Getting sharper images with my RED Epic Dragon

[Scott Welsch]

I do a sensor calibration before the shoot.

But the issue I am having is, how come it looks so grainy, but not as sharp as something like Phil Hollands footage here, is it the glass or am I doing something incorrectly?

For this particular shot it was shot at a higher compression than I normally do at 16:1, I typically will do 10:1 or 8:1

I shot this on a Helio 44-2 lens, but today I shot at 85mm 1.2 II L lens from Canon and it still has blah look to it. I used all natural lighting here just for an instagram still and the footage is all useable, but there is so much RED Footage out there that looks so crisp and sharp shooting on similar lenses to mine and I cannot figure out the difference. Is it my exposure or something off?

Please forgive my questioning, I'm just here to learn

Jpeg of my still here: http://i.imgur.com/WdMgCas.jpg

I also have the tiff file untouched I can upload somewhere as well once I find a place that allows 99mb files

 

[Bob Gundu]

Post an r3d snapshot. But I will say 16:1 is crazy. Shoot at at least 8:1. Helios lenses have a vintage look but don't expect sharpness. Also, grading will add procieved sharpness by adding contrast.

 

[Scott Welsch]

Post an r3d snapshot. But I will say 16:1 is crazy. Shoot at at least 8:1. Helios lenses have a vintage look but don't expect sharpness. Also, grading will add procieved sharpness by adding contrast.

I figured as much with the helios, but with the 85mm 1.2 II L I'd think it should be significantly sharper but it really isn't. And I agree 16:1 is bananas.

Here is the .r3d
http://www.filedropper.com/test_35

 

[Bob Gundu]

The file you posted isn't too bad at all. It lacks contrast though. Plus you can add a bit of sharpness in post.

 

[Mike P.]

I was under the impression that STH gets best results closer to ~400ISO... STD is ~800... LLO is up to ~1600...

Also 16:1 compression ratio is pretty haggard... you're basically relying on the 6l>4k downscale to get rid of artefacts.

I'd say other than 16:1 + STH@800 combo, that image is pretty dang sharp. Throw on a hint of unsharp and some high-pass sharpening and it'll likely seem too sharp.

OH, and rather than viewing on a monitor that you're 2ft away from, try an actual tv (4k); it'll look glass clean and super sharp even as-is.

 

[Björn Benckert]

test by Björn Benckert, on Flickr

Think it holds up well.

To get sharper stills I think you need to tell the guy not to move, keep camera on tripod and or use shorter exposure times. Simply 1/48 of a second is not short enough to shoot sharp stills of moving objects.

also you are on a critical DOF simply you would want the guy to be completely within the hyper focus or make sure to define whats in hyper focus and what is out of focus. In this case the focus leaves by the ears but not in a define way just slightly. If there was enough DOF to keep all of him in focus the image would have more tack or if you had shorter focus span and really just had focus on his eyes but hands and ears really out of focus. A lot of times a sharp image is perceived as sharp just because of all the blurred out parts of the frame and that little bit that is in focus is a true focus point / something the eye look for. I think when Phil shoots his dragon and weapon 8k test films he is really working hard to get that perfect focus span, and let each image have a things in focus, in front of focus and also behind focus. Like if this guy would stretch out his arm and point to camera with a blurry finger the image would instantly be perceived as much sharper than it is now without anything changing in camera settings etc. If he took a step closer to the lens so focus span got shorter it would do huge difference as well.


The Otus glass is really high performance so is the leica summilux C but to me the ones that is king of the hill for perceived sharpness and clean image is actually the less costly and slightly slower LEICA SUMMICRON C´s. So try those at 5.6 F stop and lower compression to 1:2 and shoot with a lot of light and you get crazy sharp.

Also your exposure could be higher. The lights in the back clip but his skin tone could take about a stop more with only getting improved detail by doing so.

 

[Alberto Guglielmi]

Canon lenses are not very sharp in my humble opinion. The file looks very similar to what comes out in lightroom out of a 5D M3 still. I don't see much difference.

In the world of DSLR lenses, Nikon are sharper to me. Leica and Zeiss much better. I would look into renting and trying few lenses to see what you like best. Try them with similar settings, and then find the settings you prefer for image sharpness.
I saw your FPS was 72. So I assume you shot 6K at 16:1 (Why not 14:1?). 180 degrees gives you 1/150th of a sec exposure that should be plenty sharp for someone moving at normal speed.

 

[Chad Lancaster]

16:1 is crazy. My personal preference is always to shoot at the lowest compression possible for your shooting settings. You can always lower the quality of your image later in post but you can't make it better. Hard drives are relatively cheap.

 

[Phil Holland]

Björn's the general right path in regards to some of how I shoot to maintain a more vibrant crispness.

Not to totally steal a lens marketing phrase, but some of this does indeed start with the glass. In the case of It's Just Paint I'm using $50K cinema lenses (Schneider Cine-Xenar III Primes) that produce something I enjoy, and they aren't the most ruthlessly sharp lenses out there either. However, there's additional things going on. You'll notice I more or less adhere to "Fincher logic" and mostly shoot on sticks, dolly, crane with the very rare handheld/gimbal style shot. I also for some of these shoots am exploring "where to get the most out of lens". In the case of that short, mostly around T2.8-T4. I'm also a focus nut. I mean absolutely insane. Critical focus is something that's on my mind constantly while rolling.

Lighting also plays a role, but your shot has some nice light Scott!

