Why does T2i look good on close ups?

T

tackyattack

Active member
For some reason when I do close up shots with my T2i it looks great, but when I do landscape type shots it looks like everything is kinda blurry looking even though it is defiantly in focus. Does anybody know why this is? Is it the codec?
 
It's to do with the way the data is sampled from the sensor. The image the DSLR's produce in video mode is actually very soft - nowhere near true 1080p - but there is a lot of false detail introduced to the image (called aliasing). On a close up of a natural subject, such as a face, which has lots of natural curves and soft features, the lost detail goes almost un-noticed. In some cases the aliasing can even add false resolution to hair and eyebrows making it appear sharper.

Pull back to a wide view, however, and you'll expose the true softness of the HDSLR's, because it becomes more apparent when looking at smaller objects and patterns such as leaves, grass, brickwork, etc.

It is probably partly due to the Codec as well. Wide shots tend to have more complex details which can cause the compression to break down. This usually results in marco-blocking rather than softness, though.
 
For wider, establishing shots you should use a wide angle lens. Allowing you to get closer to the subject without the frame getting tighter.
 
I've never had a problem with out of focus wide shots on my T2i when I had one, or my 60D. This isn't a codec problem.
 
tackyattack said:
For some reason when I do close up shots with my T2i it looks great, but when I do landscape type shots it looks like everything is kinda blurry looking even though it is defiantly in focus. Does anybody know why this is? Is it the codec?
Click to expand...
I mainly use my 550 (t2i) for shallow depth of field shots ie F1.8 etc, but for landscape shots I increase the depth of field as much as possible, with the sharpness setting at 3, contrast at 0, and keeping to ISO 100. This gives me an acceptable shot.
 
tackyattack said:
For some reason when I do close up shots with my T2i it looks great, but when I do landscape type shots it looks like everything is kinda blurry looking even though it is defiantly in focus. Does anybody know why this is? Is it the codec?
Click to expand...
No, it's not the codec -- it's because the t2i is a low-def camera. The question you're asking, and the answer, are the same as to why a standard-def camera like the DVX100 looks so great on closeups, but lousy on vistas.

The T2i can look high-def in some scenarios because of the aliasing the sensor does. But the underlying actual resolution is pretty low. And that's true of all the Canon DSLRs.
 
What's funny to consider is that the 350 dollar HX9 shoots better wide angle shots than almost any DSLR. (GH2 is better)

Here's an example comparing the 5d Mark II vs HX9:


Here's the (hacked) GH2 beating the HX9:


I own a T2i and I love it. If I had to get a wide shot, I'd be VERY tempted to shoot it on the HX9 and edit it in.

Here's some footy of the 5D Mark II intercutting with a HX9 (wide).


...and I agree that the T2i gets great closeups. If you wanna shoot wide and you want a professional camera, the HX9 IS NOT the camera for you. It's a consumer grade tool with little (manual) control....but it is the champion of compact cameras when it comes to video. :)
 
Barry_Green said:
But the underlying actual resolution is pretty low. And that's true of all the Canon DSLRs.
Click to expand...

Or, for landscapes, you can take a still photo -- resulting in a more detailed, higher resolution image than that of the most expensive digital cinema camera in existence. If you know what you're doing in editing/post -- you can make it work in even the highest end productions (sound effects, keyframed motion, etc.).
 
AGMedia said:
Or, for landscapes, you can take a still photo -- resulting in a more detailed, higher resolution image than that of the most expensive digital cinema camera in existence. If you know what you're doing in editing/post -- you can make it work in even the highest end productions (sound effects, keyframed motion, etc.).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've seen a video somewhere where you just set your tripod up, take a photo, then record your footage. In post you can create a matte of where your subject moves and then use the photo for everything but the math where the subject moves. Hope I'm making sense, I'll try to dig that video up.
 
bronxjragon said:
Yeah, I've seen a video somewhere where you just set your tripod up, take a photo, then record your footage. In post you can create a matte of where your subject moves and then use the photo for everything but the math where the subject moves. Hope I'm making sense, I'll try to dig that video up.
Click to expand...

I've thought of trying this and would love to see this video if you can find it.
 
No worries. It's a great technique, and can be used in so many different ways to add resolution to wide shots. I use the 5d which shoots 5k stills and use matte paintings all the time, composited in AE and PS. Gareth Edwards used this technique a lot in MONSTERS.
 
Yeah but, with any kind of movement behind the actor it's not gunna work out.

So canons DSLRs arn't good when everything is in focu? What if you were in say a building, without the details like huge landscapes have, would it still be pretty bad compared to other cameras? I've been shooting some stuff like this and haven't really noticed, I do notice it though on huge landscape(establishing) shots though.

So would you guys say, if I wanted to shoot with everything in focus, would a Canon HV30 camcorder be better? Thinking of getting a second camera anyway, my as well find the one that can help fill in the needs of DSLRs
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top