CineStyle on the 5D Mark III and fixing softness in post

[Andrew Reid]

[html]

[img]http://www.eoshd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/5d-mark-iii-sharpening1.jpg[/img]

Good news – Technicolor CineStyle works with the 5D Mark III already. The picture profile loads in the same way as before on previous Canon DSLRs. You will need to install the EOS Utility from the CD that came with your 5D Mark III to put CineStyle on your camera.

[url="http://www.eoshd.com/content/7608/cinestyle-on-the-5d-mark-iii-and-fixing-softness-in-post/"]Read full article[/url]

[/html]

[gene_can_sing]

Well, at least this is somewhat promising. The 5D3 looks pretty good after the sharpening, comparable to the GH2.

I will definitely say the colors have much more range (on the bear photo) on the 5D3. The GH2 colors are much closer in values than the 5D3 when you compared the rings around the eyes with the head. The highlights around the head are much brighter on the 5D3.

With that said, for $3000 more, I would expect nothing less.

Saw Philip Bloom post something similar to your findings on the sharpening. I still wish it was in camera, but at least there is a semi-solution.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=456.msg2888#msg2888 date=1332549271]With that said, for $3000 more, I would expect nothing less.[/quote]

Yeah. Although I am trying to be positive, the situation is still poor. Trying to make a $3000 camera look as good as a $600 one. Oh dear!

[Alex Mand]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=456.msg2889#msg2889 date=1332550949]
[quote author=gene_can_sing link=topic=456.msg2888#msg2888 date=1332549271]With that said, for $3000 more, I would expect nothing less.[/quote]

Yeah. Although I am trying to be positive, the situation is still poor. Trying to make a $3000 camera look as good as a $600 one. Oh dear!
[/quote]

I paid $3500 lol. We've used unsharpen mask on the footage today. Good results but nothing really shining. there ia a big difference between sharpening 700 lines and full 1000 lines... A pity. But well, is a work around

good to know about cinestyle. I will upload also cinema preset and see what happens.

[5DGH]

I really think you should have your camera checked. Though I can't be certain since I do not have 5dmk iii, it's showing more noise than 5dmk ii which doesn't make sense.

Or, maybe it's because 16-235 mk iii is misread as 0-255. Ppro does that.  Try 16-235 on the new PhotoShop CS6 (interpret footage -> HDTV, REC. 709 16-235).

[trifin]

hi,

thanks for the on going work on the 5d mkIII.

Please can you let me know where I can learn more about the Cinestyle profile.  I have downloaded it and applied it to the camera.  I notice that they also supply a file for Apple Color (which I use). 

Do I just apply the profile and then use that when shooting video? Kind of a apply it and then forget it?  Would I then use their file when working in Color with the video?

[AaronChicago]

Regarding the need to transcode for color work. I've recently discovered that Premiere CS5 and above, automatically expands footage to 4:4:4 ,32 bit float, in the timeline! No more transcoding to get latitude for finishing.
Also regarding sharpening, Unsharp Mask works wonders compared to the plain ole Sharpen.
This footage is looking great in my opinion though. Thanks!

Aaron

[Simco123]

I'm wondering if Canon deliberably gave the 5DIII a flat soft profile for the video so it can be graded in post and was pressured to get the camera released with the D800 so didnt include user settings for video? There should be a selection like picturestyle for stills entirely devoted to video that can take on sharpening well and am surprise there isnt one. Maybe a firmware update might include this?

[hiphopsuperman]

Am I missing something? I can't figure out how to sharpen as advised in the article. I can't even find the "filters window"? Is it just refering to the "sharpen" effect?

[jcs]

hiphopsuperman- Yes- it's the "Sharpen" effect, in the Effects window (type 'sharpen' in the search box).

Simco123- the built in sharpening appears to be a form of Unsharp Masking. It tends to work well in increasing perceived sharpness, however it can generate halos, which makes sharpening further in post more challenging. Turning off sharpening in camera gets you a relatively raw image, where you can apply a convolution sharpen ("Sharpen" in PPro) or Unsharp Mask, or both in post. Sharpen will enhance fine details, and if set too high will cause aliasing and can also make noise and other artifacts more apparent. Unsharp Mask works by subtracting low frequencies and won't have those issues, however at higher levels it can create halos. Unsharp Mask can also be used for Local Contrast Enhancement: [url=http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm]http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/local-contrast-enhancement.htm[/url]

[Andrew Reid]

Thanks jcs.

However I have decided I just don't like the digital sharpening.

It should be 1080p straight off the bat, otherwise it looks weird. I am finding that I either apply a little sharpening, which hardly makes it much closer to true 1080p, or I apply a lot which works for some shots but completely destroys others.

5D Mark III is teetering on the bring of eBay for me right now since D800 is looking like a worthy replacement, even with the slight moire and aliasing it appears to have.

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=AaronChicago link=topic=456.msg2912#msg2912 date=1332599805]
Regarding the need to transcode for color work. I've recently discovered that Premiere CS5 and above, automatically expands footage to 4:4:4 ,32 bit float, in the timeline! No more transcoding to get latitude for finishing.
Also regarding sharpening, Unsharp Mask works wonders compared to the plain ole Sharpen.
This footage is looking great in my opinion though. Thanks!

Aaron
[/quote]

This is true.

No need for 5DToRGB or MPEG StreamClip, Premiere Pro CS5.5 is a superb piece of software for editing natively in. Especially 1080/60p AVCHD natively, which is still very flakey in FCPX.

[jcs]

[quote author=Andrew Reid - EOSHD link=topic=456.msg2928#msg2928 date=1332626229]
Thanks jcs.

However I have decided I just don't like the digital sharpening.

