Can't this become a sticky?

Can't this become a sticky?

It already is.

As a memento for those disappointed with the EX1 out-of-the-box look, I am posting two grabs of the scenery that those of you who followed my last year's V1E measurebating may remember:

- the left one is completely unoptimized, PP off, bad WB (ATW on), no ND requiring the auto iris to go up to 16, thus inducing bad diffraction softening

- the right one is using Bill's PP2, with ND on and manual iris at 5.6 or so

Good job, Bill!

PS: I thought I own this update to you guys; even without a PP, engaging ND filter to allow the iris go down to 5.6 made my first setup look a little better, thanks to getting rid of diffraction softening (you need to see it in full res to appreciate it). Also, the picture with Bill's PP2 looks even more vivid, thanks to some change in lighting (later into the day, the sun lower). Comments welcome!

What I dont get is why Sony would set the cameras colour balance wrong? Unless there is a reason?

Mark, I guess it's not "wrong" - it's just that ATW is slow, so unless you have plenty of time for it do adopt (or set the WB manually using the white/gray cards), you'll be much better off by using the right presets...

PS: by "the right presets" I don't mean just the on of the PP currently in use, but also those assigned to the "Memory A / Memory B" of your WB hardware switch.

I always either use a colour meter or a white balance to a card first!

Using Bills settings I get a true look. In fact the best of all profiles I have seen. However when colour correcting in post. First using colorista to further white balance if neccesary. Then color finesse in HSL mode I can get a really nice effect with the cameras own color balance. The thought crossed my mind I wonder if the camera is set this way for Colour grading. Probably not.

ok i'm a little confused...
I'm using a mac
So I should download the .suf file from chris..
If so how do I do that, when I try it wants to save as a php file.
Then what o I do with it and how do I put this into the camera...

Piotr. I just realised how my original post reads! I shouldnt have said colour balance. "Although that describes it correctly" .But the standard colour settings of the camera. Because you have to balance them to get right!

Piotr. I just realised how my original post reads! I shouldnt have said colour balance. "Although that describes it correctly" .But the standard colour settings of the camera. Because you have to balance them to get right!

Yes Mark, I think I did get you right - and hope you got me right as well (sorry, English is not my native language).

Piotr. I meant Bills settings. The colours here

Matrix ...............on
Select................hisat
Level..................0
Phase.................-5
R-G...................75
R-B...................0
G-R...................-18
G-B...................-32
B-R...................-27
B-G...................13

Yes, I like Bills last profile TC2.

This seems to work good in bright light.

Bill, how do you feel about having possibly three of these profiles.
bright, moderate, and low light?

They all would remain on CINE1, but I imagine all that would need to be changed is the gamma and black levels for each profile.

Steve...

Makes sense to me. As I said earlier in this thread, I dropped the CINE1 gamma levels from 0 to -40 to get the middle gray values at 50% IRE on the WFM. The STD3 profile was much closer. I had to drop the LEVELS to -15 to get middle gray at 50%. I was set at a fixed f/4.0 and 1/60 sec exposure for my tests. Knowing that, if one stays with the CINE1 preset, my recommendation is that you experiment with different GAMMA LEVELS, varying between 0 and -40, depending on what suits you for varying light conditions.

The other CINE presets were quite surprising at how MUCH they stretched the blacks and compressed the hi-lights. Having seen that, I doubt I'll use them much.

Isn't black stretching and compressing whites to avoid blow-out and to give a flat low contrast film look middle what most users are after?

Isn't black stretching and compressing whites to avoid blow-out and to give a flat low contrast film look middle what most users are after?

I'm thinking the same...

Isn't black stretching and compressing whites to avoid blow-out and to give a flat low contrast film look middle what most users are after?

Yes it is; however, in low-light situations (or with dull scenery) you would want it the other way around: compress blacks so that noise in the shadow is minimized, and elevate the knee point (stretch highs) to get as much brighness into the picture as possible.

Of course I do agree that in an ideal world (and ideal camera that never introduces gain noise or black/white clipping), shooting flat and only grading in post would be preferrable...

Been playing with the different CINE choices. Cine 1, 3, and 4 all work with the color profile I generated, but, provide different levels of black stretch. I also reset the gamma level to zero when I use cine1, 3 or 4 to open up the blacks. See Adam Wilt's opinion of each cine, progressive levels of black stretch, except for Cine2, which is a flyer.

Bill, are you saying that your new profile is:

Matrix ...............on
Select................hisat
Level..................0
Phase.................-5
R-G...................75
R-B...................0
G-R...................-18
G-B...................-32
B-R...................-27
B-G...................13

Gamma Level.............. 0 (changed from -40)
Gamma Select.............CINE1
Black..........................-12
Black Gamma..............0

If so, this will probaby help the crushed blacks. I noticed the blacks were a bit crushed in your last -40 gamma setting. Well, at least in low light.

