Just for comparison and to show you what a pretty day it is today I post this sky shot that the camera says is exposed correctly but Vegas says it way over? Go figure?

Just for comparison and to show you what a pretty day it is today I post this sky shot that the camera says is exposed correctly but Vegas says it way over? Go figure?

Yeah that is over exposed a bit, look at the house.

Of course this is one of those circumstances when overexposure is aesthetic.

As far as the camera saying its OK, are you using the histogram or the spot meter?

Histograms can be very misleading in these circumstances. The spot meter wouldn't say a thing unless you zoomed in on the overexposed portions.

So I guess we are all learning that photographic technique has to be more refined when using this camera.

That and if you are gonna mess with PP's you better be a DIT in training.

Oh, and yeah- nice day. I hate you kindly from the Washington DC area. :)

Just for comparison and to show you what a pretty day it is today I post this sky shot that the camera says is exposed correctly but Vegas says it way over? Go figure?


This just in from Alaska....

YOU SUCK!

:-)

Yeah that is over exposed a bit, look at the house.

As far as the camera saying its OK, are you using the histogram or the spot meter?

Histograms can be very misleading in these circumstances. The spot meter wouldn't say a thing unless you zoomed in on the overexposed portions.

:)

One of the reasons I was so keen to get an EX1 was for the Histogram, but I have given up on it already. Here I was trying what Bill said when he objected to my 95% post and used the Zebra #2, the 100% one. I zoomed in on the snow that was the hot spot and stopped down until there were no zebras. I took another take by eye which was much better and which filled the Vegas Histogram nicely. I do believe in the hot light like I have to deal with (that camera was under a black tarp today just so I could see it) the EX1 over-exposes at 100%. I usually use Zebra 1 at 95% which is effectively 85%-105% which I find much better. Incidentally there was no tweaking with that image - just straight Cine4 with HiSat.

Where's the histogram in Vegas ?
Paul.

It's under view called Video Scopes.

One of the reasons I was so keen to get an EX1 was for the Histogram, but I have given up on it already.

Now now... winners never quit.

The problem is that you don't understand either what Vegas's scopes or the camera's histogram are truly measuring- or how they relate to each other.

Sucks if the histogram is showing 115 IRE at the right edge and Vegas's scopes clip at 105IRE despite being labeld for 120 IRE.

(I don't use Vegas- I'm just making up numbers for discussion.)

Put differently we don't have confidence in our tools.

The only way to understand and gain confidence is to test test test.

To test effectively you need test subjects whose nature you understand very well. That's what these guys provide (http://www.dsclabs.com/)

Then you need some independent test tools. The simplest is a light meter. I think you need BOTH an incident meter and a spot meter. A good HARDWARE waveform/vectorscope combo is also a good idea. These two tools are MUCH more reliable than their software counterparts in the NLE or even in the camera.

Use consistent artificial lights. Ideally film lights. (Tungsten Fresnels are what I like to do my baseline testing with.) You also have to test in your studio. You can't control most environments- and you need control if you want to understand.

Now you can do some measured photography and record a bunch of information.

Analze all that and now you have the ability to understand what the various meters are saying, how they compare to each other- and what their various limitations are.

It takes time to do this right- and it takes even longer to learn what tests you should be doing and what they mean to your productions.

I usually use Zebra 1 at 95% which is effectively 85%-105% which I find much better.

Hi Michael, did you mean 90% to 100% (or if including Zebra B 90% to 105%)? My understanding was that zebra displays 5% above and below the selected target warning.

Also, any thoughts on if 100% zebra is supposed to equate to the far right of the EX histogram or if 108% is supposed to match the "255" reading. Apologies, no background with IRE, so trying to relate these tools to my realm.

Hi Michael, did you mean 90% to 100% (or if including Zebra B 90% to 105%)? My understanding was that zebra displays 5% above and below the selected target warning.

