HDSLR Video Sharpness

[purplemonkey369]

Hi, guys.

Is it true that to achieve the optimum natural looking sharpness, the best is to shoot video with DSLRs with only prime lenses?

I've got the impression that video sharpness is primarily about the lens sharpness, for the Sharpen effect in NLEs like Final Cut Pro looks 'artificial'.

And the sharpest looking videos are hosted in Vimeo, instead of YouTube?

 

[purplemonkey369]

Why do videos hosted on Vimeo look significantly sharper than on YouTube (mostly)?

What are your recommended settings on a Canon 60D, in order to achieve the most optimum sharpness?

I'm in the opinion that it has a lot to do with the lens used.

Some lens are just not as sharp. :what:

 

[DXNMedia]

lenses play a big part, but not necessarily in the case of HD DSLR.
The thing that attributes to lack of apparent 'sharpness' in your recorded images are due to the onboard video compression as well as the image processors in the camera.

Once these bottleneck are solved with HD DSLR cameras for video acquisition, then we come talk about lens' resolving power.

 

[DXNMedia]

regarding vimeo vs youtube's quality, the problem lies in the re-compression encoding as well.

 

[purplemonkey369]

Hey, Dixon.

Thanks for replying!

So, that is why most people would prefer to capture with the likes of 5D MKII, 1D MK IV and the 7D?

So, you mean besides handling light better for these models, the processing units are significantly superior than the 60D?

We like the 60D because of the swivelling screen, and its relatively low cost - so we can buy a few at one time.

With regards to the final rendering compression, H.264 in full 1080p is not good enough?

;p;p

 

[gero76]

i think we are talking about a few different things here... image sharpness, compression of video on vimeo/youtube, compression of video at various stages...

ok sharpness. personally i think a few factors contribute to image sharpness. lens for sure, but the challenge for dslr footage is it is quite difficult to focus properly on a 2.5" LCD screen. that's why people will buy a z-finder or even a HDMI monitor. that said, ONLY 7d has double processor, able to output video via HDMI as HD. all others including 5DM2 has got only 1 processor, so 5Dm2 may be a full frame sensor, and records at full 1080p HD, but HDMI outputs it only as SD, which makes it slightly harder to focus on your HDMI monitor compared to a 7d body. but all in all, trying to pull focus on a 2.5" is hard enough. also, if you're using prime lenses, it's a known fact that virtually all lenses are NOT the sharpest wide open... sweet spot is always a few f-stops up from the smallest... i've got a nikon 50mm 1.4 and even at 1.4, it's not half as sharp as at f2 or f2.8. but then again, that difference is only visible if u blow it up 10x on your lcd screen. on your computer or vimeo, the general public's naked eye can hardly tell the difference.

and if you're shooting indoors, my experience is if you don't have a light source, ur ISO will probably be quite high depending on your lens. so at high ISO your video will have a significant amount of noise and that too, will affect your sharpness. that's why people who make movies always have lights. always. if you're doing event coverage, gotta pray hard for good light source.

so trying to pull focus on a 2.5" lcd screen and noise, IMO, is what mainly affects sharpness. also, certain brands of lens are known to be sharper than others. MOST canon lenses, however, are not as sharp as others... that's why people are buying manual voitglander lens to put onto their GF1 or other m43 bodies for photos/videos. and that's why i have a nikon 50mm 1.4 lens on my 7D.

I'm no expert in compression of video at source or output to vimeo etc, but 1 thing i do have to say is with all the hype about 24p, there is really NO need to record at 24p. the film look is NOT recording video at 24p. it's recording it at whatever frame rate with 2x shutter speed. ie. recording 25p and at 1/50 shutter speed. in fact, if u record it at 24p, and you are going to output it to youtube/vimeo/facebook etc, it's ok as video on the net will play whatever you dumped on it. but IF you output it to dvd, your image quality will all just turn to mush as PAL is actually 25p and going from 24p to 25p, your NLE will have to extrapolite that 1 single extra frame from your 24 frames to make it 25p. and THAT will cause your sharpness to just disappear altogether. believe me, i've tried it. Just shoot in 25p at 1/50 shutter speed. so unless you are wanting to convert your final footage to film to be screen at some film festival where they use actual film (which will cost about 20k to convert from digital to film) and a projector, it does NOT make sense to shoot at 24p.

