5D3 capture sharpening routines

  • Thread starter Thread starter xthebillx
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
X

xthebillx

Guest
#1
Hi everybody,

I've been using my 5D3 exclusively and extensively for the past month and a half. While I have noticed that it is a touch softer than the 5D2, it is correctable. I've found a startingpoint (for lower ISO) for capture sharpening in LR4.1 RC2 to be
amt: 40 / radius: 1.0 / detail: 40 / masking: as needed. If images make it to Photoshop, then I'll use any one of a number of sharpening methods, but I'm more concerned with capture sharpening; or sharpening to offset the effects of the AA filter.

I'm shooting primarily with 17-40L, 24Lii, 50L at f/5.6 and wider.

What are other people's findings or approaches?
 
#4
scalesusa said:
I use the same settings as my 5D MK II.

How did you measure the sharpness?
Click to expand...

I usually don't make files crispy if I'm sending them to Photoshop for more work. I've found that leads to artifacting from over-sharpening. With the mkii, I used LR sharpening very sparingly as that sensor is a bit sharper than the mkiii.
What I'm looking to learn is what folks are doing to correct the softer images out of the mkiii.

This is not at all intended to be a thread about whining about this or that, but a productive dialog about folks are working through this.
 
Upvote 0
#5
I have a preset with no Sharpening in LR at all. If I like the shot I do RAW pre-sharpening in NIK. I find this style very natural. Even with 150% images do not look oversharpened and I can limit the sharpening only to the important parts of the picture, thus limiting noise.
I tried the LR RC2 sharpening tools and find they make similar results (a lot better than Aperture's which I left behind finally last week) but if I overdo them then the Zeiss lenses start looking childishly misprocessed. Very easy to sharpen less important RAWs as a batch.

DPP sharpness tool makes (not the sharpening one) makes similar results to my eyes as the NIK Raw-Pre-sharpener. Probably similar processing at pixel level?
 
Upvote 0
#6
I still find sharpening varies immensely from image to image....

In the early days I would prefer to compared the opened RAW image to the jpg from the camera and then make a judgement on what the correct extra sharpness should be... and yes this is very time consuming.

I normally shoot RAW + S fine jpg

If the sharpening is sort of the same amount throughout then maybe there is a constant sharpening number to be applied but I've yet to find a setting. Ill try the setting the OP mentioned and see how I go.
 
Upvote 0
#7
wshinji said:
I still find sharpening varies immensely from image to image....

In the early days I would prefer to compared the opened RAW image to the jpg from the camera and then make a judgement on what the correct extra sharpness should be... and yes this is very time consuming.

I normally shoot RAW + S fine jpg

If the sharpening is sort of the same amount throughout then maybe there is a constant sharpening number to be applied but I've yet to find a setting. Ill try the setting the OP mentioned and see how I go.
Click to expand...

I like this approach wshinji. It makes sense that Canon would bake-in a certain degree of sharpening in captured jpegs to offset the affect of the AA filter. I'll certainly try it out.

As I think about the intent of this post, I'm looking to learn if anyone has established a baseline for sharpening to bring the RAW image up to a reasonable amount of sharpness. As I said, I've been using a 40/1.0/40/x recipe to start for lower ISO images. Obviously, higher ISOs will require closer attention.
 
Upvote 0
#8
I wonder if the video theory applies to stills... The Canon rep Chuck Westfall in an interview confirmed that video was softer SOOC as people have noted... However, he said that is on purpose as it accepts sharpening very well and in the end, pulls out more detail then if it was sharper SOOC.

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012

So I wonder if stills are the same? The sharpening is roughly the same IMO as the 5D II, I may use a tad more though by default (48, 0.9, 45, 5) are my settings now, versus (45,0.9, 45, 5) with the 5D2. Not much change really. But honestly, I feel the 5D3 images have a bit more detail, but that may be because the AF system locks on perfectly basically every single time... The tiniest front/back focus can really affect the sharpness of the image. The 5D3 is extremely consistent compared to the 5D2.