Also, any thoughts on if 100% zebra is supposed to equate to the far right of the EX histogram or if 108% is supposed to match the "255" reading. Apologies, no background with IRE, so trying to relate these tools to my realm.

Randy: A bit like asking the blind to lead the blind. I'm still fairly confused myself! As far as the Zebras go, Z2 is fixed at 100% out of a possible maximum of 108%. Z1 has a latitude of 10% so you are right that a setting of 85 means 80-90 but I don't understand how a cut-off point which is what a zebra is, can have a spread, unless they are referring to possible errors in the metering.

Someone with IRE knowledge need explain to many of us how the 10 stop luminance spread is related to the 108% and to the IRE scale. As I have said before when my camera shows a 100% exposure and the histogram is nicely filled, put that into Vegas and the spread is like -20 to 115 with cliping both ends. I have only shot three times so I still need lots of practice and the light has been very harsh here recently and seldom have I been able to see the LCD. Up and running by Easter I'm thinking.

I did a bit of testing by swithching Zebra A to 107, and comparing to the histogram for when the far right begins to register. Assuming that zebra would not kick in until 102%, that is occuruing before anything is showing at the far right of the Histogram. So it looks to me like 108% is what I am used to considering a 255 reading.

Maybe I just do not know how to use it effectively, but my advice would be to forget about the histogram. its a very general exposure tool that's pretty worthless for telling you exactly what's going on in your picture and especially for judging highlight exposure. its pretty normal to have something up at 100% or over, the important question is what and where and the histogram doesn't tell you.

Learn to use your zebras and your IRE readout in the viewfinder. Too bad this camera won't let you switch between 2 zebra settings.

You mean switch quickly without going into the menu ? Both zebras can be on at the same time.

Maybe I just do not know how to use it effectively, but my advice would be to forget about the histogram. its a very general exposure tool that's pretty worthless for telling you exactly what's going on in your picture and especially for judging highlight exposure.

Hi Leonard,
The Histogram can potentially be the most valuable tool. It will show you the brigtness distrubution of all pixels, rather than ones specified by a numeric brightness range or physical area. A larger histogram can tell you when you have blown highlights as well as any tool out there. As it stands, the EX histogram is too small for this, so its benefit seems limited to use in combination with the zebras. I have probably gone on too long about this as I am not unintentionally blowing highlights with this camera, but I do at times find myself being a bit conservative and if anything am tending to sightly underexpose a touch when in doubt.

I zoomed in on the snow that was the hot spot and stopped down until there were no zebras.

If you zoomed in, locked the exposure, then zoomed back out, I thought the lens opens a stop or more? Could this be why the shot was overexposed?

If you zoomed in, locked the exposure, then zoomed back out, I thought the lens opens a stop or more? Could this be why the shot was overexposed?


I thought this lens surely to be constant f. Can anyone confirm? The "spot" metering method I used is as suggested in the Vortex training video.

Randy, Like I said I've never gotten used to it, but I figure if I can't see the relative distribution of pixel brightness than I am blind - it should be obvious in my viewfinder.
What i want to know is specifically whether a certain area is over 100%. If I'm looking at a shot with clouds, I may know some of it will hit 100, but what about the white shirt of my talent, or on an interior similar questions. I may know I've got a window or something bright somewhere,m the question is only whether something I care about specifically is white.

But if it works for some of you great.

You guys are going in a lot of different directions with this discussion.

First of all let me say I do not own an EX1 (yet). But I have over 25 years of broadcast and Film/TV production experience (look me up on www.IMDB.com). Most recently I have been doing TV Movies and TV series using the "Panavision-ized" Sony F-900. This camera is part of the "cine-alta" line as well and has a lot of the same adjustments as the EX1. The main thing I have learned is that you can EASILY bury yourself with these adjustments if you don't know what you are doing (and even if you do). The type and range of adjustment described in the EX1 manual is very similar to the F-900 and you have to remember that these adjustments "overlap" each other in many areas. This means it is very possible to create an "undesirable" looking picture with a combination of extreme conditions and a poor choice of menu settings, so you have to be careful. I call it "death by a thousand knobs". Do a lot of testing and experimenting if you are not familiar with these menu settings. The preset looks are best to use if you do not understand how these settings interact with each other. That's what they are there for.