 

[XsenseX]

Yeah ... The 24p thingy is overhype ...

Videos shouldn't be overly sharp anyways, many people actually post process to tune it down so it looks more natural.

 

[purplemonkey369]

Hey guys, thanks for all your replies.

Yeap, when you output to DVD the resolution will be downscaled no doubt. We always remind our clients about that, but for the online uploads - I think the sharper the better.

Seems, from our own experience and what others say - Vimeo's video look generally better than YouTube (unless you have a paid account, I suppose) and probably it's something to do with the way the several websites host their content. Facebook will downscale it further but I think it's ok cos the playback screen (on FB) is smaller.

I think the challenge is probably the consistency.

If I would have my way - probably I would want to use prime lenses all the way, and for all cameras, for our videography since handling of light is much better, you don't need that much video light, and will have a more natural look with the natural light (provided you are shooting in the day, lah) but in a lot of cases we have to zoom here and there, since it's a run and gun situation for weddings mostly.

Yeah, we don't shoot in 24p.

So, what's the recommended workflow for rendering?

Separate output settings using COmpressor for DVD, Facebook and Vimeo?

 

[gero76]

i'm not a pro in the industry so i can't speak on their behalf, but what i do, which i learnt from a tutorial from lynda.com by a name of larry jordan, (and assuming you're on final cut pro) who seems very technically gifted, he recommended to export the video as a quicktime movie, keeping at the settings at default. you can choose to exported it as a self-containing file or reference file. this will export your video at the highest quality that you have at the start. reason according to larry jordan, is that final cut is not a dedicated compression software, but a dedicated editing software. makes senses to me. so export it at the highest quality possible, put it through compressor to whatever outputs you need, be it for dvd studio pro, youtube, or a general QT file for your own archive on your computer...

hope this helps.

 

[purplemonkey369]

i'm not a pro in the industry so i can't speak on their behalf, but what i do, which i learnt from a tutorial from lynda.com by a name of larry jordan, (and assuming you're on final cut pro) who seems very technically gifted, he recommended to export the video as a quicktime movie, keeping at the settings at default. you can choose to exported it as a self-containing file or reference file. this will export your video at the highest quality that you have at the start. reason according to larry jordan, is that final cut is not a dedicated compression software, but a dedicated editing software. makes senses to me. so export it at the highest quality possible, put it through compressor to whatever outputs you need, be it for dvd studio pro, youtube, or a general QT file for your own archive on your computer...

hope this helps.

Yes, that's what we usually do - export within Final Cut Pro X for the final render, but send to Compressor for the formats we need to put up online ie. Facebook, YouTube etc.

 

[hiderocketdive]

Given all things equal (resolution, compression, processing etc), lens do, in fact, make a difference to the sharpness of picture. Comparing Zeiss CP.2 50mm T2.1 @ T4 vs Canon 50mm f1.4 @ f4, I can see an appreciable difference, with the advantage given to the Zeiss. And this sharpness advantage is perceivable even after the H.264 compression. The reason is simply: acutance. While you can improve acutance in post by using unsharp masks, it will not be as natural, but it's not really perceivable unless you pixel peep.

Btw, the 24p that were frequently talked about was mostly referring to 23.98p. True 24p is rare (mainly found in cinema grade cameras) and is mainly relevant if the final deliverable is for film-out for theatrical exhibition. The "film-look" that most people talked about is more associated with the motion cadence of progressive imaging. So while the advice of doubling the shutter speed for whatever frame rate you shoot at is right, it should be noted that there can be some variance in your shutter speed choice and still look/feels "filmic".