T2i 1080p video sucks. Or I'm doing something wrong.

[fuzzybabybunny]

I'm trying to hammer down some good settings for processing Cinestyle T2i footage in Premiere. I've spent hours messing around with the stock Premiere adjustment tools and I can't get the look I want.


This was shot on a T2i with Cinestyle at its default settings.


Here is a photo of the place, cropped and downsized to 1920x1080 - notice how you can see the texture in the basket on the coffee table, among other things, even though it's only 1920x1080. The scene just looks lively.


http://s3.amazonaws.com/Paragon_Media_Storage/Family-Room--2.jpg


Here's the raw footage - details are completely smeared and almost beyond recognition, but everyone's been telling me to shoot with sharpness set at zero!


http://s3.amazonaws.com/Paragon_Media_Storage/Family Room 1.MOV


This is my pathetic attempt at grading - When I try to grade it I get flickering noise from the blackness of the TV and the sofa chair. And it's still not sharp. I used shadow/highlights, brightness/contrast, 3 color corrector, and unsharp mask (the Cinestyle LUT is WAY to aggressive and outright crushes blacks and highlights. The entire point of Cinestyle is to increase dynamic range, right???)


http://s3.amazonaws.com/Paragon_Media_Storage/Family Room.mp4


Anyone in the know think they can eek out more detail and reduce the noise from the video?

 

[Kanalua]

I see lots of grain in the video (both mp4 and MOV). What ISO was it filmed at?

 

[HendrixFan]

Have you tried the Magic Lantern firmware? Bumping up the bitrate will help detail.

 

[Kanalua]

Have you tried the Magic Lantern firmware? Bumping up the bitrate will help detail.

Yes. Do this.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I don't know much about video, but by its nature, when you "increase the dynamic range" using software, you're essentially also squashing contrast. The other alternative is to compress the middle, applying some sort of funky tone curve (like HDR, etc).

Not being a video guy, that's all I have to say. The contrast is very low in that video, but beyond that, the detail, colour... everything is gone. It's pretty atrocious quality, actually. Looks like SD video, upsampled.

Good luck!!

 

[AkumaX]

Have you tried the Magic Lantern firmware? Bumping up the bitrate will help detail.

will it really? i already think 45,000kbit/s (5.6MB/s) is a little excessive..

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Have you tried the Magic Lantern firmware? Bumping up the bitrate will help detail.

Yes, we've tried Magic Lantern with the bitrate bump. It's more trouble than it's worth since sometimes the recording crashes with the higher bitrate (we're talking even small multiples like 1.2x). The bitrate increase doesn't do much to add detail to the scene.

I'd like to see a T2i 1920x1080 video clip with the same amount of detail as that 1920x1080 photo of the same scene.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

will it really? i already think 45,000kbit/s (5.6MB/s) is a little excessive..

I shoot at 30 frames / s. This would mean that each frame is 5.6MB / 30 = 186 KB

186KB should be plenty quality

This is a photo of the same scene at 1920x1080 compressed down to 184KB

http://s3.amazonaws.com/Paragon_Media_Storage/Family-Room--2-186.jpg

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

I don't know much about video, but by its nature, when you "increase the dynamic range" using software, you're essentially also squashing contrast. The other alternative is to compress the middle, applying some sort of funky tone curve (like HDR, etc).

Not being a video guy, that's all I have to say. The contrast is very low in that video, but beyond that, the detail, colour... everything is gone. It's pretty atrocious quality, actually. Looks like SD video, upsampled.

Good luck!!

I'm more than ok with low contrast coming out of the camera. I just don't want my highlights and shadows to get blown, so the more dynamic range I can have the camera record from the get-go the better.

The lack of sharpness and detail bothers me tremendously. And I'm trying to understand why. Really, at this point the fact that the T2i shoots "1080p" video is a total misnomer. Like you said, it's basically SD-quality footage upsampled to 1080p.

 

[HendrixFan]

The lack of sharpness and detail bothers me tremendously. And I'm trying to understand why. Really, at this point the fact that the T2i shoots "1080p" video is a total misnomer. Like you said, it's basically SD-quality footage upsampled to 1080p.

I've never tried to shoot professional looking video with my t2i, but I have seen some marvelous footage come out of it on vimeo from others. You might wanna browse around there and see what setting people are using in videos that look like they are getting the level of detail you want.

 

[nboy22]

I'm more than ok with low contrast coming out of the camera. I just don't want my highlights and shadows to get blown, so the more dynamic range I can have the camera record from the get-go the better.

