upon us: Don't buy anything for at least a few days.
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
I'm impressed by the following D800 video shot by Håvar Karlsen, which was supposedly shot with the cam's detail setting turned down (usually a good idea with most video cameras). Read his comments on Vimeo & his blog for more info:
(Download the higher-quality version of the file to get a more accurate view of the video. Vimeo's compression adds it own artifacts.)
As for Nikon buying sensors from Sony or whomever: Who cares? It's the results (and the cam's retail selling price) that count.
Nikon may have "zero video history", but, dang, they sure do seem to know how to crush 36MP down to 1080p up to thirty times per second relatively cleanly ... and output clean live 1080p HDMI ... for $3K US ... despite having to outsource the sensor. Hats off to them.
But as I said, some of the importance of this may go out the window once NAB hits. Or not. Stay tuned. Cheers.
Last edited:
dustylense
Veteran
Well it looks as if you don't understand why I stated Nikon can't make their own sensors. It's part of the reason they have been behind on video. It's not about saying nikon is crippled as a company. Then, its the only reason they do have the ability for video, they have to outsource sensors. I'm stating logic, your stating your heart. Stay tuned...
Peter J. DeCrescenzo
Veteran
Meanwhile, FYI: Dan Chung just posted his review/comparison of the 5DM3 & D800:
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/04/01/video-shootout-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mkiii/
http://www.dslrnewsshooter.com/2012/04/01/video-shootout-nikon-d800-vs-canon-5d-mkiii/
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
Wow, what an indepth review! Great read for people that want to have their indecision become even more undecided! 
Great read for people that want to have their indecision become even more undecided!
dustylense
Veteran
LOL, yeah, throw more wrenches into the mix. Rubber necking hot chicks on the beach!Wow, what an indepth review!
Hey Daniel, you're right, I over-sharpened that example- others have expressed the same sentiment. My goal was to show that high frequency information is present and available via sharpening if desired, without removing one of the OLPFs and voiding the warranty.
My day job is digital image processing (video and audio DSP). My examples have been mostly technical in nature and I'm seeing mostly emotional responses, which is interesting in a study of human perception.
Three weeks ago, when the first native 5D3 MOV was available for download posted by Tonis (http://cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=39482; login to see images), there was a great deal of disappointment in the soft image. I downloaded the image and processed it in PPro with a simple convolution sharpen (not Unsharp Mask). I found that I could see very fine detail (high frequency information was enhanced). I posted the results and the post sharpening debate began.
While many professionals are well aware and have used post sharpening as needed for years for both stills and video (dustylense (Christopher), etc.), I was a bit surprised by the reaction to the suggestion to use post sharpening to help the 5D3 footage be as sharp as the artist desired. Many folks didn't understand and couldn't believe their eyes that post sharpening could sharpen the 5D3 to an acceptable level.
I posted on P.Bloom's blog and emailed him a suggestion and instructions how to post sharpen 5D3 footage using PPro. I didn't hear back from him, so it’s unclear why he decided to try post sharpening, however his test video, accompanied by emotional music and breathtakingly beautiful footage, dramatically shows that post sharpening works extremely well. The shots wiping from blurry ungraded to sharp and graded with wonderful music in the background generates a strong emotional response: it looks like magic, unbelievable. You can hear it in his voice and by what he says: he can hardly believe it himself.
Post sharpening is free. It won't void your warranty. It can be adjusted to suit the artist's taste. In computer graphics it's an ancient technique and nothing new. I have posted in multiple forums why it works, and provided links to further clarify for those wishing to understand more. It's not necessary to understand the math. Dustylense's and P.Bloom's examples show it works well when not done to extreme levels. If you watch my extreme examples in motion, you won't see any artifacts (other than occasional aliasing as sharpening can remove 'pixel coverage' which allows motion aliasing).
I am not an actor/model, nor experienced with professional lighting and makeup. This highly sharpened example (https://vimeo.com/39523633) looks detailed and artifact free to me (high bitrate version available for download). It is perhaps showing too much detail in skin imperfections and oil shine (specular highlights), and the lighting and black background makes it look flat. I appreciate the feedback and am learning as I go. I found that by adding organic film grain, produced in real-time by Gaussian blurring noise and a few other steps (all real-time GPU accelerated with built-in effects/filters), the over-sharpened video look turned into a more filmic look: looks very good when watched on a large HDTV as well as in preview on the computer (I use a 46" Samsung D8000 on my desk for preview; 30" Dell for editing). When observing high-quality film shot on Panavision lenses and cameras, I found that film grain is not noticeable unless looking for it. Thus, in the first part of my test the noise is subtle and not very apparent. I found that after exporting and transcoding by vimeo to a lower bitrate, much of the film grain / noise was gone, so I had to exaggerate the film grain until it survived all the way through the final transcode. I find that heavy film grain added in post looks artificial: my artistic preference is just enough noise to get rid of the video look and add texture to skin, etc. It should not be noticeable to a casual observer, the audience.