Steve...

yes! You lose a little dynamic range, but, it takes less CCing in post. And selecting a CINE1, 3,or 4 setting, depending on how much black stretch you want/need.
I think part of the lesson, here, is that the color matrix settings are good for a truer color, however, the way Sony applies gamma curve settings is a learning process for me.
One thing about my old settings is that the auto iris tends to underexpose unless one manually adjusts the iris for 100% zebra. It seems to be equivalent to something less than 1/2 f/stop since adjusting the level in TLCS by +0.5 is too much.

Your observation that light level effects things is right on.

Thanks Bill.
I'm going to make three TC files.
TC1 (CINE1)
TC2 (CINE3)
TC3 (CINE4)

Matrix ...............on
Select................hisat
Level..................0
Phase.................-5
R-G...................75
R-B...................0
G-R...................-18
G-B...................-32
B-R...................-27
B-G...................13

Gamma Level.............. 0 (changed from -40)
Gamma Select.............(CINE1, CINE3, or CINE4)
Black..........................-12
Black Gamma..............0

Thanks for your time Bill.

Steve...

Already done that...here
pp1: Steve Thomas' PP
pp2: original TC1
pp3: TC2 Cine1
pp4: TC2 Cine3
pp5: TC2 Cine4
pp6:TC2

note; you have to rename the suf file to "setup.suf" before loading it onto your SxS.

Thanks Bill for the update. I have shot with the new 0 Gamma setting and like Cine 1 the best for my bright outside shooting. I guess that must have to do with the Cine 1 compression starting at the higher 80%.

Already done that...here
pp1: Steve Thomas' PP
pp2: original TC1
pp3: TC2 Cine1
pp4: TC2 Cine3
pp5: TC2 Cine4
pp6:TC2


Bill, thanks a lot for posting your work on the PP's. I just loaded you SUF file and I'll pretty much just be using TC2 (cine 1,3,4) for all my shooting. It sure makes it a lot easier not having to correct as much in post. Thanks!

The result of all these profiles will depend on exposure levels. Surly the recipes give here are somewhat lacking if a zebra level isn't associated with them? No?

mhstevens..

read the premises upon which the TrueColor profiles are based

Bill: Will you direct me to what I should read. My search on TrueColor didn't get me anywhere that helped.

Post #64 of this thread(page 5).
In particular, step #4

Bill: I know you did this - that's not my point. What I was saying is that if Jo sets his zebras at 100% with your settings and Jill sets here zebra at 85 and they both expose until zebras are just gone a profile (not your profile that is set to 100IRE, but any profile where IRE may be something else unmeasured)will give different results. To standardize to true comparisons when a profile is posted then the zebra setting used with it should be quoted.

100 IRE is 100 IRE. It matters not how one arrives at it. Zebra set to 100% will show you when you get there. If you set zebra to 85, all bets are off. The caveat to what I posted is that one needs to be able to find 100 IRE in the scene. I will leave it up to you how to do that. If there are no "hotspots", then discretion prevails. TC2 was designed to maximize latitude and give fairly faithful color reproduction. The two are not mutually exclusive. If one seeks perfect exposure(whatever that is) then one can make appropriate compensation to the gamma curves to put middle gray wherever they wish. That's the point of applying the color matrix settings to other Cine presets.

This isn't rocket science, but, it is science. In any creative endeavor, science yields to creative intuition.

I really dislike measurebating. It is what it is.

Bill: It still seems you still think I am talking about your profile. I know you set top white to 100IRE. I'm talking about other profiles that other people post without quoting if they have set IRE or zebras any special way. Not everyone sets the hottest spot at 100IRE. If I post a profile that works well with my top white set at 90IRE I need tell you that. That's my only point.

I have been out this afternoon testing profiles. The best two I have found is Bill Ravens' revised profile and the Doug Jensen one. However, I don't understand why Phil Bloom thinks Bill's profile is close to natural/unprocessed and hence being ideal for working on in post. To me it looks good but highly saturated with crushed blacks.

Here's my results:
Matrix---------------------on
Select---------------------hisat
Level...............................0
Phase..............................+6
R-G................................+75
R-B................................0
G-R................................-18
G-B................................-23
B-R................................-33
B-G................................+11

Color Correction..............off
White.............................off
Detail.............................on
Detail Level.....................0
Detail Freq......................0
Skintone.........................off

Knee..............................on
Auto knee......................on
Point.............................90
Slope............................0
Knee SAT level...............50

Gamma Level.................0
Select...........................STD3
Black............................-15
Black gamma.................-9
Low key sat..................0

It would be great to have someone validate my results. I'll redo more fine tuning as I go on. For the time being, my latitude is increased above the factory settings, my saturation is more lifelike. The histogram now displays a range from near 0 to 100%. Peaks are well distributed over the range without favoring lows or hi's.

