Lenilenapi
Carbonite Member
Doug , I have no axe to grind here and am just wondering what people think. Do I have to buy your book or video to find out what you think about sharpening in camera?
FS7: sharpness - aperture setting?
- Thread starter Lenilenapi
- Start date
Ben Scott
Veteran
Not offended at all. As I said my frames weren't meant to be examples of a good shot. Just examples of frames I don't have any need or interest in being sharper. Would be boring if we all wanted the same thing out of an image
A couple more stills looking sharp from today.
Hope you dont get offended that i hijack your thread Ben.
But ive not been impressed by the sharpness of the replacement camera that i got from Sony after my first one had a severe sensor burn in issue during a timelapse. It just produces soft images, i think. And its most apparent when i compare with some of what i shot on the FS700 + Odyssey 7Q. That footage is just in a completely different league regarding "pop" in the image.
The quoted image above here, is this representable of the sharpness that all of you FS7 owners are seeing?
Because im worried mine has a flaw in the sensor distance or something. I really have to sharpen to even get close to FS700+Odyssey7Q. And no its not my focus its not my lenses and its not my Speedbooster. I just tested all of these out just minutes ago. They are all producing "milky sharpness".
Percieved sharpness goes into aesthetic choice, and like Ben said ALOT goes into that like aperture, contrast, composition etc.
Sharpness as a technical measurement (resolving etc etc) is different and for CINE-EI the workflow seems ment for adding sharpness in post.
For myself the 1080 out of the FS7 has more percieved sharpness than I need/want with modern glass. But its really dependent on wheter I shoot by my own standards or some clients who likes 4k, punchy and saturated look. One good thing is when you like to stop down for deep focus and dont want razor sharpness on everything diffraction becomes your friend. When that does not work the question is what filter gives you the perfect amount of "fat sharp" for the scene.
Sharpness as a technical measurement (resolving etc etc) is different and for CINE-EI the workflow seems ment for adding sharpness in post.
For myself the 1080 out of the FS7 has more percieved sharpness than I need/want with modern glass. But its really dependent on wheter I shoot by my own standards or some clients who likes 4k, punchy and saturated look. One good thing is when you like to stop down for deep focus and dont want razor sharpness on everything diffraction becomes your friend. When that does not work the question is what filter gives you the perfect amount of "fat sharp" for the scene.
cameramanben
Well-known member
Just to mention it because I don't think it's come up, but probably the quickest way to sharpen an image is not to shoot wide open on a really fast lens.
Unless it has been specifically designed for it (ie Nikon 58mm f1.2NOCT for stills lenses, Zeiss Master Primes or Cooke 5/i's for cinema) almost no fast lenses are designed to be close to their best wide open. f4 to f8 is generally the sweet spot, but since the current trend is very shallow focus, even closing half a stop on an f1.4 can significantly improve the sense of 'sharp' on 'in focus' portions of the frame.
As a demonstration of customer push against optimal optics, take Zeiss compact primes. These came out as T2.1, and look lovely wide open at that stop. T2.1 doesn't sound terribly wide open to those who think that every shot needs to be full frame and 1.4, so Zeiss released 'Superspeed' versions (not to be confused with Zeiss's Superspeed cinema lenses). As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but the T1.5 Superspeed compact primes are basically the same lenses, but with the iris stops removed so that the blades can open wider. Consequently faster, but past the optical sweet spot.
I have done a number of TV shoots where the director believes that the lens always needs to be worked to wide open (on a 35mm sensor) to be 'cinematic' regardless of whether it is appropriate (focus splits can be a good thing!) or even makes much difference. Provided I give the bokeh look who knows if it was 1.4, 1.8 or 2.0, but it does seem to be a common perception. I'd sooner work the lens well than go nuts with detail and crispening, in camera or in post. Given sharp optics, the sensor will capture sharp pictures.
With my lowly stills kit, I can think of my Nikon 50mm f1.4 which is mushy wide open, but lovely (and plenty shallow enough) from f1.8 down, and my Tokina 11-16, which frankly is not a lens which generally demands a fast stop, but looks much better at f3.2 than it does at f2.8,
Ben
Unless it has been specifically designed for it (ie Nikon 58mm f1.2NOCT for stills lenses, Zeiss Master Primes or Cooke 5/i's for cinema) almost no fast lenses are designed to be close to their best wide open. f4 to f8 is generally the sweet spot, but since the current trend is very shallow focus, even closing half a stop on an f1.4 can significantly improve the sense of 'sharp' on 'in focus' portions of the frame.
As a demonstration of customer push against optimal optics, take Zeiss compact primes. These came out as T2.1, and look lovely wide open at that stop. T2.1 doesn't sound terribly wide open to those who think that every shot needs to be full frame and 1.4, so Zeiss released 'Superspeed' versions (not to be confused with Zeiss's Superspeed cinema lenses). As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), but the T1.5 Superspeed compact primes are basically the same lenses, but with the iris stops removed so that the blades can open wider. Consequently faster, but past the optical sweet spot.
I have done a number of TV shoots where the director believes that the lens always needs to be worked to wide open (on a 35mm sensor) to be 'cinematic' regardless of whether it is appropriate (focus splits can be a good thing!) or even makes much difference. Provided I give the bokeh look who knows if it was 1.4, 1.8 or 2.0, but it does seem to be a common perception. I'd sooner work the lens well than go nuts with detail and crispening, in camera or in post. Given sharp optics, the sensor will capture sharp pictures.
With my lowly stills kit, I can think of my Nikon 50mm f1.4 which is mushy wide open, but lovely (and plenty shallow enough) from f1.8 down, and my Tokina 11-16, which frankly is not a lens which generally demands a fast stop, but looks much better at f3.2 than it does at f2.8,
Ben