Using Chroma Blur and Sharpening

JasonATL wrote on 5/16/2012, 10:09 PM
Below is a link to a video I made that shows a trick I stumbled onto (that everyone else probably knows already - but, hey, it was new to me!). I recently was fortunate to get (okay, my wife got, but I get to use) a Canon 5D Mark III. This shoots really fine video (in the hands of someone who knows how to shoot fine video), but it really benefits from applying the Sharpen fx in post.

Problem is, whenever there was a red or orange object in the shot, the preview in Vegas looked awful, with artifacts at the border of the red and any other color. Sharpening (even set at zero) worsened the artifact so badly that I just wouldn't use any sharpening when there was something red in the picture... until I discovered Chroma Blur. Applying a little chroma blur (H=0.500 and V=0.500 pixels) appears to fix it and not have any other ill effects that I can see.

So, I thought I'd make the below video to share this trick with others. Funny thing is, I render it out to a DNxHD intermediate to prep for encoding in Handbrake and then do the Handbrake encode. The .mp4 file from handbrake shows almost zero evidence of the artifact I saw on the timeline (on the shots not "fixed" with chroma blur). The wise folks here probably understand the technical explanation for why this is, but my pedestrian guess is that the encoding somehow smooths out this ugliness. I verified, by the way, that the DNxHD .mov shows the artifacts clearly.

Anyway, now I'm not even sure if I'll bother with the chroma blur trick, now that it appears that the resulting encoded file (at web bit rates, anyway) will look okay. Perhaps if I'm creating a Blu-ray disc at high bit rates I'll bother.

Has anyone else noticed this?

https://vimeo.com/42314148

Comments

farss wrote on 5/17/2012, 5:35 AM
Interesting finding, I think what you've said in the comments on Vimeo is correct and in line with comments from the pros. It's hard to see the difference between the various chroma subsampling schemes until you start to tweak the footage.

Bob.
Laurence wrote on 5/17/2012, 5:45 PM
You know, I couldn't see it at all and this sort of bugged me because I like to think as a "video professional" that I am able to see this sort of thing. Anyway, I downloaded the original 1080p file and there it was. I could see the artifacts clearly in the original. Good luck with anyone trying to see them on Vimeo though. Wow, that is a great tip! Thanks. Yeah, reds drive me a little bit nuts with the DSLR.
JasonATL wrote on 5/18/2012, 3:35 PM
Laurence - Yes, it is very difficult to see if you watch on Vimeo. The only part that it is even possible to see is on the 200% zoom. Better to download and watch. However, even there it isn't as obvious as it is on my full screen preview in Vegas Pro. The 200% zoom screen shot (linked below) shows it better, even though this isn't at full resolution either.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/68011159@N08/7213140034/sizes/h/in/photostream/
Red Prince wrote on 5/19/2012, 9:09 AM
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing.

He who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know.
                    — Lao Tze in Tao Te Ching

Can you imagine the silence if everyone only said what he knows?
                    — Karel Čapek (The guy who gave us the word “robot” in R.U.R.)

JasonATL wrote on 5/21/2012, 6:56 AM
Here's the 1080p version on YouTube. You can see the effect better at 1080p, even with YouTube's compression.