Help! My Raw video are bad quality

[raichu93]

Hey all,

So I just got a 5D mk 2 and installed ML on it... The results have been super disappointing. I pull the raw files from the camera, use cinema2dng as required, and put the DNGs into After Effects. However they're not sharp at all. It looks like the H.264 quality or maybe worse, and even my Panasonic GH2 unhacked is sharper. Basically it looks NOTHING like what I saw in these videos:

I got the latest build, tried it, was disappointed, and got the newest nightly build, and got no better results. Would you happen to know what's going on? Thanks!

I was shooting at the highest resolution allowed (1897x792 or something), ISO 1250, 1/45, at T2 with the Rokinon 24mm Cine Lens. Used raw2dng to convert into DNGs, and the DNGs didn't look good...

[vertigopix]

Can you post a video ?

[dmilligan]

However they're not sharp at all.

Did you focus the lens? Did you record in a low resolution? Are you using a low resolution preview in AE? Open a single dng frame in photoshop and post it here.

[raichu93]

Thanks for the replies. Unfortunately I won't be able to for another 10 hours or so, but I will. I'm not sure as to why that would help though. Let's just say it doesn't look good. Even when I pull the raw DNGs from the camera into Lightroom, they look unsharp.

FWIW, I've been manually focusing, and nailing the focus, so it can't be that.

Is there anything that has to be done other than load the raw_rec module, choose your resolution, and shoot?

I will upload a screen cap soon, I'm at work right now, please bear with me...

[Africashot]

I'm not sure as to why that would help though. Let's just say it doesn't look good. Even when I pull the raw DNGs from the camera into Lightroom, they look unsharp.

Posting a DNG will be the only way to identify whats wrong, 5D2 raw doesn't lack sharpness all by itself, if focus and resolution where correct there has to be another variable and the only way to find out is to look at the DNGs... also other information like the lens/aperture, shutterspeed, ISO will be helpful, just saying it doesn't look good won't get you very far!

[maxotics]

FWIW, I've been manually focusing, and nailing the focus, so it can't be that.

Is there anything that has to be done other than load the raw_rec module, choose your resolution, and shoot?

Let's go back to the basics.  You realize that RAW video is just that, RAW.  More detail does not equal more sharpness, just like when you look at an image in the Wall Street Journal up close and all you see are dots (not sharp), but further back, the image seems sharp.  If you apply a sharpener to your image I wager you'll have that AH-HA moment.

You want to understand DNG (non debayered imagess) and how many settings can influence how they look to you.  Natively, they look like green puke.

Sharpness is a function of contrast.  The RAW images are as close to 0 contrast as the camera can get.  Another thing to keep in mind.

Once you pass this hurdle you'll be tortured by a bigger problem, when is it too sharp?

I'm amazed at how much I've learned about digital photography in the past 3 months working with Video RAW.  I suggest that too, that you realize what you're really doing is taking 24 RAW images a second and to understand RAW from a photographer's point of view.  It all applies.  You're not in Kansas anymore

[raichu93]

Thanks for the reply. Actually I come from a photography background so I'm very very familiar with RAW and how it works, with bit-depth and all, the whole shebang. Hearing that the 5D could do Raw VIDEO is what sold me on it.

This is actually why I don't understand why my video files look like they do. I get everything about sharpness being about contrast, so I think I used the wrong word, I didn't mean to say that my files are "unsharp", but rather that details are mush and unclear. Not pixelated, just smudgy.

Let's go back to the basics.  You realize that RAW video is just that, RAW.  More detail does not equal more sharpness, just like when you look at an image in the Wall Street Journal up close and all you see are dots (not sharp), but further back, the image seems sharp.  If you apply a sharpener to your image I wager you'll have that AH-HA moment.

You want to understand DNG (non debayered imagess) and how many settings can influence how they look to you.  Natively, they look like green puke.

Sharpness is a function of contrast.  The RAW images are as close to 0 contrast as the camera can get.  Another thing to keep in mind.

Once you pass this hurdle you'll be tortured by a bigger problem, when is it too sharp?

I'm amazed at how much I've learned about digital photography in the past 3 months working with Video RAW.  I suggest that too, that you realize what you're really doing is taking 24 RAW images a second and to understand RAW from a photographer's point of view.  It all applies.  You're not in Kansas anymore

[maxotics]

This is actually why I don't understand why my video files look like they do. I get everything about sharpness being about contrast, so I think I used the wrong word, I didn't mean to say that my files are "unsharp", but rather that details are mush and unclear. Not pixelated, just smudgy.

