Anyone using filtration?

[George Odell]

I have read elsewhere and would seem to agree the image from the LS300 is almost too sharp. More TV sharp than cinema look.

Wondering if anyone else has found this and what filters you might be using?

[Duncan Craig]

Shooting in Log is suitable soft, or you could reduce detail in camera or in post.
I've got a 4x4 black mist filter but I can't be bothered with matte boxes etc. anymore.

[Lee Powell]

In Rec 709 gamma mode, you can not only set the Sharpening control to -10, you can turn it off completely. You will get a very soft image that needs significant sharpening in post. If you shoot in J-Log1 gamma mode, the Sharpening control is turned off and cannot be enabled. (Bad move JVC!) It will likewise need to be sharpened in post.

[Charles Papert]

My favorite filter for overall softening without adding halation to highlights is the Tiffen Black Diffusion FX.

[Jay P. Kaley]

Originally Posted by Lee Powell

If you shoot in J-Log1 gamma mode, the Sharpening control is turned off and cannot be enabled. (Bad move JVC!) It will likewise need to be sharpened in post.

You mean if I'm shooting in J-Log I should be sharpening in post beyond using LUTS or grading? Does using the Leeming LUT affect sharpening?

[Lee Powell]

No, the Leeming LUT just converts J-Log1 footage into Rec 709 color space. The LUT-loading utility you use to apply the Leeming LUT has no sharpening capabilities, you'll need to apply something like an Unsharp Mask filter after loading the LUT. Another option is Neat Video, which can apply sharpening after its noise reduction.

[Jay P. Kaley]

Just to be clear, would you say the majority of people who use log or J-log also use a sharpening tool/mask on top it, or is it just a preference thing?

[Lee Powell]

If you don't sharpen J-Log1 footage in post, you are settling for a degraded image that is lacking in sharpness. The LS300 uses sophisticated respampling algorithms to implement seamless VSM scaling of the Super 35 sensor and convert its RGBG Bayer array into H.264 YCrCb color components. These algorithms have inherent low-pass filter properties that degrade the sharpness of the original image.

To restore this lost sharpness, all modern cameras use built-in sharpness filters. On the LS300, the sharpness filter ("Detail") can be adjusted over a range of -10 to +10 or turned off completely, but only in ITU709 or Cinema Gamma modes. In J-Log1 mode, the sharpness filter is turned permanently OFF, which was a critical blunder on JVC's part. Sharpness filtering has absolutely nothing to do with the properties of the selected gamma curve, and JVC should have enabled the Detail setting to work independently of Gamma mode, as they did with the White Balance control.

Consequently, all J-Log1 footage requires conversion from LOG gamma to Rec 709 color space, and needs a sharpening filter applied in post to compensate for the lack of an in-camera sharpening filter.

[Jay P. Kaley]

Thanks a lot I had no idea, that's kind of a bummer they make you add another step in post, it's kind of odd George is talking about the image being too sharp but it needs sharpening from J-Log. I never liked messing with sharpness settings too much it seems can look weird fast if not careful.

Can you suggest a sharpening filter to use, or is it something already in FCP X? It can be one setting over the entire timeline?

I appreciate the info, and not too hijack this thread, Lee Powell I got the Leeming LUT and have a question for you in my semi-current LUTS thread if you have a minute, thank you.

[Duncan Craig]

I don't use any sharpening myself:

YouTube (Short URL)

Shot on a jib, filming what I could, when I could.
JVC log with Luster Grade 'Epic' preset.

[George Odell]

Originally Posted by Jay P. Kaley

...it's kind of odd George is talking about the image being too sharp but it needs sharpening from J-Log. I never liked messing with sharpness settings too much it seems can look weird fast if not careful.

From my reading about this camera... which I am only borrowing and do not own... some users/owners feel it has a more newsy/video look than a movie/cine look. Due, mostly, to the apparent sharpness of the image. Even in my Betacam days, where the SD image was no where as detailed as what even these low cost HD cameras can produce, it was acceptable and in many cases expected we were doing something to "take the edge off" the image.

So, I loaded up on all the various "soft FX" filters like most of my peers. In the end, I found the most pleasing result was achieved by using a sheer black stocking behind the lens. It did make the interview subjects look better in most cases. Some shooters claimed certain high-end hosiery worked better than the run of the mill brands. All part of the game back then. HD has been a boon to the make-up folks. Most all stations have someone on (contract) call to make their on-camera talent look their best. Not much escapes HD, let alone UHD.

I have not attempted that with this camera. Not sure if it will be affected by the sensor, but still worth a try to see what the affect will be.

BTW: I have found that reducing detail in the camera (called coring) or using a filter in post usually gives a different end result than doing it with the optics. Professional "soft fx/mist" type filters alter some parts of the image, but not necessarily all and not all in the same way.

[Lee Powell]

Originally Posted by Jay P. Kaley

Can you suggest a sharpening filter to use, or is it something already in FCP X? It can be one setting over the entire timeline?.

Most video editors provide an Unsharp Mask sharpening filter. With LS300 4K J-Log1 footage, I typically adjust it to 75-100% with a radius of 1-1.5 pixels, zero threshold. It's rarely necessary to vary sharpness, unless you want to create a specific effect.

[Lee Powell]

Here's an example of J-Log1 image sharpening using a frame from Duncan Craig's video above. This was downloaded from YouTube at 720p, so it's not as sharp as the original video footage. It shows comparative results of After Effects Unsharp Mask, in this case 75% with a 1.0 radius.

Original unedited frame:


Unsharp Mask filter:

[Duncan Craig]

Hmm. Perhaps ripping the YouTube recompressed 720p image isn't the best example.
IMO it's sharpening the background too much and is drawing my eye away from the subject.

If you want a newsy look then sharpening is a sure fire way to achieve it, and shoot interlaced too!

[Lee Powell]

Agreed, sharpness is always an esthetic judgment call, highly dependent on the subject matter. I picked this example to show how the details of the mechanical apparatus could be highlighted with a subtle increase in sharpness. While the original footage would've had more fidelity, it's often important to optimize the compressed YouTube version as well.

Interlace, however, is these days only good for making your footage look like it was shot back in the 80's-90's.