It should be 1080p straight off the bat, otherwise it looks weird. I am finding that I either apply a little sharpening, which hardly makes it much closer to true 1080p, or I apply a lot which works for some shots but completely destroys others.

5D Mark III is teetering on the bring of eBay for me right now since D800 is looking like a worthy replacement, even with the slight moire and aliasing it appears to have.
[/quote]

Hey Andrew- did you look at the Veyron video I posted? I sharpened as need per shot. Did you see anything weird or otherwise unacceptable?

The D800 also appears to be a fine filmmaking tool (especially since it sounds like you have lenses you can use with it), however it will be interesting to see if Canon releases updated firmware to produce sharper, artifact-free footage straight out of camera (I can see a point in not wanting to sharpen in post if time is an issue, etc.). Until Canon tells us how they are processing the sensor data, we won't really know the true capability of the hardware. I'm also curious if there is any technical reason they couldn't use the 50Mbps 422 MXF codec (lots of business & marketing theories, though). I'd rather use that codec than 91Mbps I-frame (higher quality & less disk space).

Looking again at your sharpened sheep frame, I see halos. When you say it looks weird, is this with footage shot with in-camera sharpening turned off?

[TC]

Open a still image from the 5d3 in Photoshop.  Change the canvas size to 5,760x3,240 pixels.  That is 3x HD.  Then apply the filter -> pixellate -> mosaic.  Set the cell size to be 3 square.  View the full image on a HD capable monitor.  That is the level of sharpness the 5d3 is capable of in video mode.  Averaging the RGB values of 9 pixels is computationally trivial.  You wouldn't even need to de-bayer.  The fact that the actual video output is significantly softer than this tells us all we need to know - Canon have written the firmware to deliberately blur the image.

We need to stop saying that it is a limitation of the current state of the hardware.  It isn't.  It is a deliberate decision on Canon's part. 

[cameraboy]

exactly...
canon is company not charity organization...
they need to protect video division...
if c300 use old DIGIC DV III then DIGIC V can do 17x better...
many people say that they satisfied with 5d mark 3 video quality i dont see problem ...
dont forget 95% of sales goes to photographers ....

[jlev23]

[quote author=TC link=topic=456.msg2948#msg2948 date=1332670145]
Open a still image from the 5d3 in Photoshop.  Change the canvas size to 5,760x3,240 pixels.  That is 3x HD.  Then apply the filter -> pixellate -> mosaic.  Set the cell size to be 3 square.  View the full image on a HD capable monitor.  That is the level of sharpness the 5d3 is capable of in video mode.  Averaging the RGB values of 9 pixels is computationally trivial.  You wouldn't even need to de-bayer.  The fact that the actual video output is significantly softer than this tells us all we need to know - Canon have written the firmware to deliberately blur the image.

We need to stop saying that it is a limitation of the current state of the hardware.  It isn't.  It is a deliberate decision on Canon's part.
[/quote]
yes they did, they deliberately did this to fix the huge moire problem that all dslrs give off which can instantly render a shot unusable. besides, in video mode, sharpness is highly over rated. as a cinematographer we strive to make the outcome smoother to the eye, most of our professional issues with matching a 5D into alexa footage is that its too sharp and "video like". i think it was nice job on canon's part, they just should of explained to everyone. now everyone i know puts an anti aliasing filter in to prevent moire, this causes the exact effect you see straight from the new 5DMK3. maybe there should of been two modes for those who want their video to be as sharp as news footage.

[TC]

Of course Canon is a business.  But they are abusing their dominant market position and I think we in the photographic community need to challenge them more strongly in this, rather than just accepting it.  We need some solutions to the cartel of manufacturers which persistently withhold technology in order to maintain artificially high prices.  Panasonic have shown with the GH2 that sharp HD video can be obtained from a large sensor for $700.  Yet Canon want to charge us $16,000 for this.  That is more than 20 times more expensive. 

This unjustified price premium of $15,000 leaves a lot of room for a new entrant to come into the market and give us the camera we all want for a reasonable price. 

[jlev23]

[quote author=TC link=topic=456.msg2955#msg2955 date=1332686850]
Of course Canon is a business.  But they are abusing their dominant market position and I think we in the photographic community need to challenge them more strongly in this, rather than just accepting it.  We need some solutions to the cartel of manufacturers which persistently withhold technology in order to maintain artificially high prices.  Panasonic have shown with the GH2 that sharp HD video can be obtained from a large sensor for $700.  Yet Canon want to charge us $16,000 for this.  That is more than 20 times more expensive. 

This unjustified price premium of $15,000 leaves a lot of room for a new entrant to come into the market and give us the camera we all want for a reasonable price.
[/quote]
remember that the GH2 was not delivered to us with this higher resolution, i had the camera and it was a big disappointment, virtually unusable. until the hack came out, and the camera was initially $1000. also have you held one in your hands? compared to any 5D? it feels like a really cheap plastic camera. I'm gladly paying more for something as durable and weather resistant that you can use on real jobs. not to mention the stills from a GH2 are not much better then the current iPhone.

[cameraboy]

i dont try to defender  canon  ....
its just reality of video industry...
even panasonic  cripple gh2 hdmi (if u remember preproduction gh2 send to Philip Bloom had clean progresive 24P)
i dont own canon dslr  and i dont need that DOF porn from FF but i need true 1080p...

[Andrew Reid]

[quote author=jlev23 link=topic=456.msg2956#msg2956 date=1332687433]
remember that the GH2 was not delivered to us with this higher resolution, i had the camera and it was a big disappointment, virtually unusable. until the hack came out[/quote]

Just not true. It was superb for resolution out of the box.

The hack just firmed it up for motion and added a finer noise grain, better gradients.