From my tests, the rolloff at the top is more or less the same for all the Cine gammas - it's mostly the shadows that are affected.

But the best thing to do us to test it yourself.

All said in the title.

anyone studied what the gamma number is? I had a chance to play around with picture profile settings for a few min on an EX1 in B&H the other day, and the gamma number didnt seem to do what i would have expected. i often found that boosting gamma would actually cause weird problems in highlights. while in one of the CINE gamma modes, i boosted the gamma thinking it would lighten the image, but instead it had a really weird effect on the white level. at higher gamma numbers, the white level would decrease so that clipped, pure white was actually more of a light grey... it also certainly struck me that it takes a bit of tweaking to actually use your the full IRE range. but the area spot meter on the EX1 is an awesome feature for tweaking this. anyway, id definitely like to see someone do a study on the exact effect of each setting on the overall light response curve. or i would love to get my hands on a camera and do it myself... till then, im sure using it for 8bit log images is probably out without significant testing. would also like to look further into how to optimize the image for nice looking highlight rolloff. cine modes are nice, but i feel there is more that can be done to truly make the highlights look organic. i did love using the camera in the few minutes i did, i like the look of boosted black gamma with a nice cine curve and sharpening off. awesome low noise, and really nice lens for sure.

I posted this elsewhere, but Gamma is actually better thought of as white level...BUT postive Gamma lowers the white level, so a negative # will move you further towards clipping, not away from it. I will post some pictures later.

Thanks Bill for your picture profile. I am still getting a orange cast to my reds, especially on my cam monitor. It is not as bad on a Sony LCD but still there. Anyone have a profile for doing plays with all the spot lights and stage lights?

Don Deignan

Yes,
I'm actually interested into what will be the best "general" PP setup and overall ideal camera settings for shooting concert footage under stage lighting.

When running manual, I know it can be a pain to dial in for a certain scene, and seconds later have your image blown out due to lighting changes.

Under these dynamic lighting conditions, would it be smart to use the auto iris? I'm not a fan of this, but it may help. The only issue with this is the unnatural exposure change due to the iris response slowly ramping the exposure. This really spells out cheap video.

How would you concert shooters deal with this issue?

Hi Steven,

You might try to develop a conversation with the lighting director of the show and tell him what you're trying to achieve. He would be the one person able to help you over anyone else.

He might be able to lessen the extreme highs and lows of a concert situation without wrecking the end result. It doesn't hurt to ask.

If he says, "Take a hike!", then I would recommend a subtle riding of the manual iris.

Jac

Thanks Jac.

That is what I usually do, but when there are instant changes, it's hard to not blow some of the exposures.

Simon,
you mention Cine's are intended for "film-out"... but I would like to ask you to clarify this, because times are changing...

"Film out" use to mean recording digitally, but hoping to print to film for large venue (theater) viewing - a blow up - ahh, the holy grail of indy film guys...

But now with digital projectors in theaters and a traditional "film out" not required anymore - could these cine modes, which are made for "film outs", also actually mean in this era to be destined for digital projection to a theater screen or does it still mean destined to be printed to film or is there a difference?

Thanks,
Lonnie

No, Cines are what you should use depending on condition and what effect you want. Nothing particularly related to film.

Hi,

Ive hada good read through this thread but alot of it find to follow.

I am looking for some PP for shooting outdoor watersports - I guess one for bright sunny conditions and one for cloudy overcast conditions.

- I use a grey card to set white balance.

thanks for any help.

Brendan
See the previous posts in this thread (Post #119, #120, and going backward). I am using the Bill Ravens set up with Steven Thomas' modifications and am very pleased.
For bright outdoor shots, the Cine 1 setup is absolutely brilliant. I'm finding that I need to increase exposure anywhere from 1-3 f stops from the camera (Auto Iris) reading to get the best exposure. This will vary with the lighting and needs to be done more with reference to the histogram rather than the "look" on the LCD. This setting has huge latitude and invariably if I shoot what looks good on the LCD, the clip ends up looking rather underexposed on the editing monitor.
For overcast/indoor, the Cine 3 setup is good. I seem to need to increase the exposure around 1/2 of what is needed for the Cine 1 setup.
For overcast/indoor, the Cine 4 also works well and it seems like the camera exposure reading (Auto Iris) is pretty close to right on. It's the only one that I would venture to use in auto mode.
Many thanks to Bill and Steve. It would have taken me forever to reinvent this particular wheel.

