Jump to content

EOS R does NOT lack sharpness in 4K - Here's proof


Andrew Reid
 Share

Recommended Posts

Yeah doesn't look too bad. Here neither:

Not too say I would rush out and get one ASAP. Gotta wait it out until the next model launches... and maybe even then... Panasonic might have the upperhand with the S1(R). Although, admittedly, currently I'm not really in the market for a FF system and still plenty happy with what MFT offers and has the potential of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/30/2018 at 10:54 PM, Mokara said:

He was comparing the cameras directly against each other. It is not his first dance either, he knows about sharpness settings...

What? He is a youtuber who shoots cars in a parking lot for 5 minutes. Seriously, that whole video was a goddamn parking lot scene. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like Max's test nor Andrew's. If you are going to test sharpness accurately it has to be in a controlled environment, not outdoors in which all sorts of variables come into play. Atmospheric distortion due to uneven heating causes all sorts of variable distortions. If you are to do a sharpness test comparison accurately, it should be done with the same lens from a fixed distance and a controlled environment. DP Reviews video sharpness test is probably the best for comparisons, but not sure if they use the same lens or not. At least the test is in a controlled environment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, PabloB said:

 

Basically shows the Eos R as soft with the default sharpening at 0 but looking better and matching the x-t3 at 4 and above

It doesn't match as the sharpened EOS R footage shows obvious sharpening halo's around the  fine details ( lettering). Does the EOS R have an anti aliasing filter over the sensor?

Not sure if this is related but I had issues with my XC10 in LOG in that it was very soft but I put that down to excessive in camera NR. The effect was most noticable on foliage and it's quite an obvious artifact when you know what it looks like. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what he means in the video, to me the EOS R does NOT get sharper with the sharpness setting, sure it adds a halo and increase the local contrast making letters stand out more, but I don't see any indication of "size of blur" getting smaller/more detailed. Sure it kinda looks sharper and does make it easier to show some detail but not really fixing the softness.
You can see the outline of the Chinese? letters around the 4:08 mark on the battery grip box get more defined while on the X-T3 (without halos mind you) you can see they have detail inside of them.

So I guess my take from it is, yeah it does not lack sharpness as in halos and edge contrast since I really don't like that. But it sure does lack detail/resolution compared to what other offers without being overly sharpened (in this case X-T3).

Now if this is the megapixel race of 4k or not I'm not sure, but cramming too much content all the way to nyquist do mess up a lot of scaling algorithms and do become a hassle at times, with audio you want the resolution to be way higher than the content so I don't see the problem doing the same for video if you know what you are doing.

I'm kinda balancing between "yeah it's soft and lack details but" and "I want that 1:1 pixel detail because reasons"

So is the real resolution about 3k vs 4k(example)? and does it matter at the end of the day? If you had quick turnaround and uploaded camera file in 4k to youtube, do the 1080 being scaled by youtube look better than similar X-T3 shot? How does it look like on a phone?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shirozina said:

 Does the EOS R have an anti aliasing filter over the sensor?

1

Yes, like most Canon FF cameras. 

XT series lacks an AA filter (thanks to X-trans sensor) which makes for sharper / more detail IQ.

Depending on what you're shooting, one may serve you better than the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Yes, like most Canon FF cameras. 

XT series lacks an AA filter (thanks to X-trans sensor) which makes for sharper / more detail IQ.

Depending on what you're shooting, one may serve you better than the other.

An AA filter designed for stills shooting and 1:1 pixels sampling in 4k - vs X trans with no filter and 4k subsampling  - case closed......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

The real story is that sharpness in 4K is a bad thing, not a good thing!

I remember an Interview with the ARRI chef where he explains how important it is to have a strong AA filter for motion vs stills. Basically he says that detail is percieved different in motion than it is in stills. In stills high acuity fine detail is nice, but in motion it creates undesired artifacts so film cameras need strong AA filtration in order to look natural. 

Anyway, withat RS the EOS RS is unusable for video imho, 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Administrators
17 minutes ago, Nikkor said:

I remember an Interview with the ARRI chef where he explains how important it is to have a strong AA filter for motion vs stills. Basically he says that detail is percieved different in motion than it is in stills. In stills high acuity fine detail is nice, but in motion it creates undesired artifacts so film cameras need strong AA filtration in order to look natural. 

Anyway, withat RS the EOS RS is unusable for video imho, 

Yes absolutely true.

When the picture moves, that's where the pixel peeping becomes irrelevant, especially with 4K.

It explains so much.

- Nikon D5500 looked so cinematic despite such soft 1080p. Lack of digital sharpness, lack of aliasing and little false detail made it calming and immersive to look at.

- Canon soft 1080p used to also have false detail, tons of nasties and jaggies, moire, which is BAD. Valid criticism. However in 4K, all those problems are gone and it's soft enough to look cinematic in motion. When you freeze a frame and zoom into 400% like Max on YouTube, yeah it looks like crap - so what. In motion, at 100% full screen it doesn't look like that.

- Canon 1D C another good example, it's not the sharpest 4K - you might even call it 3K - but it has a wonderful motion cadence

- Sony A6500 - brittle - but you freeze the frame or look at DPReview's chart and go "wow, that's sharp". Meaningless. Listen to Arri instead. They know what they're talking about.

Of course it's still helpful to do a review and look at blow-ups of the image, see how detail is, how it is rendered... But the conclusion you draw from that should be different to the obvious.

I too am changing the way I do reviews from now on.

Obviously you can take a very sharp and detailed 4K camera and make it look softer in post, or especially with lighting changes. That's fine. But if you are shooting "as-is" in natural light and not doing anything in post - just letting that full sharpness off the hook as is most people's tendency - it would be interesting to compare something like an A6500 and EOS R / 1D C on the cinema screen, to see whether all that sharpness on the Sony side would detract from the experience and pull you out of the atmosphere of the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also 'good' sharpening that doesn't introduce artefacts takes a lot of processing power and is not going to happen in-camera so what you see is crude but CPU light sharpening thus all the halos and nasty edges. I'm not even sure if the sharpening filters in Premier and Resolve are that good and certainly nothing as sophisticated as 'smart sharpen' in Photoshop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One good thing about a more detailed image is for high ISO shooting. When you raise ISO the image gets softer generally(with NR). The softer the image is to begin with the softer it will look when you get to higher ISO's. 

Something like the A73 may look a bit too sharp to begin with, but when you get to ISO 12,800 retains a really nice looking image while most other cameras look unnaturally soft. 

Wouldn't a blur in post or filter on the lens attain that soft image on cameras like the GH5 or Sony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Nikkor said:

I remember an Interview with the ARRI chef where he explains how important it is to have a strong AA filter for motion vs stills. Basically he says that detail is percieved different in motion than it is in stills. In stills high acuity fine detail is nice, but in motion it creates undesired artifacts so film cameras need strong AA filtration in order to look natural. 

Anyway, withat RS the EOS RS is unusable for video imho, 

What would the ARRI chef know about cameras? Surely his specialty is cooking food?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...