Tokina 11-16 - blurry video! comparison videos, please have a look!

mrchirster: this sounds like a very good test for Magic Lantern bitrate settings.

Can you go to the same place (to have the same scene, similar lighting if possible, same lens and same settings) and do some tests?

1) What QScale was used (ML displays it as a tiny number near the red dot)? Just look at some approximate values, or range. Bitrate setting should be "FW default" or whatever you have used in your original shoot.

2) Record a clip with:
- default bitrate
- with CBR setting pushed as far as possible without recording having to stop.
- with QScale -16, even if it will stop recording after 1 second or so.

3) Take a few silent pictures during recording (at any compression setting; it doesn't matter; these are the uncompressed 422 frames, before upscaling and entering into H264 engine).
 
hey alex! sounds like a good test! I will do the shot out of the window today, lets see if qscale -16 will improve the sharpness! i can film the other place again in the next couple of weeks, i work there half of the time...
 
As long as it's a scene where you can reproduce the sharpness problem, it's fine.

You can also try lower bitrate (like CBR 0.5x or so), just to see how much the quality degrades. Many people use CBR 0.5x for recording longer than 12 minutes, or for recording more on small cards.
 
a1ex said:
this sounds like a very good test for Magic Lantern bitrate settings.
.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Can't say I've had a *problem* with blockiness on the canons (which is codec), IMO this seems like a bit far-fetched discussion about flaws that are outweighted by other factors to begin with. (On the other hand i definitely see blockiness in AVCHD unless it goes +70mbit and crashes in a few sec). So, again, discussing potential mikroblocking in shots that shouldn't be your camera of choice in the first place.... "okay".
 
focus

focus

I have been using wide primes recently and what I had to do was check my depth of field and back off from infinity slightly maybe to just before the last distance marker, in my case 15 ft.
 
I think you are just seeing the effective limits of video resolution from your Canon. As HD goes, DSLR's are relatively low rez, about 500 lines vertical at best before you run into aliasing issues.

I remember an early sample of video from a 7D posted by a friend of a model lounging on a patio reading a book. In a medium close over the shoulder shot you could not read the text in the book even though everything was in focus and the lens was stopped down to f8 in late afternoon sun. Any typical 3-chip prosumer 1/3" HDV camcorder would have resolved the text well enough to read. So would a still from the 7D.
 
I've spent MANY MANY hours shooting on my 7D, and you can see all of these were shot with the 7D as well (our miniseries):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMrwNz24j_g
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia9Ms_fVEHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfXY4-iG3_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVg-ruQmKL8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8Z3IALdF3k

I spent hundreds of hours going through this footage and examining it in detail. I was also responsible for doing a lot of the VFX; compositing, 3D work, color matching, rotoscoping, etc. I *KNOW* for fact that when I shoot deep and wide with lots of detail, especially in scenes with lots of brick work or foliage, that the quality of the shot goes down. It doesn't matter about aliasing because when that comes into play, you see it, it makes things sharper at edges with false detail. Or, it colors things with nice huge rainbow effects with red and blue. This is a different problem.

Yes, it is true that the resolution of the camera is not huge, and once you hit that limitation, as you've said, there isn't much you can do about that. But there are other factors going on. The bit rate DOES play a role, as does the encoding. How much fine detail is in your wide shot is going to dictate when you reach that limit on all three fronts.

When I am zoomed in 200% or 400% in the wide deep shots, I could see the macro blocking in the images. That said, I just used it anyway, no choice on our production. But when I see others dealing with this, I understand. These cameras can make GREAT productions (and we like ours) but there are limitations I have to deal with. The helicopter scene approaching the compound in episode 3 was softer than I wanted. But, I just dealt with it and moved on.
 
vision_filmz said:
Learn your tools people.... Many amazing projects shot on these so called "low res" cameras.


Click to expand...

This is not disproving the notion.

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks great overall, but it is definitely softer footage than you would get from something like an HMC40. This is why I don't ditch my video cameras in favor of shooting DSLR-only - I have more tools to get the shots that I want.
 
The only time I find the h.264 to be annoying is when I have wide or landscape shots with too much info for it to take in. For close ups the quality is amazing.
 
hendosan said:
This is not disproving the notion.

