Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

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

Recommended Posts

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I have seen so many bad unsharp mask tools that I lost hope, turns out the one in gimp is pretty decent, don't have premiere so I have no idea how that looks but I will give it the benefit of the doubt instead and hope it's somewhat close to what a free utility can give.

I guess you could run all frames through a batch to get what you want from gimp but the amount of data would get very high very fast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

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.

You speak for yourself. I can tell the difference on my TV set. Especially when there is lots of fine detail, such as vegetation. Vegetation shows up lack of detail right away.

I think any particular persons take on this really depends on their eyesight. If someone does not wear glasses with an accurate prescription then they likely have less than perfect vision and don't know it. They think the world looks like that, but it does not, so when they see actual detail it looks unnatural to them. For them the world would look soft, so they likely think that video is supposed to look like that too. But if you do have an accurate prescription you sure as hell can tell the difference. I have yet to see any 4K video camera resolve to the level my eyes can. The best I have seen has been Samsung's NX1 but even that does not get where I want it to be. What I want is an 8K camera (probably more, so it can be oversampled), with a 65 - 80" 8K TV to go with it. If you are concerned about aliasing and artifacts like that then you need a pixel count significantly beneath eye resolution. If you do that you will get no visible artifacts.

A big problem is that people have been raised watching movies that have been shot at low resolution. They have been conditioned to think that is the "proper" way for movies to look so they try to emulate that without understanding that movies looked that way because of the limitations of the technology that was available at the time. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, with new generations doing the same thing and consequently influencing the next generation to do it as well.

19 hours ago, Shirozina said:

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.

In camera "sharpening" is a product of the debeyering algorithm weighting. There is no additional computation happening. A raw pixel will record red blue or green depending on what filter is over that particular pixel. To work out the actual color the debeyering algorithm takes information from adjacent raw pixels to generate a color. To get an accurate color you need a wider weighting, but that smears your detail over that area as well, resulting in a softer image. If you want to maximize detail then the debeyering algorithm uses a smaller weighting. That results in more accurate luma but the color is less accurate. When you are at an edge that color inaccuracy would result in false color around the edge, hence the halos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, thebrothersthre3 said:

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

The softer image you get with higher ISO is a consequence of noise screwing with the debeyering algorithm and destroying detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2018 at 12:52 AM, Andrew Reid said:

Agree with you but like I said in the first impressions, it is a jekyll and hyde camera. It is at once badly specced and in the very same instance, a superb image to look at. Go figure.

And there it is. If specs are most important to you: Don't buy Canon, if a good image is important to you: Buy Canon.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mokara said:

You speak for yourself. I can tell the difference on my TV set. Especially when there is lots of fine detail, such as vegetation. Vegetation shows up lack of detail right away.

I think any particular persons take on this really depends on their eyesight. If someone does not wear glasses with an accurate prescription then they likely have less than perfect vision and don't know it. They think the world looks like that, but it does not, so when they see actual detail it looks unnatural to them. For them the world would look soft, so they likely think that video is supposed to look like that too. But if you do have an accurate prescription you sure as hell can tell the difference. I have yet to see any 4K video camera resolve to the level my eyes can. The best I have seen has been Samsung's NX1 but even that does not get where I want it to be. What I want is an 8K camera (probably more, so it can be oversampled), with a 65 - 80" 8K TV to go with it. If you are concerned about aliasing and artifacts like that then you need a pixel count significantly beneath eye resolution. If you do that you will get no visible artifacts.

A big problem is that people have been raised watching movies that have been shot at low resolution. They have been conditioned to think that is the "proper" way for movies to look so they try to emulate that without understanding that movies looked that way because of the limitations of the technology that was available at the time. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, with new generations doing the same thing and consequently influencing the next generation to do it as well.

In camera "sharpening" is a product of the debeyering algorithm weighting. There is no additional computation happening. A raw pixel will record red blue or green depending on what filter is over that particular pixel. To work out the actual color the debeyering algorithm takes information from adjacent raw pixels to generate a color. To get an accurate color you need a wider weighting, but that smears your detail over that area as well, resulting in a softer image. If you want to maximize detail then the debeyering algorithm uses a smaller weighting. That results in more accurate luma but the color is less accurate. When you are at an edge that color inaccuracy would result in false color around the edge, hence the halos.