I need help in this too   Though I feel I know the answer, just can't handle the truth   Here are two images I took with my EOS-M.  I think they represent the difference between RAW and H.264 for all cameras.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8825.msg82956#msg82956

RAW gives us what we want, pixel level image data.  Unfortunately, it is very noisy (keep in mind, each pixel is reading under a different color filter).  H.264 does so much chroma smoothing is appears like we're getting noise-less (not "smudgy") video.  This is especially true in any shots not lit well for low ISO.

The truth I don't want to handle (hopefully others will chime in here) is that you need to do a lot of work to RAW to get an image with just the right amount of color fidelity and smoothing.  Right now, I live with a lot of noise.  When I start to think about going back to H.264, I just compare some footage.  Sometimes H.264 is perfect.  But when shadows, and color are important, I'll live with the noise.

Will be curious your ultimate conclusions.

[mrnv45]

just found this workflow.

[Kharak]

I get sharp video and lovely grainy noise with my 5D2.

You are new to the RAW phenomenon and doing something wrong.

And post your settings.

[raichu93]

just found this workflow.

I use PC, but thanks anyway!

[raichu93]

Can you post a video ?

Here are some screens for comparison:

My 5DmkII, ISO 1250, 1/45, Rokinon 24mm T1.5 at T2


my GH2, ISO 1250, 1/50, same lens


My GH2 is destroying the 5D RAW right now...

[raichu93]

I get sharp video and lovely grainy noise with my 5D2.

You are new to the RAW phenomenon and doing something wrong.

And post your settings.

Here are some screens for comparison:

My 5DmkII, ISO 1250, 1/45, Rokinon 24mm T1.5 at T2


my GH2, ISO 1250, 1/50, same lens


My GH2 is destroying the 5D RAW right now...

[raichu93]

I need help in this too   Though I feel I know the answer, just can't handle the truth   Here are two images I took with my EOS-M.  I think they represent the difference between RAW and H.264 for all cameras.

http://www.magiclantern.fm/forum/index.php?topic=8825.msg82956#msg82956

RAW gives us what we want, pixel level image data.  Unfortunately, it is very noisy (keep in mind, each pixel is reading under a different color filter).  H.264 does so much chroma smoothing is appears like we're getting noise-less (not "smudgy") video.  This is especially true in any shots not lit well for low ISO.

The truth I don't want to handle (hopefully others will chime in here) is that you need to do a lot of work to RAW to get an image with just the right amount of color fidelity and smoothing.  Right now, I live with a lot of noise.  When I start to think about going back to H.264, I just compare some footage.  Sometimes H.264 is perfect.  But when shadows, and color are important, I'll live with the noise.

Will be curious your ultimate conclusions.

For what it's worth, here are some screens for comparison:

My 5DmkII, ISO 1250, 1/45, Rokinon 24mm T1.5 at T2


my GH2, ISO 1250, 1/50, same lens


My GH2 is destroying the 5D RAW right now...

[raichu93]

Did you focus the lens? Did you record in a low resolution? Are you using a low resolution preview in AE? Open a single dng frame in photoshop and post it here.

highest res possible (1872x792 I think), native res in AE. Focus was spot on, I zoomed in to confirm.
Here are some screens for comparison:

My 5DmkII, ISO 1250, 1/45, Rokinon 24mm T1.5 at T2


my GH2, ISO 1250, 1/50, same lens


My GH2 is destroying the 5D RAW right now...

[5D3shooter]

First of all, the GH2 screenshot is really noisy and flat as opposed to the smooth and vibrant shot of your 5D.  Are you using noise reduction/sharpening in adobe Camera RAW?  Because if you are.. that's your problem.  That works good for still images, but not video.  Use NEATVIDEO plugin for noise reduction and sharpen in your video editor with plugins made to sharpen video.

Also, you don't need to reply the same post to everyone LOL.. we're here for you, don't worry!

[mrnv45]

plus your comparing the 5d2 to the 5d3...

[raichu93]

First of all, the GH2 screenshot is really noisy and flat as opposed to the smooth and vibrant shot of your 5D.  Are you using noise reduction/sharpening in adobe Camera RAW?  Because if you are.. that's your problem.  That works good for still images, but not video.  Use NEATVIDEO plugin for noise reduction and sharpen in your video editor with plugins made to sharpen video.

Also, you don't need to reply the same post to everyone LOL.. we're here for you, don't worry!

The GH2 is set on the flattest picture style, so it's intentionally like that. In sharpness though it's wiping the floor with the 5D raw...