As far as white clipping goes, my experience is with waveform monitors and zebras and not with histogram. I'm still learning if histogram is useful for me. Keep in mind these are 3 different TOOLS to help you evaluate your exposure. Choose which one (or combination of them) works for you. Zebras don't do anything except tell the operator what part of the image is exposed at what level, that's why 1 of them is adjustable, so you can choose what information you want to see. The "center IRE percentage reading" option looks like something I would like to use, especially if you don't have the luxury of an on set waveform monitor. As far as the 100 and 108 IRE confusion goes, this is my understanding of it. 100 IRE is "Video White". Cameras can capture up to 108 IRE to preserve detail in "white" or overexposed areas. Most broadcasters will "clip" thier signals at 100 IRE, so you have to decide in conjunction with your post-production people (or broadcaster) which setting is best for your situation.

Auto Knee and Knee point/slope/saturation adjustment is useful if you are careful. Auto knee is best for the inexperienced as the camera circuitry does the work for you, but only to a limited amount. Bright sky can be controlled SOMEWHAT by adjusting the knee point and slope, but I would only attempt it with a professional monitor and waveform available. Knee saturation can bring back color detail in the part of the image that is being controlled by the knee point/slope (This probably ties into Adam Wilt's comments in his review, in my opinion). This means that a sky (or windows) with puffy white clouds and patches of blue sky SHOULD be able to be exposed properly using a combination of these settings. Remember that the access to "professional" settings means access to "professional" problems!

If all else fails and you feel like you get lost in these adjustments then reset back to factory defaults or go through the manual and set all the menus back the the default setting listed in there.

I hope I've helped and not confused the issue more!

Simon Hunt

Randy, The reason I see little value to a histogram is that if I don't know the general distribution of lights and darks, I figure I must be blind because you can see it in your viewfinder.

What I want to know in any situationn is exactly where am I over 100 and losing detail or where are my flesh tones falling. In many images I expect that some spots will be over 100 but I need to know if its my subject's shirt for example, or the paper on the table.

It just seems to way to vague to spend much time worrying about.

Michael, most zoom lenses lose some exposure when you zoom in , just watch that when you take spot reading through the lens. It will be obvious in the viewfinder and you can try to avoid zooming all the way or learn to adjust a bit.

I thought this lens surely to be constant f. Can anyone confirm?

Look here.
http://provideocoalition.com/index.php/awilt/story/review_sony_pmw_ex1_1_2_3_cmos_hd_camcorder/P3/

Apparently, actual light transmission ramps from 1.9 wide to 2.8 telephoto although the f stop indicator reads a constant 1.9. If that's the case, you're opening up a little more than a stop if you zoom in, lock your exposure, then zoom out.

Yes true. When I spot focus I always check the LCD after zooming out and often make corrections. Been out today shooting and as an experiment I did everything by eye - IE just getting the LCD to look as close to the scene as possible. It's a good little screen and I'm looking forward to sitting down at the computer with a bottle of claret tonight and seeing how i did.

I think I have solved the problem with the histogram. It is too small and its vertical exaggeration is too great. There can be value along the x-axis going into clipping which are indistinguishable from the axis it's self. IE There is clipping that is too small to see. Funny thing today - I was filming birds on a fishing pond and I saw the histogram and thought it was a swan.

I think I have solved the problem with the histogram. It is too small and its vertical exaggeration is too great. There can be value along the x-axis going into clipping which are indistinguishable from the axis it's self. IE There is clipping that is too small to see.

You are absolutely correct. If Sony does not offer an enlarge toggle to the histogram button (off-on-enlarge) in a firmware revision, I hope they will remove the static axis line. It is not required, and its removal would make a reading to the furthest right that much more noticeable.