Has anybody develop a PP for low lighting and for high contrast situations yet?

Hi, can anyone share a pictur profilefor a Bleached Bypass look? Im going for the various CSI looks to- CSI Vegas / CSI NY (bleach bypass) etc.. Thanks!

Hi, I've received the camera yesterday and I went some playing.
I haven't done this before, so I don't know if my settings will benefit anyone, but anyhow, they are in the excell file, attatched in this post.

Some explanation:
first you see Philip Bloom, that is his first one I took, changed it a verrrry little bit (almost nothing I think) and saved it as Philip Bloom.
Second one, Mathieu Ghekiere, is one I made myself, just by twibling the knobs, going for a pretty nice in-camera look.
Third one, 'Technicolor', isn't really that, it's just a copy of my own look, with some extra saturation, a bit over the top.

Don't know if this will benefit someone, but anyhow, here they are!
Best regards,

The EX1 community is being pretty slow in the developments of looks for the EX1. I remember the HD100 community quickly developed many looks like bleach bypass, color reverse etc.

The EX1 community is being pretty slow in the developments of looks for the EX1. I remember the HD100 community quickly developed many looks like bleach bypass, color reverse etc.

Good point, Michael. For a couple of months last year, I used to be a Canon XH-A1 user, and the Canon XH (as well as the H1) communities also were very creative, compared to the EX1 users (us :))

I guess there is a reason to it, though. When I remember how intuitive playing with colour matrices was compared to those of the EX1, I guess it really takes a pro measuring equipment to tweak the pro EX1 in order to achieve some usable results. The same applies to the way Sony implemented everything "cine-" (gammas, matrix etc) - in my opinion, the philosophy behind it is much less obvious that in the case of the Canon, or even Sony V1.

EXTREME SETTINGS - RECOMMENDATIONS

I shoot bright beaches - white sand, white surf/foam, white clouds during the day and then SURF Sunsets - bright backlight, bright pink clouds, dark foreground - rocks, lighthouses, etc. I do use polas and ND grads.

Default settings were way to contrasty... I've tried some extreme settings but I think I have over done it - as things look a bit too flat and loosing detail - oops.

What would you recommend for these 3 SETTINGS? - NO CINE SETTINGS - PLEASE - IM LOOKING FOR BLACK AND WHITE LEVEL SETTINGS, KNEE, GAMMA, ETC.

1 - REDUCE BRIGHT HIGHLIGHTS ONLY - (MAXIMUM SETTINGS)

2. REDUCE HIGHLIGHTS (ABOVE) + BOOST BLACKS (FOR MAX CONTRAST CAPTURED) - MEDIUM AND MAX SETTING FOR SUNSETS.

I want to capture all the data possible like RED does in RAW, and then dial in the look in Apple's Color.

I do not mind a bit of a flat image as long as all the data is there to play with. Thanks!

EXTREME SETTINGS - RECOMMENDATIONS

I shoot bright beaches - white sand, white surf/foam, white clouds during the day and then SURF Sunsets - bright backlight, bright pink clouds, dark foreground - rocks, lighthouses, etc. I do use polas and ND grads.

Default settings were way to contrasty... I've tried some extreme settings but I think I have over done it - as things look a bit too flat and loosing detail - oops.

What would you recommend for these 3 SETTINGS? - NO CINE SETTINGS - PLEASE - IM LOOKING FOR BLACK AND WHITE LEVEL SETTINGS, KNEE, GAMMA, ETC.

1 - REDUCE BRIGHT HIGHLIGHTS ONLY - (MAXIMUM SETTINGS)

2. REDUCE HIGHLIGHTS (ABOVE) + BOOST BLACKS (FOR MAX CONTRAST CAPTURED) - MEDIUM AND MAX SETTING FOR SUNSETS.

I want to capture all the data possible like RED does in RAW, and then dial in the look in Apple's Color.

I do not mind a bit of a flat image as long as all the data is there to play with. Thanks!


