Video enhancement comparison

Here you can post pictures and videos to show others.
Post Reply
Message
Author
Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Video enhancement comparison

#1 Post by Javier » Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm

I find many times that the videos I take fail to show the vivid colors and sharpness I see through the eyepiece. I believe this is true for everyone, but especially for those of us who are using very basic equipment. Because of this, learning some basic video edition skills seems important to recover some of the beauty we see through the eyepiece.

I made a basic comparison of the same excerpt of a longer Holophrya Teres footage. The first part shows the rough video and the second part shows the enhanced-to-me video, using a simple Davinci Resolve routine. I chose this one because the specimen was beautiful but the original video was particularly low in color saturation.

I'm also attaching an image showing the modified parameters on Davinci Resolve.

I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. Do you edit your videos? How? Do you think the enhanced video looks unnatural? Do you think this is only an issue related to the low quality equipment used?

Attachments
Davinci Resolve rutine.jpg
Davinci Resolve rutine.jpg (59.79 KiB) Viewed 2090 times

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#2 Post by blekenbleu » Sun Jul 03, 2022 4:44 pm

Video capture often involves so-called color grading,
where original scenes are recorded using some approximately logarithmic tone compression
for increased dynamic range and color gamut. Along with other edits,
that original data is massaged for intent-appropriate rendering.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

LouiseScot
Posts: 1167
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#3 Post by LouiseScot » Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:47 pm

The unenhanced one looks more 'natural' to me but the enhanced one is prettier! Which, though, was closer to what you could see with your eyes?

Louise
A Nikon CF plan 20x; A Swift 380T; A DIY infinity corrected focus rail system with a 40x/0.65 Olympus Plan, a 10x/0.30 Amscope Plan Fluor, and a 20x/0.75 Nikon Plan Apo

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#4 Post by Javier » Mon Jul 04, 2022 6:55 pm

Thanks for the feedback.
LouiseScot wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:47 pm
The unenhanced one looks more 'natural' to me but the enhanced one is prettier! Which, though, was closer to what you could see with your eyes?

Louise
I agree.

I recall seeing vivid color under dark field, nothing like the first one, but not as saturated as the second one. Maybe a compromise between the two images would be something interesting.

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#5 Post by blekenbleu » Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:23 pm

Consideration when publishing involves intent, e.g.:
  • artistic: mood or impression
  • commercial: attraction or persuasion
  • utility: identification, education
Supposing that those various splotches and spots within the body have significance
(not a biologist, genuinely don't know) then what some call digital staining
may add e.g. educational or diagnostic value.

For example, you will have seen color-coded maps
where some colors employed are difficult to match or distinguish.
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#6 Post by Javier » Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:44 pm

blekenbleu wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:23 pm
Consideration when publishing involves intent, e.g.:
  • artistic: mood or impression
  • commercial: attraction or persuasion
  • utility: identification, education
Supposing that those various splotches and spots within the body have significance
(not a biologist, genuinely don't know) then what some call digital staining
may add e.g. educational or diagnostic value.

For example, you will have seen color-coded maps
where some colors employed are difficult to match or distinguish.
Thanks you.

I should have said at the beginning of this thread that I'm doing this for fun. I do not have any artistic, commercial or professional intent with this activity. Yet, I'm still trying to reflect what I see through the eyepiece, so some digital staining seems to be necessary.

User avatar
blekenbleu
Posts: 300
Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
Location: South Carolina low country
Contact:

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#7 Post by blekenbleu » Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:57 pm

Javier wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:44 pm
reflect what I see through the eyepiece
IMO, that would be a utility (e.g. identification) rendering intent.
https://www.booksmartstudio.com/color_t ... dered.html
When viewing thru an ocular, one's field of view is effectively filled by the scene.
It is generally accepted that, rendered for reduced field of view,
increased contrast and saturation better approximate original appearance.
https://www.color.org/IPA_2004-11.pdf
Metaphot, Optiphot 1, 66; AO 10, 120, EPIStar, Cycloptic

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#8 Post by Javier » Wed Jul 06, 2022 12:01 am

blekenbleu wrote:
Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:57 pm
Javier wrote:
Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:44 pm
reflect what I see through the eyepiece
IMO, that would be a utility (e.g. identification) rendering intent.
https://www.booksmartstudio.com/color_t ... dered.html
When viewing thru an ocular, one's field of view is effectively filled by the scene.
It is generally accepted that, rendered for reduced field of view,
increased contrast and saturation better approximate original appearance.
https://www.color.org/IPA_2004-11.pdf
Thanks for your input!

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#9 Post by imkap » Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 pm

I think that enhancement /editing is just a part of the whole process, especially now in digital times, although it was done before but not as available to amateurs. You just cannot get everything right while recording. Due to many reasons, one might be the camera screen or viewfinder. Same with video, audio or photography...

