This is my second short mountain bike film that i have made with the T2i, and it's the second time that i feel like the footage looks weird.
Here's a link to the video
Kyle Warner Promo PINNED! on Vimeo
Most of the shots in the trees just look terrible, I don't know what it is, but they just look funky, and kinda fuzzy and weird, even though they were shot in 1080p (besides the slomo shots). And it's not something that I am doing wrong in post, because the original files look very similar to the rendered files. I mean just look at the shot starting at :40, It looks likes something that came out of my 5 year old entry level mini dv camera. The bushes and dirt look noisy or something, Is this just the Moire everyone talks about? I just don't know what I am doing wrong. And as a whole, the footage doesn't have that super crisp look like most footage shot by dslr's. I posted about my last video looking weird, and un-dslr like, and people suggested to get more shallow dof shots, but regardless of dof, the footage looks bad. Most dslr footage I've seen, even with shots that don't have shallow dof, look crisper and clearer. There is a few shots in this video that look decent I think, but it still isn't up to par of footage from even the average dslr videographer. I don't know how to describe how this footage looks or whats wrong with it, but take a look and tell me what you think
Thanks a lot!

Hi Michael,

What editing app are you using? Is the footage transcoded first?

One thing I noticed is that the footage is way too contrasty. What picture proflile are you using? Tryin shooting in Neutral with the contrast right down and the sharpness and saturation down a bit. You can always add these back in in post, and shooting flat will give you more room for adjustment later on.

It also looks like you had bright sun and wood environments have a lot of ultra-dark shadows.
It is a recipe for high contrast even if you didn't miss-configure the camera. You might try
to film at a different time of day when the sun is coming in at an angle to light up some
of those harsh shadows. Probably a good idea to just take some regular stills in an area
a week or two before and see what it takes to get the exposure you want.

A directory of photography and a truck full of lighting gear would not hurt either.

One thing I noticed is that the footage is way too contrasty. What picture proflile are you using? Tryin shooting in Neutral with the contrast right down and the sharpness and saturation down a bit. You can always add these back in in post, and shooting flat will give you more room for adjustment later on.
John do you mean sharpness all the way down and contrast and saturation down a bit? As neutral the sharpness is all the way down at default? Steve

I am using Vegas Pro 10, and I am not transcoding first, I believe the in-camera picture profile was set to neutral, as I usually shoot with neutral, but I am not 100% sure. Another thing i noticed was that when i drop the clip into the vegas timeline, it noticeably adds contrast to it, I don't know why.

I am using Vegas Pro 10, and I am not transcoding first, I believe the in-camera picture profile was set to neutral, as I usually shoot with neutral, but I am not 100% sure. Another thing i noticed was that when i drop the clip into the vegas timeline, it noticeably adds contrast to it, I don't know why.

I would be grateful if someone could correct me if I'm wrong, but this is how I understand the problem.

The Canon clips are 0-255 or computer RGB, whereas some codecs expect studio RGB, or 16-235, and discard values outside this range, which will result in clipped highlights and shadows. It looks like you have a lot of crushed blacks and blown highlights there.

The levels plug-in in Vegas remaps your gamma, and has a Computer RGB -> Studio RGB preset. Might be worth a try.

On a related note, have you considered shooting with the Cinestyle PP and editing with transcoded 10 bit 4:2:2 footage?

I find Cinestyle keeps my options open for fixing issues such as these. Upsampling your footage with a transcode won't add anything to the image, but it will mean less quality loss through processing.

Many people recommend Neoscene, but I use Matrox I-frame because it's free.