The lack of sharpness and detail bothers me tremendously. And I'm trying to understand why. Really, at this point the fact that the T2i shoots "1080p" video is a total misnomer. Like you said, it's basically SD-quality footage upsampled to 1080p.

What lens and f/stop and other details were you using for your video with the t2i? I've heard tips from pro DSLR training (FXPHD and other web videos) that say you should always shoot video as neutral as possible and then color correct in post. Cinestyle just looks like some different way of color correcting to me? You could possibly try to crush the blacks a little bit with a color correction plugin for premiere to push a bit more detail. The same plugin would probably handle something like a Cinestyle color correction.

My video has usually been pretty sharp depending on which lens I use. What matters the most to me is the f/stop. I have lenses that even at f/22 they still have some depth of field, which causes blurriness.

Also I have heard multiple times that prime lenses are way better for getting sharpness out of the camera. As far as I know what you did was take a picture at a really high resolution, and then just compressed it down to 1080p. For this reason the picture will always look better than the camera filming at 1080p.

 

[Throckmorton]

The "shooting flat" thing makes no sense. You're recording with lossy compression, and then losing more data when you adjust color later, and then again when it's compressed again. The closer the colors are to accurate while recording, the less data gets lost when you postprocess.

 

[AkumaX]

I shoot at 30 frames / s. This would mean that each frame is 5.6MB / 30 = 186 KB

186KB should be plenty quality

This is a photo of the same scene at 1920x1080 compressed down to 184KB

http://s3.amazonaws.com/Paragon_Media_Storage/Family-Room--2-186.jpg

Have you taken a look @ Magic Lantern? I think that's something you'd definitely take advantage of.
I believe you can push framerate up to ~70,000kit/s. There's some DR control in there too, i think.. ?

edit: i missed the part where you said you tried ML. what memory card are you using?

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

What lens and f/stop and other details were you using for your video with the t2i? I've heard tips from pro DSLR training (FXPHD and other web videos) that say you should always shoot video as neutral as possible and then color correct in post. Cinestyle just looks like some different way of color correcting to me? You could possibly try to crush the blacks a little bit with a color correction plugin for premiere to push a bit more detail. The same plugin would probably handle something like a Cinestyle color correction.

My video has usually been pretty sharp depending on which lens I use. What matters the most to me is the f/stop. I have lenses that even at f/22 they still have some depth of field, which causes blurriness.

Also I have heard multiple times that prime lenses are way better for getting sharpness out of the camera. As far as I know what you did was take a picture at a really high resolution, and then just compressed it down to 1080p. For this reason the picture will always look better than the camera filming at 1080p.

Both the photo and the video were shot with the same lens, but on different bodies. But even shooting wide open should NOT account for such crappy details in the video.

After reading a bit more about DSLR video I've come to realize that it's in a really sorry state. Unlike with photography where a 2MP photo actually has 2MP's worth of detail, there's this thing called "perceived resolution" in video. That is, the resolution that you actually *see and get*.

The 5D MKII can shoot 1080 px of vertical resolution, sure, but the perceived resolution is actually something much lower, like 700px.

http://vimeo.com/39171656

Whereas something like a $700 Panasonic GH2 records much more resolution in video than the 5D does.

The thing is that resolution only matters for some videos. Movies showing people don't really require all that perceived resolution, whereas videos like those showing forests and things with lots of little details absolutely requires the entire 1920x1080p resolution. Unfortunately those cameras cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Bottom line. Do not get a DSLR thinking that you'll actually *GET* 1920x1080p worth of details. Compared to a 1920x1080 photo it's going to be mush because the cameras simply does not capture 1080p worth of detail.

The "shooting flat" thing makes no sense. You're recording with lossy compression, and then losing more data when you adjust color later, and then again when it's compressed again. The closer the colors are to accurate while recording, the less data gets lost when you postprocess.

You shoot flat for the dynamic range. If you let the camera apply a curve to the video and then have it record to the card you've just allowed the camera to eliminate highlight and shadow detail. Ideally you just want the camera to record exactly what the sensor sees, apply compression to it, and then write it to the card. You do NOT want the camera to record what it sees, apply curves that modify that image data (destroying some details while artificially increasing others) and then compress and record it.

Cinestyle supposedly records just what the sensor pushes out before compression takes place.

Considering this, we can say that:

1. The resolved detail that the sensor pushes out sucks. Far less than actual 1080 resolution. Maybe due to some combination of filters and unavoidable in-camera processing.

