Video enhancement comparison
Video enhancement comparison
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?
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 (59.79 KiB) Viewed 2225 times
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
- Location: South Carolina low country
- Contact:
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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.
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
-
- Posts: 1167
- Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2020 1:51 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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
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
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Thanks for the feedback.
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.
I agree.LouiseScot wrote: ↑Sun Jul 03, 2022 10:47 pmThe 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 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.
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
- Location: South Carolina low country
- Contact:
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Consideration when publishing involves intent, e.g.:
(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.
- artistic: mood or impression
- commercial: attraction or persuasion
- utility: identification, education
(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
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Thanks you.blekenbleu wrote: ↑Mon Jul 04, 2022 7:23 pmConsideration when publishing involves intent, e.g.:
- artistic: mood or impression
- commercial: attraction or persuasion
Supposing that those various splotches and spots within the body have significance
- utility: identification, education
(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.
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.
- blekenbleu
- Posts: 301
- Joined: Tue Feb 25, 2020 5:55 pm
- Location: South Carolina low country
- Contact:
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Thanks for your input!blekenbleu wrote: ↑Tue Jul 05, 2022 12:57 pmIMO, 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
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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...
-
- Posts: 399
- Joined: Mon May 16, 2022 3:44 pm
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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.
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 pmI 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 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!
Re: Video enhancement comparison
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.
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Thanks for the feeback, I'm glad it helped.
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.Sure Squintsalot wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 10:27 pmThis 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.
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 pmI 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 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!
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Yet another comparison, I love how this one turned out with a less agressive edition. Burasaria Truncatella @ 100 x, dark field.
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Sorry, missed this one. Interesting analogy with audio, the amount of processing that audio gets in music is overwhelming.imkap wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 pmI 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...
Re: Video enhancement comparison
Audio does get too much editing these days, it seems nobody makes mistakes anymore 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...Javier wrote: ↑Thu Jul 07, 2022 10:01 pmSorry, missed this one. Interesting analogy with audio, the amount of processing that audio gets in music is overwhelming.imkap wrote: ↑Wed Jul 06, 2022 9:48 pmI 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...