I have thought about shooting with cinestyle, and as far as transcoding goes, I really don't feel like doing it lol
I just find it so much easier to be able to drag stuff straight from my camera and start editing

Ok, so i tried the levels plug-in and it really seemed to give the footage back some normality, but it looks to flat. What's the best way to add some more pop to it? Curves? Brightness and contrast? add saturation? also, do you think this problem is nle related? I have access to premiere pro cs5, I just always thought vegas was easier, should I make the switch?

vegas 10 adds contrast right away for whatever reason ,see if you can get vegas 7 ,it does not have that problem
,also in vegas10 adding contrast is the best way to get rid of the washed out look

Micheal,
This was a very difficult environment to shoot in. Alot of the shots have wild exposure ranges from very dark shadows to very bright blown highlights. I agree that it's the environment that you're fighting. Hopefully you're not in auto, and can expose for the subject and not let the camera decide, but this is a VERY challenging environment for the best of cameramen with the best of equipment. Great to hear Rage on the soundtrack though...

If you want to use the MOV files without transcoding in Vegas, there is a trick.

Background: Vegas uses Quicktime for decoding MOVs. The older version of QT would clip. More recent versions don't clip, but they screw up the gamma. Maybe this has changed with Vegas 10. I'm not sure.

Back in the day, one could open the MOV in QT Pro and export it as an AVI. It would re-wrap the file without slow transcoding. It's fast for the computer, but it took a lot of clicks if you had a lot of clips to re-wrap.

That would retain the original 0-255 mapping. You could re-map to 16-235 if you'd like using a Vegas Levels effect.

Personally, I prefer Cineform. On a fast computer, it's faster than real-time. It maps to 64 - 940 (10-bits) and can batch process. Editing is faster with Cineform.

If you shoot long-form stuff where you do little editing, then it makes sense to avoid transcoding. You will have many minutes per clip and few clips, so re-wrapping (if it's even needed anymore) isn't bad. For lots of little clips and heavy editing, Cineform makes a ton of sense.

I shot a 90-minute presentation recently. We ran a cheap AVCHD camcorder wide and I shot tight with the 5D and a 200mm lens. The AVCHD cam was next to the mixing board, so it recorded the audio without gaps. The only edits were to sync up the cams and to cut to the wide cam at the start, the end, and in the gaps. Add titles and we're done.

I ended up transcoding anyway, because I had to wait for the AVCHD content. If time were tighter, it would have been the perfect project for no-transcode.

It was a corner-case project for me though. Almost all my stuff is done with shorter clips and more intensive editing.

I was in manual exposure, I was trying to adjust exposure to the rider, but as you said, it was hard in that environment.

I transcoded when I first bought the camera because I was using vegas 9 which didn't handle the native footage good, but when I upgraded to vegas 10, I stopped transcoding because it handled native footage much better. I might consider transcoding again though as I am not usually constrained by time, and most of my work is edit-intensive.

Besides the obvious color problems, the footage doesn't have that crisp look like most dslr footage, any clue as to why that is? I tried using the sharpness plug-in in vegas, but that made it look absolutely terrible, even at the lowest setting.

You're right, it's not sharp, and your camera can do better. It's hard to say why. I see a lot of compression noise, and it appears you have quite a shallow depth of field at some points. It's not aliasing or moire you're seeing, the footage is not sharp enough to resolve that :(

Could you tell us more details of the shoot;

- Shutter speed
- Lens
- Aperture
- Filters
- Compression settings
- Anything else you can think of

Ok I'll see if I can recall all my settings, I was using fairly standard settings i believe
Shutter Speed-Probably 1/50 for 24fps footage and 1/125 or a little bit higher for 60fps footage
Lens- Kit lens and 50mm 1.8
Aperture-Ranged from 2.8 to 5.6 or higher
Filters-Uv filter and nd filter on some shots
Compression settings- I am not sure what you are referring too here

Michael, are you shooting auto ISO? Also, I think your aperture is way open for this type of movement. It would be very difficult to keep these guys in focus. If you push the ISO a bit and drop your aperture to f/8 or so, then you should find your sharpness improve. This is not a great environment for a DSLR anyway with all of the complex movement. Focus is a BEAST!
Bill

Ya I understand that, I was trying to get that shallow dof with bigger apertures to get that film look. But regardless of aperture, even when stuff is in focus, it just doesn't look crisp or clean really

Ok I'll see if I can recall all my settings, I was using fairly standard settings i believe
Shutter Speed-Probably 1/50 for 24fps footage and 1/125 or a little bit higher for 60fps footage
Lens- Kit lens and 50mm 1.8
Aperture-Ranged from 2.8 to 5.6 or higher
Filters-Uv filter and nd filter on some shots
Compression settings- I am not sure what you are referring too here

I was referring to the final render. Bitrate, codec, etc. Not entirely relevant because you state that the original footage is bad too.