2. It's simply not sharp and actual detail is lost forever.

3. Compression just makes this already sorry state even worse.

 

[Railgun]

I wasn't aware initially they were on different bodies. That explains a lot.

Let's see a still from the T2i.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos550d/20

This would suggest what you see may be an issue to your particular body. I was able to get some color and contrast back, but shit in =shit out in is case. The original just isn't good enough to do much with.

How was it set up? Are you sure your focus was ok? I can't see how that camera would produce that, in what looks to be adequate light, unless there was a problem.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

This isn't just a "DSLRs suck at video" problem.

Go look up one of the hollywood movies, or the various professional demos that were shot with DSLRs and compare to yours. They're certainly capable of high quality recording, even if it's *technically* slightly worse than the format may allow.

For example, this is the *very first* DSLR video I ever saw. It was made something like 4.5 years ago on a pre-release 5DMk2. Your camera should stomp this one in quality.

And this link has some pretty heavy compression on it too...

http://vincentlaforet.com/index_reverie.html

 

[Cattykit]

Was it you who asked which camera to get for shooting real estate videos? I recommended GH2 over any others and your problem is why.

Though, I see that you've done your research, let me clarify a few points.

1. As you found out, it's only Panny GH series that delivery 'true' 1080p since a. it does not line-skip b. it does downsample.
Like GH series, Canon Mk3 does not line-skip yet it doesn't downsample so the detail isn't good. However, sharpening in post processing can bring back the 'hidden' detail.

2. Cinestyle. You need to get used to its flatness. In other words, because it's so damn flat, it's hard to get the exposure right. What looks like right exposure is often under-exposure. As in your case, what looks right will fall apart (in terms of noise) when you CC or grade.
Also, you may actually lose DR with Cinestyle due to the way it uses 16-235 range instead of T2i's 0-255 range. It all depends on your shooting scenario and I think your usage type does not really benefit from Cinestyle. I strongly recommend Marvel Cine. While it's quite flat enough (you got right, flat is good and you need it), it's not too much like Cinestyle to the point you'd need lots of trials and errors to get it right. Its color matrix is also very good that you can easily grade it.

3. Sharpness: try 1 instead of 0. Zero will get you more latitude but you'd need to spend much time and effort in PP. Unless you're a master of unsharp masking who is not afraid to suck up the tremendous rendering(thus encoding) time, don't use 0.
1 makes things far easier. 2 works but it's very risky.

4. Don't expect it to do miracles. I see you're trying to come up with a HDR video. It does not work that way.

 

[Cattykit]

In all, yes, you're working with the wrong camera. Even worse, you're also doing it wrong.
At least, you're not dealing with a aliasing/moire/false color hell here though I'm sure you'll face it.

This is not to say Canon DSLRs are bad. What I mean is that they are not suitable for the type of work you do. Canon DSLRs have been the king for certain types of shooting scenarios hence so many films, from indie to blockbusters, have been shot on it. But, shooting real estate video isn't its strength.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

Was it you who asked which camera to get for shooting real estate videos? I recommended GH2 over any others and your problem is why.

Though, I see that you've done your research, let me clarify a few points.

1. As you found out, it's only Panny GH series that delivery 'true' 1080p since a. it does not line-skip b. it does downsample.
Like GH series, Canon Mk3 does not line-skip yet it doesn't downsample so the detail isn't good. However, sharpening in post processing can bring back the 'hidden' detail.

2. Cinestyle. You need to get used to its flatness. In other words, because it's so damn flat, it's hard to get the exposure right. What looks like right exposure is often under-exposure. As in your case, what looks right will fall apart (in terms of noise) when you CC or grade.
Also, you may actually lose DR with Cinestyle due to the way it uses 16-235 range instead of T2i's 0-255 range. It all depends on your shooting scenario and I think your usage type does not really benefit from Cinestyle. I strongly recommend Marvel Cine. While it's quite flat enough (you got right, flat is good and you need it), it's not too much like Cinestyle to the point you'd need lots of trials and errors to get it right. Its color matrix is also very good that you can easily grade it.

3. Sharpness: try 1 instead of 0. Zero will get you more latitude but you'd need to spend much time and effort in PP. Unless you're a master of unsharp masking who is not afraid to suck up the tremendous rendering(thus encoding) time, don't use 0.
1 makes things far easier. 2 works but it's very risky.