Hi Greg,

Not sure if you meant that you meant that you wanted to avoid Cine Settings all together or if you wanted to focus on the other settings. Here is a sequence that I did a few days ago with Cine 1. It is straight out of the camera footage with no work in post other than adding transitions and a title (no time this week). After playing around with settings forever, I use this as my safety setting all the time for beach stuff. Only adjustments to the stock Cine 1 is Black at -4 and Bill's color settings (not sure if they are the latest, but I like them).

http://www.vimeo.com/965602

Hi Greg,

Not sure if you meant that you meant that you wanted to avoid Cine Settings all together or if you wanted to focus on the other settings. Here is a sequence that I did a few days ago with Cine 1. It is straight out of the camera footage with no work in post other than adding transitions and a title (no time this week). After playing around with settings forever, I use this as my safety setting all the time for beach stuff. Only adjustments to the stock Cine 1 is Black at -4 and Bill's color settings (not sure if they are the latest, but I like them).

http://www.vimeo.com/965602

THANKS RANDY,

Actually, I want to avoid the Cine settings - since they are limiting dynamic range a bit more than I like. Also, my footage is meant to be more of a Discovery Channel sharp reality look.

Anyone else? Bright beach, white sand, surf and SUNSETS with detail in the shadows and highlights.

THANKS RANDY,

Actually, I want to avoid the Cine settings - since they are limiting dynamic range a bit more than I like. Also, my footage is meant to be more of a Discovery Channel sharp reality look.

Anyone else? Bright beach, white sand, surf and SUNSETS with detail in the shadows and highlights.

Got it. I am wondering though if you will not end up having to tone back one of the STD settings to essntially be Cine type settings to do what you want. Even Cine 3 and 4 prove to be too contrasty for most of the beach stuff we shoot. We find that with either of those that we are often losing one end or the other. Now if you are shooting basicly video stills (limited pans, plenty of time to set up each shot) then I could see one of those working, but IMO the STD's are pretty unusable for this type of shooting. Interested to hear what others think though.

I find in the bright harsh environment of the Californian desert I can only use Cine4 early morning and for the golden hour. I think what you do is to start with Cine1 and tweak it.

Now somewhere I think remember Bill Raven saying that to get most information use Std4 but then you will need a lot of post to stop it looking like generic video.

Mike

Got it. I am wondering though if you will not end up having to tone back one of the STD settings to essntially be Cine type settings to do what you want. Even Cine 3 and 4 prove to be too contrasty for most of the beach stuff we shoot. We find that with either of those that we are often losing one end or the other. Now if you are shooting basicly video stills (limited pans, plenty of time to set up each shot) then I could see one of those working, but IMO the STD's are pretty unusable for this type of shooting. Interested to hear what others think though.

Im in no means a professional when it comes to PP but Ive been shooting with Bill R's PP. Yesterday I tweaked it by taking away all the color corrections and using Cine2 with Gamma level at +5 and Black at -13. These settings work great on a sunny day and during the golden hour for me.

I like to shoot mostly with 5600 WB or 3200 WB indoors and get that tone change from the "incorrect" WB. I think that tweaking the colors in the menu messes things up if not shooting with the "correct" WB. Is this a viable thought/find at all?

Im in no means a professional when it comes to PP but Ive been shooting with Bill R's PP. Yesterday I tweaked it by taking away all the color corrections and using Cine2 with Gamma level at +5 and Black at -13. These settings work great on a sunny day and during the golden hour for me.

I like to shoot mostly with 5600 WB or 3200 WB indoors and get that tone change from the "incorrect" WB. I think that tweaking the colors in the menu messes things up if not shooting with the "correct" WB. Is this a viable thought/find at all?

Hi Sami,

It's right if its working. Results is what we are all after.

Just to clarify, are you saying that you were using default settings on Cine 2 except for gamma and black?

Could you post a still from the video? Thanks!

Hi Sami,
It's right if its working. Results is what we are all after.
Just to clarify, are you saying that you were using default settings on Cine 2 except for gamma and black?
Could you post a still from the video? Thanks!

Here's my settings. I started with Philip Blooms settings that were the same (or based on) Bill R's PP I think. This is much more different profile from those than i even realised now that I look at the settings side by side. Its made to be as much like shooting film (the way I want) that I've been able to achieve so far. Ill post some stills on wednesday when I'm back home. For shooting in low light I have different settings but nothing I really like yet.