I think one of the reasons some folks prefer ALL-I to IPB is ALL-I's noise, even though it is clear that IPB does a better job preserving detail overall. It appears Canon may be turning off/down NR when in ALL-I mode. Unfortunately, this also appears to cause a problem with the VBR implementation, as for some very highly detailed shots, macroblock quantization artifacts occur (large square areas with constant color / no high frequency information / no detail). In-camera capture should be as noise-free as possible, as it will allow the compressor to capture as much real detail as possible: noise steals bits required for real detail. Much higher quality noise can be applied in post, in real-time. This post-noise can also be tuned to suit the taste of the artist and match the desired production look.
I provide this information to help others get the most from their cameras. With so much disappointment with the 5D3 (I purchased 2), I thought it would be helpful to others to see that the camera can produce the results they are looking for, with a little bit of math and technology. I think I understand the reason for the negative reactions and anger to the suggestion of post sharpening: disappointment with Canon, fear of the unknown (math), and ego*. Also, a pattern is apparent: mathematicians argue with math, scientists argue with reproducible facts, and artists argue with emotion. In order to most efficiently communicate an idea, it's important to combine all three elements.
*If your ego is causing you grief: http://www.amazon.com/New-Earth-Awa...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1333318766&sr=1-1
klas
Active member
I've been sharpening my 5D Mark II footage all the time. Some make it out like it is this super heavy work. It's only one extra node in Color, Resolve or what ever. All sorts of things pop out when you sharpen.
Now, these images are from a post apocalyptic drama. If I was doing a close up in a romantic comedy I might not had sharpened.
5DMII without post sharpening
5DMII with post sharpening
Now I just realized that Flickr resizes the images to 1024x576 but you can even see the difference in that resolution if you click between the two.
EDIT: full res links.
Unsharp
Sharp
Now, these images are from a post apocalyptic drama. If I was doing a close up in a romantic comedy I might not had sharpened.
5DMII without post sharpening
5DMII with post sharpening
Now I just realized that Flickr resizes the images to 1024x576 but you can even see the difference in that resolution if you click between the two.
EDIT: full res links.
Unsharp
Sharp
Last edited:
Lammy
Well-known member
Oh, I agree. Adding a Sharpening filter isn't that much of a problem. Here's another example of the old canon dslr, from mine:
NOT SHARP
SHARPENED
Although we are both limited by how far we can sharpen. I really think the amount we both did is quite negliable especially taking in account various displays they'd be viewed on. eg: broadcast and calibrated monitor generally... look softer anyway, and it's not like we're actually pulling out any real detail - because we can clearly see the detail there its just abit softer looking, if you get me.
The above is old news 720p style stuff btw.
What I'm seeing now for the 5D3, for 1080p output is with halos and compression is causing this baked in thickness to fine lines (and an uglier grain structure) when trying to get it sharp as 1000 lines :\ This is funny because I actually prefer Philip Bloom and Andrew Reid's BEFORE sharpened examples in their videos, as opposed to after (I think too much sharpen was used and I feel the compression has made a thick smog-like noise artifact on the whole image).
Possibly we need to learn to use key framing and mask/matte track sharpen techniques to only go for high frequency/textured areas but leaving blurry shallow depth areas and fine lines not as sharpened?
Last edited:
I'm not getting any halos with ICS turned off (in-camera sharpen). If you add noise/grain it does a great job hiding any visible sharpened compression artifacts.
I remember when I was in the video game industry and we figured out how to do real-time interactive lens flares. Lens flares were used way too much and over the top. Later it was used just right. That's what may happen with sharpening. It'll get dialed back to unnoticeable: the images will be sharp and we won't notice; will look just right.
DaVinci Resolve is GPU accelerated: perhaps one of the fastest ways to apply masked sharpens/blurs (would also need to feather/taper effect at edges). After experiencing real-time effects editing with GPU acceleration, using non-real-time tools is a challenge (AE, etc.). http://blackmagic-design.com/products/davinciresolve/software/ (Lite version is free; if someone figures out to do masked sharpen, etc., a video tutorial would be useful).