Ya I understand that, I was trying to get that shallow dof with bigger apertures to get that film look. But regardless of aperture, even when stuff is in focus, it just doesn't look crisp or clean really

I think Bill's right, it is going to be impossible to keep such fast moving subjects in focus with such wide apertures. Remember, at f/2.8 your DOF on a 50mm at 10 feet will be about a foot, and even at f/5.6 it will only be 2 and a half feet.

I was guessing you used an ND when I mentioned that your DOF looked shallow. The sharpness loss from ND's can be dramatic. You lose a bit of tonal range too. What one are you using?

Remember also to be very cognizant of the time of day you're shooting in. Especially if you're doing a promo. If you had more angular light, you would've been able to control the exposure and focus a little better. I just watched it back again, and your major issue for me is overall exposure. Higher ISO will help you stop down and get more in focus, but in general the exposure is way too low on the subject. I think that's your major issue.
Bill

I was using a b+w nd filter, I think, but i am not sure

I used one of the internet 1080p presets providing in vegas 10, it exports it as an mp4 file, thats about all i know about it, I am a little unsure about my render settings

Ya I think the exposure is a big problem, I usually try to look at the cameras light meter and go a little bit below that because i feel that the cameras meter over exposes it a little, but maybe i need to trust it more\

And Bill, when you mean angular light, you just mean go early in the morning or later in the afternoon right?

Yes, sorry. Right. Late afternoon or early morning. Then you don't get the direct swatches of bright sunlight against dark shadows. This can make or break a shot regardless of camera or operator. And don't trust the meter, trust your eyes. The meter sees those bright patches and tends to force underexposure. You need to blow away those brights in favor of the shadows. Again, love the Rage.
Bill

Ha thanks, Rage is good, but I've found that the lcd on the camera seems to make things brighter than they actually are. To me, It looks good on the lcd, but then when i get home at put it on the computer, it looks much darker

Looking at this footage and past footage I have taken, they all look very blurry and not sharp at all, even though when i know something is in perfect focus, it doesn't make any sense. 1920x1080 footage on my 1920x1080 laptop screen looks awful, it looks like it's beeing blown up to fit the screen, when i know it's not. No matter what my aperture or even my iso settings are(even though i know i never go above 400), it shouldn't look this bad i don't think. Can anyone help me out? is it possible my camera is a lemon?

Michael,
I regularly shoot at 2500ISO and have no issue.Do a search for mechanical ISOs 160, 320, 640, 1250, and 2500 and push your ISO in leiu of a open aperture. Oh wait you can't do that on the t2i can you? Can somebody verify that? If you can shoot in that situation even at 640 or 1250 with an f/8 you're probably going to get sharper footage. Again, conditions are king. You will struggle in that condition no matter your camera or setting. You are also not using the best lenses. That 50 1.8 can be sharp but the kit lens is junky junky. That may not be your problem, but certainly limits your flexibility.
Bill

Well, I am going to go do some testing and see what i can find, hopefully I can get the footage looking good, I'll get back to you guys with my results?

check out this clip that came straight from the camera, no editing or rendering. No matter what settings I use, It shouldn't look like this i feel
Why does this look so bad? on Vimeo

For this shot, you want to stop down - or open up - the lens more. The trees in the background are just a bit out of focus while there is no subject in the frame. Edit so the entire clip includes the rider. Track the rider with your focus. If you want everything in focus, stop down to f/11 or more - but still track the rider. If you want shallow DOF, go with f/1.8 on the 50mm lens - and use ND filters in order to manage your shutter speed. Of course, pulling focus with that much motion and with shallow DOF will be tough. Don't try this without a follow focus.