Don't get me wrong, I think it looks great overall, but it is definitely softer footage than you would get from something like an HMC40. This is why I don't ditch my video cameras in favor of shooting DSLR-only - I have more tools to get the shots that I want.
Click to expand...


I would love for you to get some nice dof shots with an Hmc-40 or better yet use it in low light situations ( especially at night ) and you come and tell me.

Shot on Dslr

 
Last edited:
vision_filmz said:
I would love for you to get some nice dof shots with an Hmc-40 or better yet use it in low light situations ( especially at night ) and you come and tell me.

Shot on Dslr

Click to expand...

Jesus christ stop being so defensive, I'm not badmouthing your child or anything. It's a camera, it has limitations. An HMC40 is also a camera with limitations, just in different areas. This is what happens when you play with gear that basically comes at an entry-level price point.

If there's one thing that sucks about these forums it's the fact that people act all sorts or irrational whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the piece of gear that they've invested money into. THEY'RE JUST TOOLS.
 
Hey, vision_filmz!!!!! It's Doc. That footage is very nice indeed.

Do you have a thread about "Flawless" here? If not, I think it would be great.

"If there's one thing that sucks about these forums it's the fact that people act all sorts or irrational whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the piece of gear that they've invested money into. THEY'RE JUST TOOLS."
Click to expand...
Hendosan, wouldn't you say you are acting just like what you are complaining about? If someone offers an opinion differing yours then have you call them a "tool", that is not conducive here.

LOL, I just saw how this could be mis-interpreted. Please clarify that you are not calling someone a tool, but the camera is a tool to work with.
 
Last edited:
hendosan said:
Jesus christ stop being so defensive, I'm not badmouthing your child or anything. It's a camera, it has limitations. An HMC40 is also a camera with limitations, just in different areas. This is what happens when you play with gear that basically comes at an entry-level price point.

If there's one thing that sucks about these forums it's the fact that people act all sorts or irrational whenever anyone says anything remotely negative about the piece of gear that they've invested money into. THEY'RE JUST TOOLS.
Click to expand...

This discussion is not about how beautiful footage shot with a dslr can look like! DSLR cameras are not made for videos but they still work very well for that purpose! we all know that, vision filmz!
 
Doc Bernard said:
Hey, vision_filmz!!!!! It's Doc. That footage is very nice indeed.

Do you have a thread about "Flawless" here? If not, I think it would be great.

Hendosan, wouldn't you say you are acting just like what you are complaining about? If someone offers an opinion differing yours then have you call them a "tool", that is not conducive here.

Please remain civil.

LOL, I just saw how this could be mis-interpreted. Please clarify that you are not calling someone a tool, but the camera is a tool to work with.
Click to expand...

I think the TOOL he is referring to is the camera, not the person! :) hahahah.
 
Doc Bernard said:
Hey, vision_filmz!!!!! It's Doc. That footage is very nice indeed.

Do you have a thread about "Flawless" here? If not, I think it would be great.

Hendosan, wouldn't you say you are acting just like what you are complaining about? If someone offers an opinion differing yours then have you call them a "tool", that is not conducive here.

LOL, I just saw how this could be mis-interpreted. Please clarify that you are not calling someone a tool, but the camera is a tool to work with.
Click to expand...

A camera is a tool. Period. There's zero point in getting attached to your ratcheting screwdriver or power drill.

And if the only thing you took away from those videos is "it was shot on a DSLR," you are doing a serious disservice to the great crews involved in shooting those projects.
 
I think if we want to talk about DSLR pros and cons, let's start that in another thread. This thread is about the 11-16 on the Canon and blurry shots. I think we've covered this from a variety of angles, and a lot of opinions have been given as to why.
 
No, brother, I have been around the block once or twice. That is not the only thing I understand about these or any films. I have seen some amazing vids, both on DSLR and dedicated video cameras. Both of them have aspects that can be utilized to give a beautiful visual.

Look, I know you are passionate about what you do. So are others. If you have a differing viewpoint, great! Share it. But let's not make it a personal thing, we are here to learn from one another and when we differ, we can just say "hey, that's just his opinion and experience."

Well said, Rick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top