Matrix ...............on
Select................cinema
Level..................0
Phase.................0
R-G...................0
R-B...................0
G-R...................0
G-B...................0
B-R...................0
B-G...................0

Color Correction..............off

White.............................off

Detail.............................on
Detail Level.....................0
Detail Freq......................0
(and all other settings at)..0

Skin Tone Detail...............off

Knee..............................(greyed out)

Gamma Level..............+5
Select.............CINE2

Black..........................-13

Black Gamma..............0

low key sat...............0

OK - I'm happy with my highlight settings... having set them live with a cloud at sunset.

knee 98
slope +90
Sat 25

I have my zebras at 106, and now I get good details in my clouds, no zebras and no blow outs both in auto and manual. A big difference from full auto that blows out the clouds.

Now, back to setting blacks and stretch.. please NO NO NO CINE... I want manual controls over:

BLACK: ??
BLACK GAMMA: ??

So, right now I have a medium setting of

Black +20
Black Gamma -20

This seems to boost the blacks, and still give me a black left over in super high contrast settings. In normal settings, the blacks are now greys.

Any ADVICE ON STRETCHING BLACKS 1 AND 2 STOPS for Sunsets would be greatly appreciated. I've fixed the highlights... what about the blacks. Thanks.

Referring to my previous posts (#275 and 277).

Here are some stills taken with the PP I use now. Shot with Letus Extreme, Canon FD 20mm f2.8, 100mm f2.8 and 135mm f2.

First image shows a shot with a PP that I got from Philip Blooms blog. The pics after that are with the PP I described in post #277 which suits my Canon lenses and my liking a bit better. As you see there's not a whole lot of difference, in the first pic the sky is a bit more magenta and the green is a bit oversaturated I think.

Opinions are welcomed! Thanks!

PS. Oh yes, and all is shot with 5600K!

those are some beautiful pictures Sami. Thanks for posting them. I also have the Bill Raven PP and Ill try your tweaked setting. Theres alot more humidity where I am, I wonder if it makes a difference.

please NO NO NO CINE... I want manual controls over:

BLACK: ??
BLACK GAMMA: ??


I don't think you understand what the CINEs are; they are not presets. With them you have full manual control of Master Black and Black Gamma and everything else except the knee because that's what the CINEs are designed to do best. Each CINE rolls of the whites in a different way and I don't think you can emulate them easily with the STDs.

That's why most here choose the CINE and then tweak it.

I found the Cine setting to be much noiser like Cine 3 in low light conditions vs standard. Here's another question then in terms of lattitude.

Again low light, sunset with details in the shadows - minimum noise.

Is it better to wash out the image like BLACK +20, BLACK CINE -20 and then add the details back in the blacks... OR...

is it better to shoot BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30 which gives nice blacks and still brightens the dark greys?

Am I getting more latitude with the 2nd (BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30) setting than the 1st when it is corrected back down?

(I guess RED's washed out RAW look and then post production has me thinking more about shooting a bit flatter to get more detail - am I wrong here? I know this is not RAW... the above settings are a decent test - I will test them soon in Color.)

those are some beautiful pictures Sami. Thanks for posting them. I also have the Bill Raven PP and Ill try your tweaked setting. Theres alot more humidity where I am, I wonder if it makes a difference.

Thanks Alexander. I put a video on vimeo with the material.

http://www.vimeo.com/986544

Sami

I found the Cine setting to be much noiser like Cine 3 in low light conditions vs standard. Here's another question then in terms of lattitude.

Again low light, sunset with details in the shadows - minimum noise.

Is it better to wash out the image like BLACK +20, BLACK CINE -20 and then add the details back in the blacks... OR...

is it better to shoot BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30 which gives nice blacks and still brightens the dark greys?

Am I getting more latitude with the 2nd (BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30) setting than the 1st when it is corrected back down?