One thing I did notice is you're at ISO 800 with the Skin Tone - Highlight OLPF at a rather high REDCODE RAW Compression Ratio. REDCODE RAW is a variable compression scheme that as you increase the Compression Ratio slowly starts trading detail for smaller files. I usually am shooting with REDCODE RAW 2:1-8:1 and only going further if I'm overcranking.

If you have time to shoot a quick test, fire off some ISO 320-500 with the STH OLPF and use something in the REDCODE RAW range of 5:1-8:1. That's pretty much standard practice in the world of cinema.

The additional business with that version of It's Just Paint is that's the final cinema grade where I think I did a light sharpening pass in Resolve, which is also rather common in the process of finishing footage.

 

[David Battistella]

Just to add to what Phil and other wise folks here are saying. The effort you put into processing the final image matters. With a few quick adjustments you can really bump up the look of this shot and pop the subject they way you exposed it, without doing a heck of a lot more that what you did in camera.

David

original

 

[Charles Bergquist]

I'm also a focus nut. I mean absolutely insane. Critical focus is something that's on my mind constantly while rolling.

Phil, this particular quote in mind, what's your best method for obtaining critical focus on the Red ecosystem. I'd love to know what combo your using if you wouldn't mind sharing. Magnify has always been really sluggish to me and Red's version of Focus Peaking always gives me false positives compared to just about every other camera out there. I've gone towards using a second monitor and using the 1080 feed from that, is that what you're doing or are the new DSMC2 processors instant for focus now?

Not trying to hijack the thread, I've always been interested in how people focus on Red, outside of an excellent 1st.

 

[Phil Holland]

Phil, this particular quote in mind, what's your best method for obtaining critical focus on the Red ecosystem. I'd love to know what combo your using if you wouldn't mind sharing. Magnify has always been really sluggish to me and Red's version of Focus Peaking always gives me false positives compared to just about every other camera out there. I've gone towards using a second monitor and using the 1080 feed from that, is that what you're doing or are the new DSMC2 processors instant for focus now?

Not trying to hijack the thread, I've always been interested in how people focus on Red, outside of an excellent 1st.

The In Camera Focus Tools are my best friend. Edge and Focus are great and I use them all the time, takes practice to get real familiar with them. I mainly use Magnify for locked off or product stuff where setting the focus tight is needed. Some lenses have a level of acutance that makes pulling easier than others as well.

As for the rest, the simple thing I can say is I practice pulling a lot. For many years. I'm a DP who likes to operate and pull if possible. My ACs feel like it's their birthday if they get to touch focus. Rehearsals can inform you a lot about where things will be, but the additional thing I can mention is I've studied anatomy and animation for a long, long time and was part of my life for over a decade. Predicting behavior and anticipation is critical if you are pulling wild, which I enjoy doing a lot.

The big thing is also using proper glass with hard gears, a decent follow focus, and getting a feel for the lenses you're using. There are lenses I loathe using because of the pull, especially as you get to close focus. Others are a freaking joy and work like you've got a 1:1 connection with the lens.

A lot of my EF glass also has the "infinite spinning ring of death" which is a common missed mark. Electronic focus work well, but it's difficult to generate feel without the physical connection sometimes. It's getting better though. Even some wireless systems that do engage with cinema lenses have enough lag to drive me insane. Good systems though are a happy thing.

For anybody at NAB that saw my Schneider lens demo, that was wild pull on each of those takes from 15 feet to 3 feet. 1-3 takes each for each lens. Just takes a bit of practice to get there.

It's an odd topic and I have a lot to say on the matter. I still use marks when necessary, especially on big productions. A follow focus with hard stops comes in handy too. But more or less it's a touch and experience thing. Mentally I keep the stakes high to keep my attention level "tuned in" to what matters. I pull focus like I'm diffusing a bomb.

 

[Les Hillis]

...Is it my exposure or something off?...

Sharpening and increasing contrast in post can exaggerate noise/graininess, so if you do have to sharpen things up later, it can make an otherwise smooth-looking exposure look more rough.

Here are some over-sharpened examples that show what I mean -







Am curious whether the examples others have posted look as sharp as you'd like them to be.

If not, you probably are being limited by the sharpness of the lens itself.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Shoot at lower ISO, use 5600K as much as possible, stop down the lenses, put in some midtone contrast or minimal post sharpening.

 

[Brody_B]

I pull focus like I'm diffusing a bomb.

Haha yes! Love that quote.

And Scott, a little bit of sharpening in post goes a long way. Just don't overdo as mentioned above. And your glass isn't super sharp, that would help you a bit there as well. Rent before u buy till u get the right one.

 

[Bill Totolo]

So, what are everyone's favorite sharpening methods?

 

[David Battistella]

So, what are everyone's favorite sharpening methods?

Shot per shot and only on the final pass.

In my experience, you can not "blanket sharpen" by say putting a .02 sharpening on every shot or on an output node. Every shot needs to be treated differently and different focal lengths need more or less sharpening depending also on subject matter. As a rough example, wide angles tend to be sharpened up a bit more than close ups.

Balancing sharpeness shot to shot is something I do as a final pass.

David

 

[Michael Tiemann]

I pull focus like I'm diffusing a bomb.

Lowcon or Promist? Oh, you meant defusing, not diffusing ;-)

 

[Scott Welsch]

Wow guys, thanks so much for the information, I took the advice into consideration for my shoot yesterday and the results are much better. STH mostly at ISO 400.

 

[Stacey Spears]

STH mostly at ISO 400.

I think STD might also produce a sharper image. Or at least that is what some have reported. Shane has a nice write-up with videos on the standard OLPF.