FORUMS: list search recent posts

Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE

COW Forums : DSLR Video

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Joel Cotlhorpe
Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 1, 2012 at 12:23:05 am

Hi guys,

Ok, my pond of ideas has run dry here..

Problem: Canon 600D video looking like rubbish in broad daylight with a good lens.



Gear:

Cam - Canon 600D DSLR
Lens - Canon L series 17-40mm

Settings:

Picture style - Technicolor Cinestyle
Sharpness 0
Contrast - 4
Saturation - 2
Color tone 0
Highlight tone priority - Enabled



Aperture - f5.0
Shutter Speed - 2000
ISO - 200
Res - 1920x1080 24p

What I am baffled with is the noisiness/artifacting in the image, best seen in the church window.
And also the liney effect it's creating (you can't really see this in the video becasue the web compression seems to hide it, but this is what it looks like in full quality on my computer screen:



I know I'm not nailing focus constantly in this shot, but there are parts where I am aswell, but nothing ever seems super sharp? I'm sure I've seen 600d stuff look a lot better than this, ungraded, on vimeo.

Does anyone have any reason to suggest that a 600D would not shoot every bit as good as a 7D?
Any known issues with the 600D? I haven't come across any so far..?

BTW - This is my second 600D. I got my last one replaced by Canon because of this vertical line stuff and this is the brand new one.

I know my shutter is quite high in this particuar shot but I was getting these results all day with a variety of different shutter speeds, aperture settings and iso speeds? Any help would be appreciated. I must be doing something wrong..

Joel


Return to posts index

Steve Crow
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 1, 2012 at 3:01:14 am

I know I'm not nailing focus constantly in this shot, but there are parts where I am aswell, but nothing ever seems super sharp?

Well, you can try turning up the sharpness one or two notches but where you have it is where I set mine.

I know my shutter is quite high in this particuar shot...
If you buy yourself some ND filters for your lenses then you reduce the light hitting the sensor and can use a 1/50th shutter speed which is recommended when filming at 24fps versus the 1/2000 - I think you will like the look much better

Once you have your ND filters, maybe try going to that same church when you have a free moment (if that's convenient) and trying different pictures styles - I did that same test with my T2i to compare how all the different Picture Styles looked - you can find the test that I did on Vimeo.

Steve Crow
Crow Digital Media
http://www.CrowDigitalMedia.com


Return to posts index

Peter Burger
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 1, 2012 at 9:36:59 am

[Joel Cotlhorpe] "but nothing ever seems super sharp?"

What I learned, when shooting flat is, I'll have to sharpen the picture in post quite intensely, especially when having turned the internal sharpening completely down. IMHO post-sharpening is always the better way.

------------------------------------------
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot." - Buster Keaton

http://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo (english/german)
http://fastfoodvideo.tumblr.com (german)


Return to posts index


Casey Petersen
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 1, 2012 at 4:09:02 pm

Are there any good tutorials out there for sharpening in post? I know barely enough to be dangerous, but I know I could get significantly better results if I actually knew what I was doing.

Casey



Return to posts index

Peter Burger
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 1, 2012 at 9:48:47 pm

[Casey Petersen] "Are there any good tutorials out there for sharpening in post?"

I don't know any sharpening tutorials especially intended for video, but I found this one quite useful:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-sharpening.htm


I like to use the unsharp mask filter, which has three sliders: strenght, radius and threshold.

My first step is to set the strenght very high, just to see which parts of the picture are affected.

With the threshold settings you define, "when" the filter attacks. This means: "how bright or dark has pixel to be, to be affected". With lower values you'd get more extreme results.

Radius defines how intense darkening or brightening will be. Higher values lead to more extreme results.

After setting up threshold and radius, I reduce strenght to what looks good to me (something between 20%-50% in many cases).

When sharpening I often like to go as extreme as possible without producing halos.

------------------------------------------
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot." - Buster Keaton

http://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo (english/german)
http://fastfoodvideo.tumblr.com (german)


Return to posts index

Joel Cotlhorpe
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 2, 2012 at 3:19:18 am

Thanks guys.

I figured the only reason anyone would suggest to set the sharpness this low in camera would be if it's better to do it in post. I don't see why anyone would want to leave an image as soft as what I get with this sharpness setting on '0'.

So what is still confusing me though is shouldn't I be getting better image results than this anyway? Even with these settings? Or is this normal? To me it seems strange that this lining business and pixels dancing around in the dark areas would just be normal with these cameras? I don't remember anything like this with my 5D. And my Sony EX1 smokes this for sharpness and clarity!! Can anyone answer this one?

fyi - I did a test yesterday and shot the same subject in good daylight with 4 different settings and compared...

I used,

Standard
Neutral
Cinestyle (with flat settings) 0,-4,-2, 0
Cinestyle ( " + 2 points of sharpness) 2,-4,-2, 0

The image that came up the best looking technically, or the cleanest, was the cinestyle with +2 sharpness, and standard did well too. cinestyle with '0' sharpness was terrible. That's when I saw the most artifacts dancing around and also the worst as far as clarity goes. The sharpest point of focus (which was set perfectly using the digi zoom) was still so soft that it looked out of focus almost. Compared to my sony EX1 it would actually look like an out of focus item. I'm still confused at this, would lens calibration be a factor at all? I should point out though that I will get this same kind of thing happening with my other 50mm f1.4. I've uploaded the comparison here, shot at 1080:







Hard to see this with the web compression but you might get the idea.

I wouldn't mind knowing, if anyone owns a 600D, whether your camera gets the same results? Anyone?