(I guess RED's washed out RAW look and then post production has me thinking more about shooting a bit flatter to get more detail - am I wrong here? I know this is not RAW... the above settings are a decent test - I will test them soon in Color.)
I know this is not the answer you want, but with a new camera that we all are getting to know, my suggestion is to try it all ways and the YOU tell us what you found best. For me I try to do as little post as possible but that is not necessarily right. Does the camera do post better than the NLE? Is the info there? I think we all are still getting to discover that and that is why there are few definitive answers in this whole long thread.

God luck and please do your test and tells us what you find.

...now let's work on a picture profile for the "Bourne Ultimatum" look! :)


...no really!

The difficulty besetting this subject is that one needs a sound understanding of the controls involved and their quantitative effect on the image. There are too many variables to just fiddle. Bill Raven really got things going with valuable contributions in determining (quantitatively) desirable settings, and I was pleased to find Simon Wyndham's SAW results that actually did define the nature of the gamma curves. I've seen only the SAW results published by Sebastien Thomas, which I understand were recorded at 3dB gain which resulted in flats in the region of 80 to 90. Bill has looked at this and mentioned that he has determined that the full curve (without flat) is seen only at 3200K 0db (white balanced). Has anyone output those curves for our reference? I unsuccessfully searched for the methodology for doing this myself, so maybe I just need a little primer or a link. I've been into the service menu but that's one area where I get nervous when I'm not absolutely certain what I'm doing.

Here are the steps to follow when evaluating SAW curves with the EX1:
1-Select any SD mode with the EX1.
2-connect the firewire link to your computer
3-Fire up HDRack
4-enter the maintenance menu and pick SAW
5-the WFM window in HDRack will display the gamma curve. note the WFM scales.

I assume it would be possible to record(capture) with Vegas and look at the WFM after the fact.

I, also, assume, it's possible to look at the SAW curve via the SDI or component out ports of the EX1 feeding a conventional WFM and vectorscope, altho' I've never done this.

Thanks Bill.

afaik.....

sony has always made cameras for the masses....like the metaphor for a Chevy Nova. Sony finally stepped out of their box and made a Cinealta available for the masses...albeit a wee bit expensive. OK, so, their marketing gurus told them most people would never deal well with the myriad of controls. And, I suppose, in a way the marketting folks were right. Nevertheless, I'm very happy with what i bought. OK, vignetting, backfocus, labels that wear off, etc., etc., I got a pretty decent camera for the $$$ I spent. I'm not exactly ready to believe Sony the next time around, but, who knows?

...and how does this matter in the grander scheme of things? well, not worth a shyte.

Vegas does produce the plots of gamma curves. So no need to go through OnLOcation (DVRack).

Except that with HDRack you get real time viewing of the curve, thereby seeing the immediate effect of changes to the camera settings. It's inconvenient, if not totally unworkable(at least, for myself), to make changes, then export the recorded result to Vegas to see the result of those changes. Using vegas is a good workaround, I suppose, if you can trust those somewhat untrustworthy Vegas scopes.

Except that with HDRack you get real time viewing of the curve, thereby seeing the immediate effect of changes to the camera settings. It's inconvenient, if not totally unworkable(at least, for myself), to make changes, then export the recorded result to Vegas to see the result of those changes. Using vegas is a good workaround, I suppose, if you can trust those somewhat untrustworthy Vegas scopes.

Agree. I was just wanting to investigate gamma curves, so that lends itself to going offline. Hopeless for the variables you were looking at.

I just finished all 20 pages of this thread. Many thanks to all the contributors.

If you wanted to use Std3 gamma, is there a reason why this would not work?

1.) Choose a high contrast outdoor scene.
2.) Expose on a neutral gray card, centering the graph on the x-axis of the histogram.
3.) Remove the card and compose the scene.
4.) Turn on Zebra 2 (100%) , adjust knee downward until zebra stripes go away.
5.) Adjust black so that it's not crushed on the histogram.

It needs to be an 18% reflectance gray card. Kodak makes them, others may too. Available at any pro photo store. An 18% card is made to fall in the center of the scale.

At a Nikon photo school I was taught that the palm of a human hand, regardless of race, is 36%. You can hold your palm up, meter and open up one stop. If your own palm is in front of the lens, your thumb will remind you to open up 1. Make sure the light level and angle matches you subject. In direct sunlight, no problem. In artificial light, the palm has to be in subject position.