What about when the image is resampled to a smaller scale as with say the GH5? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mokara said:

You speak for yourself. I can tell the difference on my TV set. Especially when there is lots of fine detail, such as vegetation. Vegetation shows up lack of detail right away.

Which cameras did you compare on your TV with same shot? Please name them. Didn't realise you had an EOS R yet?

Quote

I have yet to see any 4K video camera resolve to the level my eyes can. The best I have seen has been Samsung's NX1 but even that does not get where I want it to be. What I want is an 8K camera (probably more, so it can be oversampled), with a 65 - 80" 8K TV to go with it. If you are concerned about aliasing and artifacts like that then you need a pixel count significantly beneath eye resolution. If you do that you will get no visible artifacts.

But is it cinematic?

Or just a lot of fatiguing digital pixels fizzing around?

What about when the camera moves? How's the motion cadence?

Good luck with that 8K TV. I have 20:20 vision and from the sofa viewing distances it offered zero advantage over 4K TV of same size (65"). Even pixel peeped with eyeball up against screen it wasn't even that impressive, no "wow" factor and it isn't gapless, you see quite a lot of black lines between pixels when eyeballing it. This was the latest Samsung 8K TV in a store BTW. You can buy it right now if you're stupid enough!

Quote

A big problem is that people have been raised watching movies that have been shot at low resolution. They have been conditioned to think that is the "proper" way for movies to look so they try to emulate that without understanding that movies looked that way because of the limitations of the technology that was available at the time. So it all becomes a self fulfilling prophecy, with new generations doing the same thing and consequently influencing the next generation to do it as well.

So we can be conditioned to love digital looking 8K 60p as much as 65mm film 24p?

There is a difference in style needed between ultra-realism (which works well for documentary, for example) and suspension of disbelief required in narrative films, where you can use all sorts of soft light, dreamy lenses, anamorphic, etc. to serve the script and too much detail can destroy that.

Quote

In camera "sharpening" is a product of the debeyering algorithm weighting. There is no additional computation happening.

Not true.

Quote

A raw pixel will record red blue or green depending on what filter is over that particular pixel. To work out the actual color the debeyering algorithm takes information from adjacent raw pixels to generate a color. To get an accurate color you need a wider weighting, but that smears your detail over that area as well, resulting in a softer image. If you want to maximize detail then the debeyering algorithm uses a smaller weighting. That results in more accurate luma but the color is less accurate. When you are at an edge that color inaccuracy would result in false color around the edge, hence the halos.

It's not just about colour it's about the luminance channel (green wavelength) giving you a chromatic image which is what largely determines the resolution. It's also about noise levels, micro contrast and digital processing on the LSI side, not just debayering.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2018 at 10:01 PM, Andrew Reid said:

You must be some kind of Russian fake user or something.

Yes I admit it. I am biased towards Canon! It's all true! The last 7 years calling them out have all been a PR stunt! They are paying me! How do you think I afford all these Sony, Panasonic and Fuji cameras?

It's not fair criticism in Max's video and unlike you, I explain why using something called logic. It's as if you have never heard of a Sharpness setting in a Picture Style, or the Unsharp Mask in Premiere. This is basic digital filmmaker 101. You need to read a book.

Why don't you go back to complaining about the GH5 and not being able to dial sharpness down enough.

Go and do a test of your own, show some images.

Go and adjust the picture style settings and try and re-produce Max's conclusion - yeah good luck with that - your results would be totally different.

He's really only reviewed the picture style settings, and he doesn't even bothering to tell us what they are!

Calm down, I didn't say you're a Canon fanboy lol! 

I don't really get your rebuttal at all either. Did you even read my post?

I've never complained about the GH5's sharpness. You must be thinking about the NX1, which is clearly oversharpened (although does also have more detail than most other 4k hybrid cams). 

I don't need to shoot my own footage. I can quite clearly see the results from your stills, Max's video footage as well as the DPReview's video stills gallery. The Canon EOS R clearly lacks detail compared to other hybrid 4k cams, and it's not because it's less sharpened. That's like saying the 80D has as much detail as a GH5, you just need to sharpen it more! 

