How do you sharpen the soft video of 5D3 (premiere CS6)

T

tikigod19

Well-known member
Hi all, 3 months after getting it I just got round to editing my first shoot with the mk3 and I'm bitterly disappointed. The footage seems so soft. I have always said everything looks so great in the LCD screen that I'm starting to wonder if maybe the screen is just TOO sharp, leading me to believe I'm in focus when I'm not. Even when I am in focus the footage lacks the punch of the mkii and this is consistent with what I've read.

People say "it grades just lovely" but I'm no pro on grading. I usually add some sharpening (the sharpen effect in premiere set to 15-30) and then colour it slightly but that's it.

I was just wondering what you guys use to grade your mkiii footage so that it doesn't look like poop...

Thanks very much.
 
I don't have a 5D3, but I remember that someone mentioned that Sharpen effect as the best option (it's a convolution filter, which fits very well the kind of softness that the 5D3 introduces)
 
I'm hoping then that the reason my footage looks awful is that it was using the IPB codec. Going to try ALL-I this weekend as even after sharpening and colouring I can't believe how horrible the footage looks.. it looks compressed beyond belief as well as soft.. :(
For photography, this thing is massively sharp much better than the mk2.. but for video.. disaster
 
tikigod19 said:
I'm hoping then that the reason my footage looks awful is that it was using the IPB codec. Going to try ALL-I this weekend as even after sharpening and colouring I can't believe how horrible the footage looks.. it looks compressed beyond belief as well as soft.. :(
For photography, this thing is massively sharp much better than the mk2.. but for video.. disaster
Click to expand...

Try using the unsharp mask filter and set the pixel radius to 0.5 play around with the amount value I find anything between 50 and 150 works ok depending on the shot.
 
I would test out the settings you'd normally use for shooting photos with Canon:

Amount 60-120
Radius 0.5 - 1
Threshold 0

Consider duplicating the video layer and adding the sharpness to that, then you can overdo it slightly and turn down the opacity.
 
also, consider shooting RAW video with ML
that softness comes from the cheap in-camera image processing that Canon uses, shooting RAW and processing the image on your computer will give you much sharper images with better DR; you'll need a very expensive CF card, though, and it adds one slow step to your workflow (developing those RAW clips and transcoding into something like prores)
 
raw isn't an option because its weddings I shoot and the reliability isn't there. To be honest, to my eye I couldnt see any difference between sharpen of 20 and the unsharp mask with the settings advised here.. think I'll need to do some direct side by side comparrisons between the mk2 and 3 and see if the difference is as big as I think.. I hope I'm kind of exaggerating it in my mind now.
 
Consider getting a monitor next time to check focus. Full frame is not very forgiving, you think the subject is in focus and then he/she moves the head.

Otherwise you should check the setting in your camera (there's one for sharpness). The codec is also very forgiving so you can add sharpness a lot in post.

In last resort, I agree with Samuel, magic lantern would give you ultimate quality (at the expense of convenience)
 
I also must add that for aiding focus sans external monitor for run and gun the digic peaking by magic lantern is also much better than the old peaking method.
 
thanks guys. A monitor isn't really practical for me as I'm always moving from one balanced piece of hardware to another, crane, glidecam etc..

I shot a wedding yesterday using only the ALL-I codec. Ate up the space compared to IPB but hoping it'll be sharper.. Whats your experience of using IPB vs All-I?

Also Ted is the digic peaking in ML just the kind of dots that appear on sharp areas? I tried that yesterday for the first time and found it was quite inaccurate, even when I moved the percentage down from .05 to 0.1
 
tikigod19 said:
thanks guys. A monitor isn't really practical for me as I'm always moving from one balanced piece of hardware to another, crane, glidecam etc..
Click to expand...

I guess I don't understand why a monitor isn't practical for you moving from one setup to another? Many of us do exactly that all the time. And it sure beats the alternative, loosing work due to shots being out of focus.
 
tikigod19 said:
thanks guys. A monitor isn't really practical for me as I'm always moving from one balanced piece of hardware to another, crane, glidecam etc..

I shot a wedding yesterday using only the ALL-I codec. Ate up the space compared to IPB but hoping it'll be sharper.. Whats your experience of using IPB vs All-I?

Also Ted is the digic peaking in ML just the kind of dots that appear on sharp areas? I tried that yesterday for the first time and found it was quite inaccurate, even when I moved the percentage down from .05 to 0.1
Click to expand...

I dont think you ll see any noticeable difference between IPB and All-I especially in sharpness! In my opinion All-I doesnt worth the space is consuming...
About focus peaking with ML...its not perfect...but it really helps...if you get used to it...you have to test and find what parameters work best for you in different situations...it needs practice!
I would really like to watch a few samples of your footage which looks so soft to you. MK3 and all the canon dslrs are indeed softer than other brands but I wouldnt describe them as ''disaster''.
 
tikigod19 said:
Also Ted is the digic peaking in ML just the kind of dots that appear on sharp areas? I tried that yesterday for the first time and found it was quite inaccurate, even when I moved the percentage down from .05 to 0.1
Click to expand...

digic peaking is NOT like the "colored dots" of the old peaking. its more subtle and accurate.
 
lyrov said:
I would really like to watch a few samples of your footage which looks so soft to you. MK3 and all the canon dslrs are indeed softer than other brands but I wouldnt describe them as ''disaster''.
Click to expand...

Ok, disaster was a bit over the top. I just wasn't happy when editing compared to the 5d2 footage. I have sharpened the hell out of this (about 30 in the sharpen tool in premiere pro) but it still looks a bit muddy on a full screen tv. Not sure you'll be able to get anything from the quality of this 160mb file..

https://vimeo.com/85243713
 
Bear in mind that the softness can be very helpful, especially when dealing with faces and female subjects. You just might find the sharpness of raw too great for instance. Personally, I think your video looks pretty good and I like the softness. Remember people pay a lot of money for Cooke lenses to yield a very similar look.

Excellent compositions and editing by the way.
 
Last edited:
I agree with Yoclay, the footage looked fine to me. Was more caught up in the story and compositions than any preceived softness and I am pretty sure your clients will be as well.
 
tikigod19 said:
Ok, disaster was a bit over the top. I just wasn't happy when editing compared to the 5d2 footage. I have sharpened the hell out of this (about 30 in the sharpen tool in premiere pro) but it still looks a bit muddy on a full screen tv. Not sure you'll be able to get anything from the quality of this 160mb file..

https://vimeo.com/85243713
Click to expand...


If you like the 5D2 so much better and you have one, why not just shoot with both cameras? I shoot with 5D3 and 5D2 and the quality is great from both cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top