Vegas lets you view a waveform monitor and a histogram at the same time. Using that with some generated media is a good way to get a grasp of what a histogram does. One thing to read an explanation, another to watch it happening in a controlled manner.
Based on my own experiments a histogram can be quite misleading, an overexposed white wall yields a single line on the RH edge of the graph. It's doing exactly what it should as all pixels have the same value.
How to use that. If you want to avoid clipping start from underexposed and watch the histogram as you open the iris, this way you can see the brightest area moving into clipping. Starting from the nice gaussian blob in the middle may tell you nothing, going back to Piotr's original shot that mountain in the middle would be the dark foreground while the sky is a single line on the RH side of the graph.

Remember that the access to "professional" settings means access to "professional" problems!

Simon, as the author of this thread I couldn't summarize it better myself; good point!

And it's good to know we have "professional" problems, isn't it? Much nicer feeling than the simple "oh, this camera was supposed to perform better" type of frustration...

Worked all weekend hard, and have some good news to share (frankly, wasn't sure whether to put it here, or in the "Picture Profiles" sticky - but who cares; everybody here reads every thread anyway, don't they).

Well, so I've set up some basic PPs for the most typical shooting scenarios (PP1- PP4 using the Hisat matrix with slightly differing settings):

1. PP1, based on the STD1 gamma (for indoors, low light/low and dull scenery)
2. PP2, based on the STD4 gamma (for indoors, low light but contrasty scenery)
3. PP3, based on the CINE1 gamma (for outdoors, high light but flat scenery)
4. PP4, based on the CINE4 gamma (for outdoors, high light, contrasty scenery).
5. PP5 (for outdoors low light flat; TBD)
6. PP6 (for outdoors low light backlit/contrasty; TBD)

The indoors presets - even though based on the STD curves and Hisat matrix - have no problems with highlight clipping, as I'm using them for real low light (just regular home bulbs) situations, thus no highlights to clip (OK - the punchy STD1 does clip to pure white, but only the bulbs themselves, with no artefacting around them, anyway).

The outdoors presets - even though based on Hisat matrix, as well - also do very well. In order to avoid that ugly phenomenon discussed in this thread, the following must be observed:

- unless the scenery being shot is really low-contrast, engage PP4 and not PP3 (see above), as its CINE4 starts compressing much earlier (65%) than the PP3's CINE1 (80%, according to Adam Wilt)

- if in manual iris mode, with zebra set to 100%, never allow ANY zebra in the sky (some traces only allowed in pure white areas, like birch barks; the sky - even cloudy - is NEVER pure white so NO zebra there!)

- if (for any reason) in auto iris mode, increase the TLCS Speed in the menu; when entering clipping, the intermediary stage before iris closes enough (when the ugly aureole around the contrasty shapes is likely to occur) will last much shorter, and be less noticeable

- if shooting a scenery which is likely to exhibit this behaviour for longer time (stationary), I've found out that the halo may be minimized if the offending object (trees, most typically) is in PERFECT focus; rarely practicable, I know - just a side note.

When my PP1 through PP6 are fine-tuned, I'll put them in the "Picture Profiles" sticky for you to check.

PS. I'm becoming to love this camera; if only the ND filter switch didn't stick!

if in manual iris mode, with zebra set to 100%, never allow ANY zebra in the sky (some traces only allowed in pure white areas, like birch bark; the sky - even cloudy - is NEVER pure white so NO zebra there!)

Good work, and good post Piotr.

The snippet above is in my opinion the most important part of your post- and a rule you have to know when and how to break.

This fundamental technique is central- basically you never want more than 100 IRE in your image anywhere- ever. Of course half your data is in the region close to 100IRE so you want to always push against this rule. You usually want your highlights over 95 IRE.

Shooting in the real world sometimes means compromise. What's worse... having the "halo" or having your actors entirely in shadow? Sometimes you break the 100IRE rule because otherwise your image doesn't work. Just don't ever do so lightly.