In my tests this has always been correct, as improbably as it seems.

a grey card will work. S0, in fact, will any card whose reflectance in perfectly neutral....RGB255 to RGB0. I believe the convention is a pure white 255:255:255

a grey card will work. S0, in fact, will any card whose reflectance in perfectly neutral....RGB255 to RGB0. I believe the convention is a pure white 255:255:255

Not if you are setting exposure. A 255:255:255/90% card set to the middle of the histogram will give a major exposure error. Great for white balance though.

An 18% card will, in essence, tell the camera the amount of light falling on the subject. It's an alternative to directly measuring the light with an incident meter. If everything is calibrated correctly, both will give the same exposure value.

It needs to be an 18% reflectance gray card. Kodak makes them, others may too. Available at any pro photo store. An 18% card is made to fall in the center of the scale.

At a Nikon photo school I was taught that the palm of a human hand, regardless of race, is 36%. You can hold your palm up, meter and open up one stop. If your own palm is in front of the lens, your thumb will remind you to open up 1. Make sure the light level and angle matches you subject. In direct sunlight, no problem. In artificial light, the palm has to be in subject position.

In my tests this has always been correct, as improbably as it seems.

I have done that for years, the palm trick + 1 f-stop with 35mm SLR, but I wouldn't have dared admit it here.

lots of people seem to use zebra set at 70% for skin tones. I've found 60% to give me a much better exposure. Anyone else notice this?

lots of people seem to use zebra set at 70% for skin tones. I've found 60% to give me a much better exposure. Anyone else notice this?

Same here, at least if I use STD4 or Cine4 I will get too bright picture when zebra is set at 70%...


Dennis

lots of people seem to use zebra set at 70% for skin tones. I've found 60% to give me a much better exposure. Anyone else notice this?

Hi Bill,
first of all - thanks to all your investigations concerning the EX1 profiles. Great work and even more important - great results. I am very frequently using your profile with Cine 4 ...

Concerning Zebra level:
I am actually using 90% zebra for the low level. The reason is, that I use Zebra only as a white clipping indicator. So seeing zebra marks would warn me, that I am almost over exposing. The setting of Zebra very much depends for what indication exactly you are using it. As "the last warning before clipping white", I prefer to set zebra low just very little below actual clipping and Zebra high just above clipping level. So when I see Zebra low, I can react - if I would ever see Zebra high... it is too late ...:-(
But Zebra high setting makes sense, as sometimes I even want pictures to clip in some very selected highlight peaks...

My goal is, to make maximum use of the camera's dynamic range seeing as much detail in white and black parts of the picture. Of coarse there are scenes, which have much higher dynamic than any camera can handle - that's why we compress parts of the shades not to loose details by crashing blacks or whites (or worst case both...)
It is up to the DoP to decide the best compromise and target the film/video to the right expression using all technical possibilities.

That's why I appreciate your work Bill - as it targets to squeeze maximum usable dynamic range out of the EX1 with natural colours...

Recently I found, that very often auto Iris works very well to keep the image well exposed. Of coarse this is only useful in shots where depth of field is not critical. At least my tests confirmed, that in auto IRIS mode using Bill's Cine4 profile comes very close to optimum exposure (no clipping of white).
As long as I minimize clipping of white without crushing blacks, I can do everything else in post production...

regards,

Ulli

Ulli...

Indeed, using zebra for highlight exposure control is what zebra is designed for. I think the conventional wisdom is to use zebra for monitoring highlights, either on white objects, as you describe, or by monitoring highlights on skin. On interior shots, such as a stage production, where there are no true white objects to meter, what is important is to not blow out the specular reflections on human faces. This is where a 60% (or 70%)zebra setting is invaluable.

Except that with HDRack you get real time viewing of the curve, thereby seeing the immediate effect of changes to the camera settings. It's inconvenient, if not totally unworkable(at least, for myself), to make changes, then export the recorded result to Vegas to see the result of those changes. Using vegas is a good workaround, I suppose, if you can trust those somewhat untrustworthy Vegas scopes.

Can you actually trust HDrack with the EX1? I mean the only way to see the scopes is to go in with firewire right? Will it give an accurate representation of the signal? Or HDrack works now with HD-SDI too?