When using the detail-feature?

[Gints Klimanis]

Originally Posted by Paul Kellett

Not from the tests,that was ages ago when i first got the cam.
I've got some screengrabs with detail on if you want them posted.
Paul

We'd really like to see them, Paul.

[Paul Kellett]

Armlock is 720/50p
Guy on stage is 1080 50i SP.

[Paul Curtis]

I can quite clearly see the false edges due to sharpening, look at any area of high contrast - in the V of the leg top left of frame there's an obvious sharpened edge with the telltale black line. Or the black ringing around the addidas logo.

With this particular image though the areas of contrast are quite low, if you had specular highlights (a watch or something) the ringing off that, for me, would be unacceptable. If you're keying or needing to do something to the image then this enhancement is detrimental as well.

I would personally still choose to shoot with no detail 'enhancement' and have that choice later on should i desire it. I would imagine that post based sharpening is more controllable and better anyway (but of course much more time consuming)

but horses for courses, whatever works best for your own workflow, that's the beauty of all these settings!

cheers
paul

[Paul Kellett]

Ah yes i can see it a bit now.

Thanks.

Paul.

[Dennis Schmitz]

Here is a comparison between detail on/off.

regards Dennis

[Paul Curtis]

the trouble with this stuff is once you've seen it, then you're always looking for it and you start noticing it automatically!

But i really feel this is one area which screams video to me. I'll have to see if i can dig out some frames of mine with no detail. I find them so much more natural and you can take them into photoshop and unsharp mask them and see the ringing come back in. Try some tests, you may initially think the shots are soft but they're real.

Conversely the vewing public is quite used to heavily sharpened images, from digital stills cameras, compression. Its just a very easy way to create perceived resolution and it's not necessarily wrong either. It's just a personal choice! I always have a battle with the photo processing places to try and get them to not sharpen my photos (usually fail dismally too).

cheers
paul

Dennis : a great example, i much prefer the off setting but i can see people thinking there's more resolution in the left. You can also see the effects of sharpening lens aberations too!

[Michael Maier]

The whole reason I wanted to move on to 1080p was that I was tired of sharpening my 720p footage from my JVC HD100. 1080p is twice as sharp and naturally so. Now that I have 1080p I no longer see any reason to use sharpening. Specially for video release (HD or SD) it is plenty sharp. I find myself adding filter for close ups. What is the point of moving up, spending the extra cash to shoot high-def if you still treat it as DV? DV needs sharpening, full HD does not.

[Dominik Seibold]

Here are some examples:
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/1.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/2.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/3.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/4.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/5.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/6.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/7.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/8.png

1: detail off
2: level 0, freq 0, crisp 0
3: level -50, freq 0, crisp 0
4: level +50, freq 0, crisp 0
5: level +50, freq -50, crip 0
6: level +50, freq +50, crisp 0
7: level +50, freq 0, crisp -100
8: level +50, freq 0, crisp +100

all with cine3, gamma-level/black/black-gamma 0, matrix off. Used FCPs ProcAmp-VideoLevel at -0.32 for turning super-white to white.

[Dennis Schmitz]

Originally Posted by Dominik Seibold

Here are some examples:
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/1.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/2.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/3.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/4.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/5.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/6.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/7.png
http://www.dominik.ws/ex1-detail/8.png

1: detail off
2: level 0, freq 0, crisp 0
3: level -50, freq 0, crisp 0
4: level +50, freq 0, crisp 0
5: level +50, freq -50, crip 0
6: level +50, freq +50, crisp 0
7: level +50, freq 0, crisp -100
8: level +50, freq 0, crisp +100

all with cine3, gamma-level/black/black-gamma 0, matrix off. Used FCPs ProcAmp-VideoLevel at -0.32 for turning super-white to white.

The first one looks best.
The second one already looks like a painting
The third one looks like it has gone through a blur filter.
...


regards Dennis

[Paul Curtis]

Originally Posted by Dennis Schmitz

The first one looks best.
The second one already looks like a painting
The third one looks like it has gone through a blur filter.
...


regards Dennis

Agree completely.

Dominik thank you for posting this comparison, a fantastic way to illustrate the pitfalls of detail on this camera.

Interesting that with everything zero'd it's still quite bad, yet set to -50 it's blurry. Where's the 'off' setting then (if there is one)

cheers
paul

[Dennis Schmitz]

Originally Posted by Paul Curtis

Agree completely.

Dominik thank you for posting this comparison, a fantastic way to illustrate the pitfalls of detail on this camera.

Interesting that with everything zero'd it's still quite bad, yet set to -50 it's blurry. Where's the 'off' setting then (if there is one)

cheers
paul

Level = -30 should be "zero".


Dennis