Also, do any of you video guys actually use sharpening in post as a routine exercise with your dslr video footage? If so, what do you use to do the sharpening?
I guess my question is...If shooting with zero softness is the way to go, how come I don't hear just as many posts on the web about "post sharpening" because I'd assume this would have to be a routine part of the process if none is used in camera? Unless something is bogus about my camera, I can't imagine anyone thinking the softer images in my tests above are more desirable than the sharpened clips??

Cheers guys!


Return to posts index


Peter Burger
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 2, 2012 at 8:00:25 am

[Joel Cotlhorpe] "I don't see why anyone would want to leave an image as soft as what I get with this sharpness setting on '0'."

The idea behind that is, that you'll have

a) more control over the sharpening (strenght and quality - an NLE has better algorithms and doesn't have to do it in real-time)
b) if your camera does the sharpening and then does this heavy H.264 compression, a lot of picture artifacts are created.

So: No sharpening in-camera --> less picture artifacts --> sharpening in post to just what the picture needs

[Joel Cotlhorpe] "Also, do any of you video guys actually use sharpening in post as a routine exercise with your dslr video footage? If so, what do you use to do the sharpening?"

I do. :) I use the unsharp mask filter, like described here:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/280/8447


Edit:

[Joel Cotlhorpe] how come I don't hear just as many posts on the web about "post sharpening" because I'd assume this would have to be a routine part of the process if none is used in camera?

I don't know why, but I'd guess that's because sharpening of footage in general is such an "every day thing", like adjusting contrast etc. but seemingly as easy as applying "just one filter"... In my training as an editor, it was kind of: "Yeah and as a last step you adjust sharpness."
People seem not to want to waste a word about that "simple step"...

My guess...


------------------------------------------
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot." - Buster Keaton

http://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo (english/german)
http://fastfoodvideo.tumblr.com (german)


Return to posts index

Joel Cotlhorpe
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 2, 2012 at 10:11:10 am

Thanks mate, very helpful.

I honestly was totally unaware that sharpening in post was a common process. I've worked with professional colorists in baselight, da'vince 2k/resolve, and pablo suites and I've never seen any of them apply sharpening to their shots. Having said that they are usually working with RED, Alexa, or film scans so I guess at that level it's a different story.

Would it be fair to say though that this sharpening business is more unique to DSLR workflows than the higher end stuff? I, for example, would never sharpen my EX1 footage. It's as sharp as a tack, and it should be shouldn't it? I guess I just thought that DSLR stuff should have been as well if it was good enough for cinealta cameras to deliver that kind of image. Would you even suggest though that the nice clear stuff I've seen on the web from DSLR cameras has most likely been sharpened in post?

Cheers mate, I think I'm on the right track now :)

Joel


Return to posts index

Peter Burger
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 2, 2012 at 2:21:14 pm

[Joel Cotlhorpe] "I honestly was totally unaware that sharpening in post was a common process." (...) "Would it be fair to say though that this sharpening business is more unique to DSLR workflows than the higher end stuff?"

I'd say sharpening in post is a common thing, when shooting flat. Nothing unique to DSLR shooting.
You can shot flat with any kind of equipment, but with the more high-end stuff it's not that necessary, as with the more consumer or prosumer type of cameras.

My training dates back to the time when HD wasn't common, so we worked a lot with SD stuff from SD Betacams and DV... and for us sharpening in post was kind of common. Not in all cases necessary, but kind of common...

------------------------------------------
"Tragedy is a close-up; comedy, a long shot." - Buster Keaton

http://twitter.com/FastFoodVideo (english/german)
http://fastfoodvideo.tumblr.com (german)


Return to posts index


Jason Jenkins
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 2, 2012 at 5:24:22 pm

[Joel Cotlhorpe] "Would it be fair to say though that this sharpening business is more unique to DSLR workflows than the higher end stuff? I, for example, would never sharpen my EX1 footage. It's as sharp as a tack, and it should be shouldn't it? I guess I just thought that DSLR stuff should have been as well if it was good enough for cinealta cameras to deliver that kind of image. Would you even suggest though that the nice clear stuff I've seen on the web from DSLR cameras has most likely been sharpened in post?"

FWIW, I've been in this business for 12 years now and the only time I've ever sharpened anything in post was when the focus was soft, and that didn't work out too well; better to throw some b-roll over it if possible :) I'm happy with what I'm getting straight out of my camera (Panasonic GH2), so you won't find me making extra work for myself. I'm sure there are valid reasons for people to shoot flat and un-sharpened, but for me and my business it doesn't make any sense.

Jason Jenkins
Flowmotion Media
Video production... with style!

Check out my Mormon.org profile.


Return to posts index

Joel Cotlhorpe
Re: Canon 600D IMAGE QUALITY ISSUE
on Mar 21, 2012 at 10:48:24 pm

Guys just found this article which I think is very interesting. It explains exactly what I am experiencing with the use of the flat profiles so I am incline to believe it..

Bottom line - Flat profiles are a gimmick as far as I'm concerned. They are really not ever meant to be on cameras with a recording codec like h.264. They are probably beneficial for a very certain type of shoot, but they do not do what they say they do in reality. Cameras like the Canon DLSR's cannot record data this flat without paying a price to the rest of the image, because they were never meant to. I think people are just cashing in on the idea that's out there in cinema world that flat is better for post. And it sure is, but maybe on a red one, or even a xdcamex format, not on a h.264 camera. It just can't do it.

http://crookedpathfilms.com/blog/2011/02/27/459/


Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]