No noise reduction was done at all, that's the DNG file right there, converted straight to jpeg... I feel like all the sample raw videos I've seen on the web have looked much better.

[dmilligan]

The only thing in focus in your shot is quite dark which means the SNR is low, and it appears you are in quite a poorly lit space. Noise and resolution go hand in hand. Increased noise effectively decreases resolution.

Go somewhere with some light and find a better subject! Use a smaller aperture so we can rule out focus/lens issues and so that you have more of the shot in focus, use a large well lit subject (you have a tiny dark object for comparison and that's it). Also try and make your subject the same apparent size on each camera, the crop factor makes it hard to compare.

RAW is not all about improved resolution either, it's about color fidelity and increased dynamic range (also reduction of H264 artifacts like blocking, which you wont see on a static scene). There are tradeoffs, it's not a magic bullet, and you really have to know what you are doing to make the most of it. For starters you're using a digital ISO, which is pointless on RAW, in fact ML actually just ignores digital ISOs and only uses the analog ones. Also make sure you ETTR for the best noise performance.

[raichu93]

The only thing in focus in your shot is quite dark which means the SNR is low, and it appears you are in quite a poorly lit space. Noise and resolution go hand in hand. Increased noise effectively decreases resolution.

Go somewhere with some light and find a better subject! Use a smaller aperture so we can rule out focus/lens issues and so that you have more of the shot in focus, use a large well lit subject (you have a tiny dark object for comparison and that's it). Also try and make your subject the same apparent size on each camera, the crop factor makes it hard to compare.

RAW is not all about improved resolution either, it's about color fidelity and increased dynamic range (also reduction of H264 artifacts like blocking, which you wont see on a static scene). There are tradeoffs, it's not a magic bullet, and you really have to know what you are doing to make the most of it. For starters you're using a digital ISO, which is pointless on RAW, in fact ML actually just ignores digital ISOs and only uses the analog ones. Also make sure you ETTR for the best noise performance.

so why did the GH2 outperform it so much if they were both in poor environments?

Also this part about the ISOs, so it doesn't matter to use the "good" ISOs when shooting raw?

[dmilligan]

so why did the GH2 outperform it so much if they were both in poor environments?

Did it? I can't really tell, that's what I'm saying.

[maxotics]

so why did the GH2 outperform it so much if they were both in poor environments?

Some people love the video that comes out of the GH2 and other H.264 cameras.  God bless 'em!  If you believe that GH2 video is better, then you're be crazy to spend the time and effort that RAW requires.  I don't get the feeling you want what RAW has to offer.  Again, that not a crime and you should use the cameras that give you what you like! 

I guess what I'm saying is don't waste our time and yours.  RAW is NOT an end in itself.  It is just the MEANS.  If there is some place you want to get to, that you believe RAW might have a solution, tell us what that is, and as the others said, we're here for you.  But when you say "why did the GH2 outperform" you're leading a jury that is not going to take kindly to any dis-ingenuousness

[1%]

Then why is the GH2 grainy shit video? Crop factor is huge too.... lololo do an "auto tone" on both. I copied both frames to full size and the GH2 has waaay more crap in the shadows, just zoom in. The flat GH2 profile in essence lifted the exposure already. 5DII grab doesn't even have adjusted WB.

Also for 5DII max iso is 1600 and you're either there or at 800 depending on the intermediate iso counting up or down to actual analog.

If we were looking at 5DII h264 then GH2 would win but this, naaaaah

[LucaBrasi]

You really need to treat the 4:4:4 with the respect it deserves. 4:2:0 H.264 is by no means a bad format used under the right conditions and knowing its limitations.

In this case, I'm sorry but with your statement about gh2 kicking raw arse just implies you don't actually understand the potential of raw data and how to utilise it.

[hwy29]

Hi Raichu93,

I just started using RAW video on my 5D2 and sort of felt the way you did at first. You really need to light your scene as if you were shooting something for a client like an interview with a person on screen. Shoot in both RAW and H264 and then look at the difference of the two formats coming from the 5d2. That's what I did to see the difference in quality and wow you do see it!

However, h264 is by no means an ugly format and if things are well lit it looks freaking awesome too and is way more practical for lots of different situations , especially when you need to shoot a lot of footage and don't have 1000TB of space to save your RAW files. If you want the highest possibly quality from the 5D2 then RAW is the way to go.

Also, I've found that sharpness and the look of the RAW DNGs are influenced by how you adjust the parameters in PS. You can adjust then to be super soft or super sharp, have tons of dynamic range or crunch them to be contrasty as hell. RAW puts the look of the video in your hands, just like digital RAW still image files.