Maybe Canon is doing slightly less sharper images at the sensor level in order to gain more detail once sharpening is applied either by the camera or via LR, PS, DPP, etc... Not sure, it may just apply to video. In that case, who knows! ;D
 
Upvote 0
#9
So what is the point in spending big $$$ of glass when the body underperforms (IQ) or sharpness-wise? Use photoshop or other tools to post sharp the images? Does this not defeat the whole idea of upgrading the body? I am confused? What are we supposed to celebrate or be hyped about?

Being $3500 poorer?
 
Upvote 0
#13
stevenrrmanir said:
So what is the point in spending big $$$ of glass when the body underperforms (IQ) or sharpness-wise? Use photoshop or other tools to post sharp the images? Does this not defeat the whole idea of upgrading the body? I am confused? What are we supposed to celebrate or be hyped about?

Being $3500 poorer?
Click to expand...

If the level of performance via sharpening that can be obtained differs between cameras then it seems like a potential benefit to me.

In terms of video espeically I'm guessing that the 5D mk3 is going to be easier to sharpen in post than the D800 is going to be to remove moire and noise at mid ISO levels.
 
Upvote 0
#14
stevenrrmanir said:
So what is the point in spending big $$$ of glass when the body underperforms (IQ) or sharpness-wise? Use photoshop or other tools to post sharp the images? Does this not defeat the whole idea of upgrading the body? I am confused? What are we supposed to celebrate or be hyped about?

Being $3500 poorer?
Click to expand...


APPLAUD!!

Looks like the stills guys got stuck with softer images and hours PP'ing so that Canon could claim they have improved the Moire for the video guys... Why not give us a 5d3 E version and make both camps happier?
 
Upvote 0
#15
...aaaaand as expected, this thread has descended into griping and/or derision by the troll population.

I've been getting consistently good results (far more consistently than with the mkii) but the softness is something we have to learn to work through. Rather than spend time and effort b*tching about this or that; why not collectively work toward getting the best possible results? More hands make for lighter work, right? I was really hoping to have a positive, constructive dialogue about how various people are (successfully) dealing with this particular characteristic. It's understandable that some people are underwhelmed by Canon's latest offering, and you've all made your points known. I'd prefer, if possible, that this thread be kept to constructive discourse.

If you don't have anything to contribute, please find somewhere else to air out your grievances. There are countless other threads that you can visit to spray your vitriol.

As an aside, I recall the first time I saw RAW footage out of the RED. It looked horrible; soft (heroically soft, in fact) and flat and noisy. But after post-production, it was quite stunning. Bottom line, this "issue" isn't unsolvable. We've got plenty of tools with which we can work through pretty much anything.
Jeff Schewe does a pretty good job explaining sharpening here: http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf.
 
Upvote 0
#16
xthebillx said:
I've been getting consistently good results (far more consistently than with the mkii) but the softness is something we have to learn to work through...
Click to expand...
Below are samples from both cameras converted to JPEG using DPP. So where is the softness you were talking about?

Viggo said:
DPP2.jpg
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
#18
Invertalon said:
I wonder if the video theory applies to stills... The Canon rep Chuck Westfall in an interview confirmed that video was softer SOOC as people have noted... However, he said that is on purpose as it accepts sharpening very well and in the end, pulls out more detail then if it was sharper SOOC.

Canon's Chuck Westfall speaks with planet5D at NAB 2012

So I wonder if stills are the same? The sharpening is roughly the same IMO as the 5D II, I may use a tad more though by default (48, 0.9, 45, 5) are my settings now, versus (45,0.9, 45, 5) with the 5D2. Not much change really. But honestly, I feel the 5D3 images have a bit more detail, but that may be because the AF system locks on perfectly basically every single time... The tiniest front/back focus can really affect the sharpness of the image. The 5D3 is extremely consistent compared to the 5D2.

Maybe Canon is doing slightly less sharper images at the sensor level in order to gain more detail once sharpening is applied either by the camera or via LR, PS, DPP, etc... Not sure, it may just apply to video. In that case, who knows! ;D
Click to expand...
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu