WHY is image "SHARP" when shot, & SOFT in post ??

[Greg Blakey]

Sometimes i find footage looking soft because of a few things. Sample image size ie 1/8 vs full. Or at the prores side of the equation it can be often the debayer settings look under the options tab and use one of the options that gives sharper as aposed to smoother. I have found this gives much sharper prores files. Also a crazy question but what red code are you shooting at?

[David Wyatt]

Even if you're watching your footage at only 1/8th or 1/4 resolution in Premiere (depending on your settings and your hardware capabilities) your paused resolution is usually "Full" resolution so you should be able or see whether your image is truly sharp - if you control click on the viewer window it should bring up all the options for playing & paused resolution. Also I suppose if you export your footage and it's still looking significantly soft then your problem might lie else where (export full quality, high debayer etc) like lens collimation, back focus etc. As others have noted you generally want to add a bit of post sharpening to taste too...

[David Mullen ASC]

I think some people are confusing judging sharpness versus judging focus in an EVF -- you should be able to judge focus in an EVF, but if you are testing lens resolution and sharpness, you aren't just going to look in the EVF and think that's enough, you are going to record something and look at 4K frames on a computer, if not even enlarge those for a closer look.

[Johnny Friday]

As David said......shoot something, look at it in RCX at full rez and 100% image size--NOT "fit to screen size"....as below, you see an image as fit to screen, then blown up to 100%, and then 200% ---where i judge if the image is in focus and sharp to be able to blow up and use as a second "zoomed in" shot. when shooting a wide lens. Don't kill me for the contrast shparness of these---they were shot on Red 1 M sensor and with the RED 18-50 lens which mine was not a great lens.

IMAGE at "FIT To SCREEN:
[IMG] RED 18-50 PL by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]


100% Blown up:
[IMG] 100PrcntCrop by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

200% Blown Up:
[IMG] 200PrcntCrop by RedCineUnderwater, on Flickr[/IMG]

[Mike P.]

Holy hell, Johnny Friday; those images make me think my back focus is off... I thought the 18-50 was supposed to be soft (hence the need for the 17-50...)

[Yousuf Abbasi]

I love the 'highlight edges' function in my RED camera for gauging sharpness, that and the magnify function, make it pretty much easy to nail focus if you practice enough.

[Johnny Friday]

Holy hell, Johnny Friday; those images make me think my back focus is off... I thought the 18-50 was supposed to be soft (hence the need for the 17-50...)

Believe me there are sharper 18-50 lenses than the one i USED to have...and you notice it when you blow it up next to say an Arri 8r or some other just really good lens that allows for more contrast and just a sharper image. BUT, that said, nothing wrong with it for television purposes and i shot most of...or nearly all of Jellyfish Lake for Nat Geo's great migrations on that lens.

[Blair S. Paulsen]

The RED 18-50 gets a lot of negative comments. FWIW there is little doubt the 18-50 has poor mechanical performance compared to a proper cine lens (reasonable for the price though) but it holds its own in terms of sharpness (for a zoom) at most focal lengths.

If you have $21K for a short zoom and want state of the art performance I strongly suggest the Angie 16-42 Rouge DP zoom. Spectacular lens in pretty much every measure, the mechanics are sooo nice - but 3.5 times more expensive than the original RED 18-50. The RED 17-50 is an even better alternative for the budget constrained due to the improved mechanics and overall design vs the 18-50. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

[Glen Powell]

The RED 18-50 gets a lot of negative comments. FWIW there is little doubt the 18-50 has poor mechanical performance compared to a proper cine lens (reasonable for the price though) but it holds its own in terms of sharpness (for a zoom) at most focal lengths.

If you have $21K for a short zoom and want state of the art performance I strongly suggest the Angie 16-42 Rouge DP zoom. Spectacular lens in pretty much every measure, the mechanics are sooo nice - but 3.5 times more expensive than the original RED 18-50. The RED 17-50 is an even better alternative for the budget constrained due to the improved mechanics and overall design vs the 18-50. YMMV.

Cheers - #19

Owning the 18-50 I would have to agree with you… but most just find it easier to "pile on" with negative comments, they've probably never held / used the lens and form an opinion based on third hand knowledge that they read on the inter webs.

[Johnny Friday]

Like so many things in life and ESPECIALLY film/video technical stuff: i find there are the users and then the techno-nerds....the users just use shit and if it works great and if it doesn't they move on...then the techno-nerds will tell us everything about how something is useless and not up to standards (and in some cases they are right), but i'm a user and don't care for much other than my results....i find that so many technical blurbs can just be useless and i'm often told why my images don't work because if i use this lens or that lens or even a particular setup on my underwater housing...but I rarely listen and have little time for technical tests....all i need to do is go out in the field and use it and test under working conditions....and results be what they are.....but yes, 18-50 was/is a great lens for the price and some better than others...is it as good as Arri 8r or Angi 16-42 ? Technically no....but on HD tv broadcast...hell yes. Blown up to 42' screen? I'd prefer any of the latter.

EDIT: and I DO LOve the techno-nerds....was not meant to be negative to anyone in that group....i make a lot of choices based on some blurbs... but do so with care and evaluation in the field. Some blurbers better than others...