I'd be glad to post some frame grabs if a server was available.

Time to go test in the real world.
I hope this helps out.

Well Bill, I created a PP with your above settings and did some test shootings, but am very disappointed with the result. Yes, the histogram now tends to evenly cover tha whole spectrum, but there is an ugly halo over the thin tree branches against the sky (which was just at the edge of 100% zebra appearing) - see attached grab. Also, there's too much blue in it (I was using some 5200K and auto-iris).

Now, could it be that with STD3, one should really alter the knee point, and/or saturation - slope? Or is something else at fault here that over-saturates of the near-clipping lights? The grab on the right shows more or less the same scene, but manually made a stop darker - the sky becomes more natural.

Can somebody recreate this, or is it just my camera? I'd appreciate somebody re-assuring me it's not my camera at falut, the STD3 being the widest but also the most standard setting!

PS: What's even worse is that at shooting time, nothing wrong was visible in the LCD... Just light blue sky, with small patches of zebra here and there.

Yoyr problem is the STD3. i don't know how you got that quaote but Bill profiles were using Cine. I used Cine4 with Bill's settings and it was very good. Try that.

True...
I believe this is the latest from Bill.
Note. You may want to make 3 seperate profiles
using the three different CINE curves. (CINE1, CINE3, & CINE4).
This way you can choose the most appropricate one based on lighting conditions.



Matrix ...............on
Select................hisat
Level..................0
Phase.................-5
R-G...................75
R-B...................0
G-R...................-18
G-B...................-32
B-R...................-27
B-G...................13

Gamma Level.............. 0 (changed from -40)
Gamma Select.............(CINE1, CINE3, or CINE4)
Black..........................-12
Black Gamma..............0

Yoyr problem is the STD3. i don't know how you got that quaote but Bill profiles were using Cine. I used Cine4 with Bill's settings and it was very good. Try that.

Guys, I know it's the STD3 gamma that is causing it - I just wanted to check Bill's TrueColor settings using the default gamma curve, so I've used it on purpose. This is basically the default factory setting, with slightly modified Highsat matrix.

And this is why it worries me so much - instead of even better flat colour reproduction, I arrived at those ugly highlights...

Again, does the same happen to your cameras with the settings above AND the STD3 gamma curve?

YES. All the STD gammas are bright and contrasty and generic looking. No need to ever use them.

YES. All the STD gammas are bright and contrasty and generic looking. No need to ever use them.

Michael. no offence but your answer is a generalization and as such doesn't satisfy me. The STD gammas, while "generic looking", are usually the safest ones (thus becoming the factory default) - so what happened here is a bit of a surpise...

Anyway, which of the other parameters that differ from the factory settings (hisat matrix, or the matrix color pairs changes) could have caused the oversaturation and then abrupt blowing-out of highlights (cause this is how I'd describe what's happening to the blue behind the tree branches)?

Any opinion welcome. Unfortunately, I do not have means to test it step-by-step using even a good, calibrated monitor - not t mention the WFM that Bill was using...

Piotr..

By all rights, your question should be moved to another thread. This one is for profiles. I will suggest, for now, that you check your DETAIL and CRISPENING settings. DETAIL ON will sharpen the image causing halo if overdone.

Piotr..

By all rights, your question should be moved to another thread. This one is for profiles. I will suggest, for now, that you check your DETAIL and CRISPENING settings. DETAIL ON will sharpen the image causing halo if overdone.

OK Bill, I will - but my settings are exactly what you suggested in your own post

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=814739&postcount=64

(this thread), and in it you said "It would be great to have someone validate my results". This is what I was trying to do; and believe me I entered the settings, exactly following your recipe (no DETAIL or CRISPENING changes).

At least could you please confirm you can see the problem in my first grab, and if so - what is the English name for this abrupt clipping of oversaturated highlights? Is it a normal behaviour with the STD3 gamma whose default Knee Point SATURATION is as high as 50? As you can see in my sig, I am still learning so your help would be much appreciated...

Piotr hope you dont mind me commenting!

How I saw this was a combination of two colour temperatures in the foreground and background. Also the clouds were overexposing the image. Perhaps a poloriser or a graduated ND filter? I'd like to have seen a picture at standard settings to compare.

No, of course not Mark - you're welcome.

I'm seeing a serious problem here (either with the settings or my camera), but let's take the discussion elsewhere, as Bill suggested:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?p=820095#post820095

Thanks;

Piotr

OK - I have just read this complete thread and I must say that it is all a bit over my head. However I am very eager to try out Bills settings for myself. On the last couple of pages of the thread the settings seemed to branch out into a few variations and I cannot really make out the exact settings that Bill ended up with. Bill - could you please post the exact settings that you are now using along with a very brief description or comment on each setting? That would be very helpfull! I would rather not download your file and loose all of my camera settings loading it into my cam.