4. Don't expect it to do miracles. I see you're trying to come up with a HDR video. It does not work that way.

1. Is the Panny GH the only DSLR with true 1080p? I would really like at least a APS-C sensor. I just lose too much DOF and high ISO performance with a sensor that small. Especially when shooting interiors, dynamic range and ISO are so, so important. We often have to shoot at a minimum of ISO800 and sometimes go up to ISO1600 while still trying to preserve details that can be seen outside of the windows, like a sliding door it the family room that leads out to a view of a backyard. It would completely fail if we weren't able to see out the door because it's blown out.

2. Yeah, I don't think Cinestyle doesn't work for me. Like you said, there a TON of noise and the LUT that they give absolutely seems to crush any kind of dynamic range that I had to begin with. More dramatic, sure, but not for real estate. We're not necessarily looking for a dramatic house. At least I'm not. I want something that's crisp and has details everywhere from the brightest areas to the darkest areas. If I wanted to create that dramatic look I'd just process it differently.

I'm going to try Marvel or Prolost or Cinema Picture Style.

Or I'm just going to throw away the T2i. I simply can't stand how it doesn't resolve the detail I want. But there are no other alternatives in the APS-C or even FF camp, huh?

My preferred photography style has always been crisp, full of detail, and with incredible dynamic range. Not as dramatic sometimes, but more real.

3. I'll give it a shot. But I don't think sharpness 1 will be able to bring out detail that was never recorded to begin with.

4. This is the finished product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqjhQEa0HDs

Best that I could do.

 

[SecurityTheatre]

I'll say it again... I have seen a few examples of DSLR 1080p video that appear (At least to my eye) so much better than what your first example demonstrated.

This isn't a slight on you. What I'm saying is that, generally, I've seen pretty decent contrast resolution and pretty remarkable dynamic range.

I see neither of those in your sample. I can't help but suggest that it's either a processing problem, a settings problem, or a problem with your camera itself.

It strikes me there's maybe something missing beyond "throw away the HDSLRs because they're all junk".

The Youtube video has much nicer treatment and really masks some of the detail issues, though, good work on that.

 

[Railgun]

4. This is the finished product:

Best that I could do.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. For what the scope is, and what its target is, it's more than fine.

 

[Cattykit]

1. Is the Panny GH the only DSLR with true 1080p? I would really like at least a APS-C sensor. I just lose too much DOF and high ISO performance with a sensor that small. Especially when shooting interiors, dynamic range and ISO are so, so important. We often have to shoot at a minimum of ISO800 and sometimes go up to ISO1600 while still trying to preserve details that can be seen outside of the windows, like a sliding door it the family room that leads out to a view of a backyard. It would completely fail if we weren't able to see out the door because it's blown out.

2. Yeah, I don't think Cinestyle doesn't work for me. Like you said, there a TON of noise and the LUT that they give absolutely seems to crush any kind of dynamic range that I had to begin with. More dramatic, sure, but not for real estate. We're not necessarily looking for a dramatic house. At least I'm not. I want something that's crisp and has details everywhere from the brightest areas to the darkest areas. If I wanted to create that dramatic look I'd just process it differently.

I'm going to try Marvel or Prolost or Cinema Picture Style.

Or I'm just going to throw away the T2i. I simply can't stand how it doesn't resolve the detail I want. But there are no other alternatives in the APS-C or even FF camp, huh?

My preferred photography style has always been crisp, full of detail, and with incredible dynamic range. Not as dramatic sometimes, but more real.

3. I'll give it a shot. But I don't think sharpness 1 will be able to bring out detail that was never recorded to begin with.

4. This is the finished product:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqjhQEa0HDs

Best that I could do.

1. Yes, GH2 is currently the only camera that can render 1080p level of detail. Others' 1080p is more like 720p. However, as I've stated before, 5dmk3 and D800 does provide more detail than 720p though less than 1080p.

You're using T2i which has a crop factor of 1.6x. On GH2, it's 1.86x which means the difference is very minimal. You do not lose "too much DOF" and high ISO performance should be about the same. In fact, GH2 might even have better high ISO performance since it does pixel binning plus downsampling rather than line-skipping.

Based on what you've said, your best bet would be 5dmk3. It's moire/aliasing/false color free like GH2, does not fall apart when sharpening is applied in post. It also provides much superior high ISO performance over any cameras.

2. Yes, Cinestyle is a beast that's hard to tame: stiff learning curve. Try Marvel Cine.
BTW, if its LUT crushes your footage, it only means your footage is heavily underexposed. If it brings out lots of shadow noise, it means it's underexposed. It takes some time to get used to the flatness of it.

Avoid Cinema Picture Style if you intend to grade since it gives you no headroom at all.