Sure Squintsalot
Posts: 393
Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#10 Post by Sure Squintsalot » Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:27 pm

Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I find many times that the videos I take fail to show the vivid colors and sharpness I see through the eyepiece. I believe this is true for everyone, but especially for those of us who are using very basic equipment.
This is true even when using excellent equipment. Let me explain: when taking important technical images, landscape photos, wedding video, or even Hollywood movie roll, the job of the camera is to collect as much usable visual information as possible. This is even true of the Hubble Space Telescope. However, the images tend to look like utter crap. My RAW images too look nothing like what I saw. This is why post processing was invented. Whether in the darkroom or on your desktop using Resolve or Photoshop, as long as you don't "add" anything that wasn't there originally, it's all good. Even technical publications allow this, as long as you add qualifiers stating as much. Post processing "PP" is critical to modern imaging.
Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I made a basic comparison of the same excerpt of a longer Holophrya Teres footage. The first part shows the rough video and the second part shows the enhanced-to-me video, using a simple Davinci Resolve routine. I chose this one because the specimen was beautiful but the original video was particularly low in color saturation.
DaVinci Resolve is excellent for this. I use it often for editing GoPro video and can't wait to sink my teeth into getting microbug videos! You could also easily tease out some hidden details too, with the sharpening plugin.
Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. Do you edit your videos? How? Do you think the enhanced video looks unnatural? Do you think this is only an issue related to the low quality equipment used?
I edit everything that comes out of a camera. And consider it integral to the medium. Frankly, I never understood those claiming that digital post processing somehow adds "lies" to the original. Someone notify NASA!

Sansub2
Posts: 101
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:34 pm

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#11 Post by Sansub2 » Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:27 pm

I liked the edited video. If edited video brings more details, more power to it. This is one of the to-do item in my list. Thanks for posting the video. I am going to try it this weekend.

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#12 Post by Javier » Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:38 pm

Sansub2 wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:27 pm
I liked the edited video. If edited video brings more details, more power to it. This is one of the to-do item in my list. Thanks for posting the video. I am going to try it this weekend.
Thanks for the feeback, I'm glad it helped.
Sure Squintsalot wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:27 pm
Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I find many times that the videos I take fail to show the vivid colors and sharpness I see through the eyepiece. I believe this is true for everyone, but especially for those of us who are using very basic equipment.
This is true even when using excellent equipment. Let me explain: when taking important technical images, landscape photos, wedding video, or even Hollywood movie roll, the job of the camera is to collect as much usable visual information as possible. This is even true of the Hubble Space Telescope. However, the images tend to look like utter crap. My RAW images too look nothing like what I saw. This is why post processing was invented. Whether in the darkroom or on your desktop using Resolve or Photoshop, as long as you don't "add" anything that wasn't there originally, it's all good. Even technical publications allow this, as long as you add qualifiers stating as much. Post processing "PP" is critical to modern imaging.
Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I made a basic comparison of the same excerpt of a longer Holophrya Teres footage. The first part shows the rough video and the second part shows the enhanced-to-me video, using a simple Davinci Resolve routine. I chose this one because the specimen was beautiful but the original video was particularly low in color saturation.
DaVinci Resolve is excellent for this. I use it often for editing GoPro video and can't wait to sink my teeth into getting microbug videos! You could also easily tease out some hidden details too, with the sharpening plugin.
Javier wrote:
Sun Jul 03, 2022 3:10 pm
I would like to hear your opinion on this issue. Do you edit your videos? How? Do you think the enhanced video looks unnatural? Do you think this is only an issue related to the low quality equipment used?
I edit everything that comes out of a camera. And consider it integral to the medium. Frankly, I never understood those claiming that digital post processing somehow adds "lies" to the original. Someone notify NASA!
Thanks, this was interesting. Do you use a sharpening plug in? The parameter Mid/Detail that I used (that someone else on this forum recommended) seems to work well on that aspect.

Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#13 Post by Javier » Thu Jul 07, 2022 7:54 pm

Yet another comparison, I love how this one turned out with a less agressive edition. Burasaria Truncatella @ 100 x, dark field.


Javier
Posts: 806
Joined: Tue May 09, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#14 Post by Javier » Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:01 pm

imkap wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 pm
I think that enhancement /editing is just a part of the whole process, especially now in digital times, although it was done before but not as available to amateurs. You just cannot get everything right while recording. Due to many reasons, one might be the camera screen or viewfinder. Same with video, audio or photography...
Sorry, missed this one. Interesting analogy with audio, the amount of processing that audio gets in music is overwhelming.

User avatar
imkap
Posts: 750
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2021 9:44 pm

Re: Video enhancement comparison

#15 Post by imkap » Fri Jul 08, 2022 1:43 pm

Javier wrote:
Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:01 pm
imkap wrote:
Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 pm
I think that enhancement /editing is just a part of the whole process, especially now in digital times, although it was done before but not as available to amateurs. You just cannot get everything right while recording. Due to many reasons, one might be the camera screen or viewfinder. Same with video, audio or photography...
Sorry, missed this one. Interesting analogy with audio, the amount of processing that audio gets in music is overwhelming.
Audio does get too much editing these days, it seems nobody makes mistakes anymore :D even the slightest ones. But in the cleanest and purest of records still there was some eq done, same here I'd say. Although various effects can be done digitally, so it is always ok if one is creative...

Post Reply