Thank you again for your hard work! Hoping to try out your settings on wednesday.

/ola

Please see post #120. I've already done as you asked.

Piotr (and others) you CAN monitor these settings while they are being made either with a good monitor or later in post because you can adjust any of the settings on EX1 WHILE RECORDING. So set your camera up with that scene again and start tweaking. There is no meta data so you will need give a commentary for when you review later.

[QUOTE=Bill Ravens;815954]I've reworked my original profile based on some feedback and observations I received. It was suggested I use a CINE profile for gamma, reds have been dialed down, black level was raised, slightly. Overall, this is an improvement, I really like this profile, altho' my test was quick. I've posted a framegrab, so the comparisons are here:

factory setting(PP Off):
http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=801&c=2

My TC1 profile:
http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=802&c=2

My TC2 profile:
http://www.dvinfo.net/gallery/showimage.php?i=826&c=2

And the recipe is:
Matrix ...............on
Select................hisat
Level..................0
Phase.................-5
R-G...................75
R-B...................0
G-R...................-18
G-B...................-32
B-R...................-27
B-G...................13

Gamma Level..............-40
Gamma Select.............CINE1
Black..........................-12
Black Gamma..............0

Once again, please set your white balance before using. Let me have feedback on your use of the profile.

By the way, Chris, I tried to upload the .suf file and the server still won't let me.[/QUOTE

I just used Bill Ravens Picture Profile exactly as detailed with the Gamma Level changed to 0 instead of -40 and results were fantastic. This was done outdoors on a bright but overcast day.I'm sure Bill's settings are also great for a sunny day. But can anyone tell me if I need to make any changes to these settings if I'm sooting outdoors at night in low light conditions?
Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Please see post #120. I've already done as you asked.

Sorry Bill - I was probably unclear. I am aware of the .suf-file in post #120 but I would rather not download it and loose all of my own camera settings. What I was hoping for was all the current settings in text in a post with comments, especially on when to use the different gamma curves. For example I am not sure what gamma value to set when not using cinnegamma curves. And which gamma curve and setting should be used if I don't want to change the cameras default gamma and only use your new colour settings? I am sorry if this all sounds daft. I have been trying to figure it all out by reading the whole thread but I have a feeling that the introduction of the cinnegamma curves got me confused.

Piotr..

By all rights, your question should be moved to another thread. This one is for profiles. I will suggest, for now, that you check your DETAIL and CRISPENING settings. DETAIL ON will sharpen the image causing halo if overdone.

Bill,

I recreated tests with your STD3 and Hisat matrix PP, and the bottom line is that - with standard KNEE settings - it's no good for even slightly backlit situations. To avoid the higlights clipping unstability (i.e. staying saturated behind the "shadow" of e.g. trees, while blowing-away to pure white elsewhere, thus creating the ugly patches), one must stay way into the left exposure side, which tends to badly oversaturate even slightly underexposed areas.

The PP in question might be of some use, but requires KNEE adjustment. Will be playing with that and report.

Thanks everyone for their response, and sorry if my post has been a little bit too much alarming - didn't want to highjack "your" thread :)

What I was hoping for was all the current settings in text in a post with comments, especially on when to use the different gamma curves. .


I second this. A textual summary of info to date with NOTES on when applicable posted by those who know best would be great.

I believe Adam Wilt's own characterizations of the gammas gives us a good idea of where the knee kicks in for the cine gamma curves. Thank you to Adam for providing this information. It would of been nice if Sony provided some detail.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/

So - I have done two days of testing of the TC2-profile now and I will not be able to turn back to the original settings!
I have to admit that I was a bit afraid that these settings would only be "for effect" and that I would lose information using them. My first tests seemed to confirm these fears. The pictures looked very good but also very crushed and a bit over saturated. However after doing more tests on a sunny day and looking at the results in Avids Waveform monitor I am not worried anymore. I am not a video-signal-techy but to me it looks like the Cinegamma curves move all of the information into the 16-234 IRE-range without anything disappearing. The standard setting has a lot of info above allowed white and it seems to push the blacks up a bit too high, leaving no info in the bottom region.
As I said, I am not good at the theoretical part of this so correct me if I am wrong. Also I am blabbering. The reason for this post is to ask a couple of question to all of you who now more about PP and gamma curves than me.

Here it goes:

1. Are the Cinegamma 1,3 and 4 basically curves that give the same "feel" but to a different extent? In other words - can I switch between these curves depending on lighting and weather conditions and still intercut between the pictures or am I supposed to select one Cinegamma on each project?

2. If so - am I correct in saying Cinegamma 1 in high contrast light (sunny day) and Cinegamma 4 when overcast or is it the other way around?