3. You'd be surprised. 0 and 1 does make noticeable difference. Some even prefer 2 and it works though dangerous (possible moire/aliasing/false color hell.) In my case, I, too, use 2 only if I'm damn sure I'm shooting something safe (no sharp edges, fine pattern...etc.)

My advice:
1. Don't throw away T2i, yet. Since you already have it, why not make best out of it? Look up films shot on T2i on Vimeo. People have been making top notch very high quality films with it. It's certainly capable of doing what you want it to do.

Take a look at this video. https://vimeo.com/5410762
It's shot with 5d mk2 but beside DOF and noise performance differences, they're pretty much the same.

2. Fuck it and go with 5d mk3. Without post production hassle and time spent, it provides what you ask for out of the box. It's video low light performance is much much better than all the others. Even better, it's FF so you get all the DOF you want. (However, I don't see why you'd need DOF for real estate video production.)

3. GH2 or GH3. GH2 gives you the best detail and enough DOF. It's darn cheap and light. Great 2nd body if you don't intend to sell Nikon gears.

If I were you, if I needed a camera for doing professional photo and video work, I'd go with 5dmk3 since it offers the best of both worlds.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgQE_celpt8

Check out @ 2:25

On another note, the D800 resolves a tab more detail than the 5DMK3 but it has absolutely atrocious noise at higher ISOs.

 

[fuzzybabybunny]

My advice:
1. Don't throw away T2i, yet. Since you already have it, why not make best out of it? Look up films shot on T2i on Vimeo. People have been making top notch very high quality films with it. It's certainly capable of doing what you want it to do.

Take a look at this video. https://vimeo.com/5410762
It's shot with 5d mk2 but beside DOF and noise performance differences, they're pretty much the same.

2. Fuck it and go with 5d mk3. Without post production hassle and time spent, it provides what you ask for out of the box. It's video low light performance is much much better than all the others. Even better, it's FF so you get all the DOF you want. (However, I don't see why you'd need DOF for real estate video production.)

3. GH2 or GH3. GH2 gives you the best detail and enough DOF. It's darn cheap and light. Great 2nd body if you don't intend to sell Nikon gears.

If I were you, if I needed a camera for doing professional photo and video work, I'd go with 5dmk3 since it offers the best of both worlds.

I think I'm going to end up just throwing away the T2i and getting the GH2 or GH3, both for personal and for business. I'd need to get an ~8mm lens for real estate or at least a Nikon to 4/3 adapter so I can reuse my 10-24mm Nikon on the GH2.

I just enjoy that real life look better. I want to see all the detail. I want it to flow at 60fps. Movies to me when watched in the movie theatre are downright choppy and blurry to me. Not a fan of the 24fps, film, "cinema" look. We have better technology nowadays. We should be using it.

Also, the thought of going on a once in a lifetime trip and taking all that time to shoot video and not being able to capture all the detail in that rare moment just bugs the hell out of me.

What is Panasonic doing differently from Nikon or Canon to be able to resolve more detail?

 

[Kaido]

I think I'm going to end up just throwing away the T2i and getting the GH2 or GH3, both for personal and for business. I'd need to get an ~8mm lens for real estate or at least a Nikon to 4/3 adapter so I can reuse my 10-24mm Nikon on the GH2.

I just enjoy that real life look better. I want to see all the detail. I want it to flow at 60fps. Movies to me when watched in the movie theatre are downright choppy and blurry to me. Not a fan of the 24fps, film, "cinema" look. We have better technology nowadays. We should be using it.

Also, the thought of going on a once in a lifetime trip and taking all that time to shoot video and not being able to capture all the detail in that rare moment just bugs the hell out of me.

What is Panasonic doing differently from Nikon or Canon to be able to resolve more detail?

72-Mbps bitrate:

http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/17/panasonic-gh3-mirrorless-camera-gets-official-16-05mp-wi/

Sample footage:

http://vimeo.com/49420579

The truth of the matter is, you're not going to get photo-quality from film clips. You're compressing anywhere from 24 to 60 frames per second into a compressed motion picture file. Even the 5K RED Epic camera doesn't look super hot with stills, although they're good enough to be used on magazine covers. But with some color correction and when viewed on a TV instead of a computer, as video is meant to be seen (think of all the TV processing stuff that goes on in your set), it can look pretty decent. I get great results with my T2i for short films. Heck, I get great results with my iPhone! But if you're not happy with the T2i, keep an eye on the GH3 - that will probably be your best bet on an affordable budget.