Does it matter that it's not as detailed? No. But as long as we're on the subject matter, let's actually make sensible posts. I don't think you're generally biased but now and again you do make posts that make me think you don't have your head screwed on right. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very strange why I have so many insufferable cum badgers on my own website.

It's not like I haven't tried over the last 8 years to get logical info out... Apparently, some will still think the difference between EOS R 4K and other 4K cams is as big as the gap between faux 1080 80D and 4K on the GH5.

Stupidity is like death. It's only difficult for the other people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was referencing 1080 on the GH5. Perhaps I should have said GH3 instead of GH5. 

You put out great content Andrew but sometimes it is worrying skewed with confirmation bias. 

Anyway, i find this whole place insufferable these days, so slay me here now if you wish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

It's very strange why I have so many insufferable cum badgers on my own website.

It's not like I haven't tried over the last 8 years to get logical info out... Apparently, some will still think the difference between EOS R 4K and other 4K cams is as big as the gap between faux 1080 80D and 4K on the GH5.

Stupidity is like death. It's only difficult for the other people.

Gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2018 at 5:47 PM, 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

Not only some youtubers misunderstand sharpness as resolution,but they are trying to prove the crop 4K is as good as the supersampling or the non-crop ones,Canon must be so happy seeing they making excuses to justify their crippled products

Hell yeah, as you guys wish ,Canon will keep that crop 4K forever,lol

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why don't we ever see the same criticism against Panasonic and Sony excuses. I mean I think the GH5 and A7iii are great cameras, but Im not gonna ignore the severe crippling and lacking of certain features. Yet the positive reviews never get the same bashing or called apologists, etc. Its cool to decide to live with the short comings of some cameras but not others. Im wondering if its because they are so mainstream and there for trendy to bash? 

Sony for example are always flying reviewers to exotic and expensive events but don't get as much flak for it. 
One of the biggest youtube reviewers was saluted as unbiased and fair because he went down hard on the Canon and said the Sony was better.
The same youtube have been traveling on the Sony account and said, "usually I never review Sony because they don't invite me to things.. but now I got to go to..."... 

Just a bit weird imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Why don't we ever see the same criticism against Panasonic and Sony excuses. I mean I think the GH5 and A7iii are great cameras, but Im not gonna ignore the severe crippling and lacking of certain features. Yet the positive reviews never get the same bashing or called apologists, etc. Its cool to decide to live with the short comings of some cameras but not others. Im wondering if its because they are so mainstream and there for trendy to bash? 

Sony for example are always flying reviewers to exotic and expensive events but don't get as much flak for it. 
One of the biggest youtube reviewers was saluted as unbiased and fair because he went down hard on the Canon and said the Sony was better.
The same youtube have been traveling on the Sony account and said, "usually I never review Sony because they don't invite me to things.. but now I got to go to..."... 

Just a bit weird imo.

Dont forget the rolling shutter / overheat at a6300 / a6500, overheat / sunspot / bad battery life / poor AF with A7S II, The crappy 4K at fullframe with A7R II, the aliasing heavy  1080p with A7 II. Sony was bashed a lot in a lot of reviews

But they overcome the major weaknesses with the third generation. Still not perfect, but much more value for the money and much less pain in the ass comparing to previous generations.

Actually i dont remember if there was major problems with GH3/GH4. Maybe they were perfect? 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not 'that' hard to do a proper test using test targets that differentiate resolution from sharpness. From what I can see the Canon lacks the resolution of some other 4k cameras which may or may not be a bad thing but it doesn't try to compensate for this by adding sharpness you can't disable which is absolutely a bad thing. Has anyone heard of the Nyquist theorem which states ( if I can recall this properly) that you need 2x the sampling rate to create the final resolution so if a 4k sensor is sampling at 1:1 it can't be the same resolution as one that is down sampling from a larger number of pixels. We are too caught up in HD vs 4k etc based on just the pixel numbers but if we used a resolution based standard as I think some broadcast organisations do like the BBC we would find that many so called 4k capable cameras are not able to attain resolutions required of that standard. The Canon R, BMPCC4k, GH5s which all sample at 1:1 are highly unlikley to be able to do this but very likley to be able to create very good HD footage when resampled down. Obviously no one out there in the world of Youtube celeb testing culture is on to this at all and even the manufacturers are happy to say their cameras are 4k just by the number of pixels rather than any resolution measurement.....

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...