I'm guessing that this was shot with the stock zoom lens. This looks like low quality glass.

You can also improve things with grading - increase the contrast, saturation (especially green), and increase the sharpness in post.

Also, track the rider with the tripod. It continues to pan left after he turns to exit the right side of the frame. You want your editing and motion to draw the viewer's eyes to the rider. A higher end tripod would probably also help you achieve smoother movement.

Why does this look so bad pt II on Vimeo
heres another clip stopped down to f/11 with a Tamron 28-75 which is a decent lens
still looks fuzzy and weird to me

Are you sure that you have critical focus? The focus looks best on the distant objects, after you have panned to the left. Of course, the chair is blurred, since it is much closer than the fence.

You can get critical focus by zooming in by x5 or x10 and focusing.

Also, is there a reason that you are shooting 720p60? Normally, this is used for slow motion. Try shooting 1080p24 or 1080p30. If you are viewing this full screen on a high res monitor, it will look blurry. It's not too bad at 1:1.

I shoot neutral with contrast and sharpness all the way down. And I always apply curves and sharpening in post.

And try shooting with your prime lens. Your Tamron zoom is not likely to be as sharp as the 50/1.8 prime.

The focus was on the plant's, and I did zoom in and got it as sharp as I could.

I know shooting in 1920x1080 24 or 30 would yield sharper footage, but I am just showing what my 720p footage looks like because i feel like it should be sharper

And i just sold my 50mm 1.8 because I didn't think i would ever use it if i had a fast zoom lens like the tamron, but i'm already regretting selling it lol

16-235 is NTSC color space with setup. digital video has no setup, therefore its RGB 0 = 0IRE, and RGB 235 = 100 IRE.

the canon codec compresses the camera's output. the camera will output whites to 110 IRE on its V out, but the codec will compress the top end down to 100 IRE.

for all the scope'd tests 60D Dynamic Range : Part 4 (http://steveoakley.net/template_permalink.asp?id=180)

And i just sold my 50mm 1.8 because I didn't think i would ever use it if i had a fast zoom lens like the tamron, but i'm already regretting selling it lol

You might keep an eye out for an older, used Canon 50/1.8. The metal body ones are inexpensive and have better focus rings for video. And they are quite sharp, competing in sharpness with lenses that cost five times as much.

So, why are they so cheap? Because they're small, "only" f/1.8, and Canon made a gazillion of them. :)

The look of your shots reminds me a bit of the Canon EF 70-300/4-5.6 IS that I first bought for the 5D2. On wildlife stills, the fur looked ugly with a lack of sharpness, yet a "crunchiness" that just didn't make sense. I think it was a micro-contrast issue with the different colors shifted slightly. I replaced it with an EF 200/2.8L and the shots from this lens blew me away on day one. You could cut edges with a knife.

My 5D2 doesn't do 720p. It would be interesting to do some 720p shooting with a nice prime. At NAB, Vincent Laforet recommended shooting at 720 for most web delivery. He felt that it made critical focusing less critical.

From what I've read about the tamron, it's supposed to be super sharp, and from the pictures I've taken, it looks to be sharp, so I don't think it's a lens issue

And about those metal 50mm 1.8's, are those one of those older lenses that you need an adapter for? Because the only 50mm 1.8 I usually see on ebay is the same model i've had

The older EF 50/1.8s don't need an adapter.

It might not be a lens issue, if your photos are sharp. In fact, it would be interesting to snap a photo of your next test, color grade it as you would like your video to look, and then try to get your video to match it.

How do I find these older 50mm? Do I just search ebay for 50mm 1.8 and look for metal ones?

You can tell the difference by looking at the lens or its photo. Here is a comparison...

Canon EF 50/1.8 Review - Bob Atkins Photography (http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/50.html)