Detail Level

G

Glazarus

Well-known member
I'm using photozoom 2 to uprez my material and I need to ask what detail level I should shoot with. Some people shoot with a detail level of -2, but what if I shoot with +4 or +5, isn't that better if I'm uprezing my material later?
 
I would guess that a higher detail level would actually look worse when uprezzed. Why don't you experiment, though?
 
Agreed, the bigger the size you display it at, the worse the edge enhancement will look. When Nancy Schreiber did tests for "November" she decided to put the detail level all the way to -7 because she thought that looked best on the big screen (and hey, you can always dial in some edge enhancement in post if needed).
 
I did a test and it looked really really soft at -7
...and I don't know what I'm doing in these pictures :P

minus-seven.jpg

zero.jpg

plus-seven.jpg

I feel that I get the best result with +7, but i don't know.
 
Glazarus said:
I did a test and it looked really really soft at -7
...and I don't know what I'm doing in these pictures :
Click to expand...


Im betting if I put a light meter on you, or the camera's marker, you are in unusable light. That should soften you up by itself.
 
Well, which result do you think is the best of these images then?
It was naturally lit by a window, bouncing onto the wall at the end of the room behind the camera. Also, if I light with softened light, like a 800 redhead with a softbox, wouldn't the sharpness be the same? If your talking about the softness of the light I mean.
 
They actually look like they're a bit out of focus -- the +7 one looks more in focus because of the edge enhancement.
 
It's not out of focus, that's for sure. The thing is that they are uprezed, so it's not the original size. But they are in focus.
 
Hi, go here: http://kino-eye.com/2005/02/16/dvx100settings/ to get an idea about all those freaky file settings parameters ...

I personally don't like to use any artificial or digital in-camera enhancements ... as it introduces noise into the optically sound footage ...

Detail for Video is equivalent to Gain for Sound ... Avoid them as far as you can ...

Any suggestions ...
 
HaroonGhauree said:
Hi, go here: http://kino-eye.com/2005/02/16/dvx100settings/ to get an idea about all those freaky file settings parameters ...

I personally don't like to use any artificial or digital in-camera enhancements ... as it introduces noise into the optically sound footage ...

Detail for Video is equivalent to Gain for Sound ... Avoid them as far as you can ...

Any suggestions ...
Click to expand...

what is optically sound footage? And if i may, detail and gain are two very different things. The detail on camera is not the same as gain on camera. The gain will create more noise and lighten the picture just like gain on a sound track will add noise but create a higher volume. Where as detail does nothing of this sort. Detail will create edge enhancements digitally which will include artifacts along lines ( very ugly ). This is where lowering your detail to -7 will give you softer images and softer edges. At the loss of.. welll... detail.
 
What is best, detail in post or in-camera? I still think it looks much better with a little more detail... it get's too blurry otherwise.
 
You can always add more detail in post, but you can't take it out. So if you put too much in, you're stuck, but if you don't put in enough, you can fix that.

HVX looks best at around +0 to +2 for many circumstances.
 
I usually keep my detail level somewhere just under zero (-1, -2). I've never noticed any substantially better footage with a higher detail level. If anything, like others have said, upping the detail enhancement can make the footage look worse.
 
Depends on your gamma curve too though. cinelike gammas have half the edge enhancement of norm/low/high/b.press etc. So -2 on "HD Norm" is about the same as +2 on "cinelike-V".
 
But, I am really talking about preparing for uprezing. For sd material you may not want too much detail, but when uprezin,g the detail needs to be there, or else it gets like the first picture, very blurry and almost a feeling of out of focus.
 
Then you add it afterwards.

You don't want to go uprezzing artificial edge enhancement. No good will come from that. You want to uprez the original captured resolution, not the digital edge enhancement that's applied afterwards.

Once you've uprezzed the footage, you can then add some edge enhancement if you think it needs to be sharpened up.
 
But going under zero makes the footage very blurry, look at the picture.
It's really soft with no details at all. I did a sharpening effect in Avid with sapphire AVX, but it really looks more crap then good :/
 
No, it doesn't. You're not properly understanding how the detail level works.

The detail level scale ranges from -7 to +7. But "0" does not mean "no added detail" and -7 doesn't mean "blur the footage". Instead, -7 means "no added detail", and any higher number means more and more artificial edge enhancement is being added. "0" means "a medium level of artificial edge enhancement".

At -7, you're seeing what the camcorder is actually resolving. At 0, you're seeing the edges enhanced with edge enhancement to a medium degree.

The best results should come from shooting at -7, upressing, and then adding an unsharp mask to the degree that you like what you're seeing.
 
What the sensor sees is equal of what the andromeda gives you, so the soft image you get with details at -7 seems a little strange. Is there a fact that 0 is edge enhanchment? Or is the in-camera postprocess really that it downres in higher detail at 0 compared to -7, then at +7 it adds edge enhanchment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top