Best sharpening setiing in 5D Mk II ???
 

I have serious tech question....

Why does Philip Bloom set the sharpening settings as low as possible in the 5 or 7D ?

He feels its better to add sharpening in post under the control of your NLE. While I do do the same thing, I have recently seen some argument that in most NLEs you add sharpening at 8 bits, and the camera does it at 14 bits. So I am curious what other think.

I edit with Vegas, and with Cineforms intermediate file from NeoScene, believing the codec would handle editing decisions including sharpness addition better than in camera.

I will be curiouse what some technophiles respond to your question.

Sharp Lenses While Turning Down Sharpness?
 

Can't answer the original question, but I have a sort of follow-up. Can anyone justify the premium for L glass (I'm think specifically here about the Canon 50mm 1.2 L versus their much less expensive 50mm 1.4) when most of the massive cost delta has to do with image sharpness?

I understand that low light performance, build and bokeh would also be slightly better, but I guess I'm looking for a convincing reason why one would justify plunking an extra $1200 on the L glass. Does anyone have both lenses and can comment?

For photo purposes, with raw shooting, I think it does make a difference. But for the relatively low rez of 1920 x 1080 video, I have my doubts. In fact, I am guessing that the tack sharp lenses will add to issues of aliasing and moire.

I prefer to add sharpening in post. Extra detail in the camera will only put more pressure on the codec. That can result in more block noise. It can also result in more apparent aliasing.

By adding it in post, you can add just the right amount. You can also add it within a mask, so it sharpens eyes and lips, but not blemishes or aliased regions.

Personally, my preference is 0 (the lowest setting). I find that the aliasing artifacts caused by line skipping get worse with sharpening.

Actually, the cost delta has very little to do with sharpness alone. In fact, the 50mm f/1.4 is noticeably sharper than the 50mm f/1.2 in the corners at every aperture (f/1.4 to f/8.0). Even the lowly 50mm f/1.8 is sharper. (Most L lenses are sharper than their non-L equivalents, but the example you brought up is one of the exceptions.)

The premium for L glass is justified for reasons that are often much more important than sharpness: fast f-numbers, reduced flare, beautiful bokeh, reduced distortion, better mechanics, etc. In the case of the 50mm f/1.2, the primary design element is bokeh. They built it with negative spherical aberration on purpose to give it smoother background bokeh.

The 50mm f/1.4 is a great value if you don't mind bokeh that looks like vomit, distortion that's worse than old anamorphics, halation that permeates all but the lowest contrast scenes, and mechanics that are sloppier than a dog's lunch.

Value is a matter of priorities. For some photographers, the bokeh alone makes the 50mm f/1.2 worth the premium. Others couldn't care less about bokeh, but are willing to pay it for the build and dramatically improved manual focus. Different folks will not care about bokeh or manual focus, and instead pay the big bucks just for the autofocus and improved flare/distortion control.

Thanks guys!

C'mon Daniel that's extreme. The 50mm 1.4 is a fine lens that has done great work for countless photographers. I've got both the 1.2 and 1.4 and the 1.4 goes on a lot because it's small, light , fast and a very good lens. The 1.2 is exceptional but the 1.4 is hardly that bad.

It's cheaply built with none of the quality that, for instance, the 28mm 1.8 or 85mm 1.8 have by comparison as EF lenses but other than that it does fine for a lot of things. You wouldn't shoot it for it's bokeh but if you did, it wouldn't make people throw up.

For $350 bucks a lot of people would be happy to film with it and get great results.

Well, I agree with you if the discussion is about the perception of an average non-photographer. They probably don't notice distortion, flare, bokeh, DOF, falloff, sloppy focus, etc. the way I do. As long as the angle of view is similar, they may feel the difference in image quality is very minor and not at all worth the massive $1200 premium. But the language I used reflects the way I feel about the difference, which is that they are worlds apart.

For example, when I watch broadcast television, I'm appalled and disgusted by the macroblocking, ghosting, aliasing, interlace twitter, and ringing in almost every image. But to a non-photographer, the difference between that and an uncompressed master with none of those artifacts may go completely unnoticed.

For video, I think the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is better value at $150 more. Manual focus is tighter and smoother, less flare, more sharpness, less vignetting, and build quality.

I think it's a better lens on all those levels but that doesn't mean the 1.4 is horrible or only acceptable to "non-photogrraphers". I'm pretty discerning and have done a share of award winning work in both mediums and I have no problem shooting with that lens. Again, if I want great bokeh it's not what I'd reach for but I've seen tons of great shallow DOF work done with it.

In fact I prefer the 85mm 1.8 to my Nikon 85mm 1.4 for a number of reasons and the Nikon is another exceptional manual lens, every bit the IQ rival of the Canon 1.2.

I find sharpness off means I can reduce the aliasing and moire issues as much as possible. Doing sharpening in post can bring back the sharpness easily without the nasty artefacts.

Give it a try for yourself.. Simple test.. shoot several clips with varied sharpness settings and see if you like what you see.

I hate the in-camera sharpness setting for the video mode. Even with a +3 sharpness, high contrast edges take on a very haloed look.

The sharpness setting is really tuned for still mode where the algorithm has a lot more resolution to work with.

The problem I've had with post-sharpening is that there seems to be a very low limit on what you can apply before the grid of the noise signature becomes visible. What are you guys using for sharpening?

Just read an interesting couple of posts related to lens sharpness over on the Hurlbut Visuals blog:

Cinema Style Lenses | Hurlbut Visuals
Still Lenses That Can Grace The Big Screen | Hurlbut Visuals

The thing that caught my eye was the mention in the first post that where the cinema lenses really shine is in color contrast. Our eyes aren't too good at seeing that, but as he mentions it becomes more important & noticeable once you start doing real color correction with the footage.

I would imagine that the 4:2:0 color space of the codec really exacerbates any softness or lack of detail in the color channels, as those are where a perceptual codec is going to have the most latitude to discard information. So the overall sharpness of a lens might not be the most important characteristic, especially if you are trying to minimize aliasing - it may be that contrast is more important.

THANK YOU SO MUCH! The MASTER answers himself! Thank you very much, Philip!

Sharpening Canon 5D footage
 

Would be very interested in the workflow for sharpening Canon 5D Mk11 footage in post. I assume you do it with an FCP tool or plug in, but what workflow is best?