This is why I earlier talked about exposing. Its possible some thought I was being condescending... but its important enough I want to repeat myself.

Don't start trying to solve problems with PP's or other "technology."

Start with the time honored techniques of the cinematographer's craft. Remember that lighting is about control of light and shadow not merely illumination. This issue is an example of the need to learn to place a shadow in a portion of the image. It is also an example of an issue that is solved best on set- because once you capture that "halo" as data getting rid of it in post is hard.

Here are some solutions that have worked for me in the past.

Use graduated ND filters to eliminate over exposed areas. A rotating filter box is important so you can move the filter to affect just the area in need of adjustment. Beware of internal reflections!

You can also use half nets close to the lens, like you would use a half scrim in a light. This is harder to achieve in practice, so definitely try to graduated ND first.

Use lighting to lift the exposure of your subjects. You can lower total exposure by essentially eliminating contrast.

For the effect under discussion a polarizing filter can eliminate or soften the effect. Its easy and worth a try. I'd guess it works about 25% of the time.

Only once you've tried the photographic methods should you turn to the technology to do fix the image. The technological tools we have today are better suited to enhancing the creativity of an image than to basic control- even for cameras that shoot RAW like RED.

Acquiring in a higher quality codec will help. Chroma subsampling is not the key issue in this particular case, though it certainly wouldn't hurt. Mostly you want a 10 (or higher) bit codec. Such codecs have more ability to handle "superwhite" and "superblack." This is the best technological "magic bullet."

Finally the camera has controls in its picture profiles to help solve problems like this. I don't like to use them because as we have already seen these settings can cause their own problems. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease!

The good news is that the experience you gain on the EX1's picture profiles will be valuable when shooting SI2K, RED, F900 or other cameras with extensive controllability.

Thanks Alexander for your favourable response. Definitely - the most rudimentary, photographic rules & tools should have priority over the numerous tweaks, available in this marvellous camera. Also, I will certainly think of investing in a mattebox with filter holder, because the grad ND filters (and possibly polarizers) seem indispensable.

The higher the potential of a tool one is using, the higher his demands on the quality of work he is doing. And this is perhaps one of the most important advantages of this camera - raising expectations, and motivating to fulfill them. But of course, purely technical benefits like the marvellous low-light performance, manageable DOF etc are also important!

Thanks Alexander for your favourable response.

You are most welcome.

Definitely - the most rudimentary, photographic rules & tools should have priority over the numerous tweaks, available in this marvellous camera.

I keep saying that in great part to remind myself its true! I am such a tech geek that sometimes I forget this simple fact.

Also, I will certainly think of investing in a mattebox with filter holder, because the grad ND filters (and possibly polarizers) seem indispensable.

I bet there is a thread for that and the EX1 somewhere- but please drop me a line when you pick a mattebox- or if you end up starting the thread.

The higher the potential of a tool one is using, the higher his demands on the quality of work he is doing. And this is perhaps one of the most important advantages of this camera - raising expectations, and motivating to fulfill them. But of course, purely technical benefits like the marvellous low-light performance, manageable DOF etc are also important!

Well said.

When Alexander said: "Acquiring in a higher quality codec will help. Chroma subsampling is not the key issue in this particular case, though it certainly wouldn't hurt. Mostly you want a 10 (or higher) bit codec. Such codecs have more ability to handle "superwhite" and "superblack." " does he mean acquiring like with Cineform NEO-HD?

I think ideally you want a 10bit recording medium and the only way to get to the 10bit output from the camera is from HD-SDI port and all the options that could be used in the field are rather expensive.
Once encoded to 8 bit on the SxS cards most NLEs can handle the super whites and blacks. Vegas certainly doesn't have any issues with them although most delivery formats might. Only a matter of wrangling them and there's a number of ways to do that.

I think ideally you want a 10bit recording medium and the only way to get to the 10bit output from the camera is from HD-SDI port and all the options that could be used in the field are rather expensive.
Once encoded to 8 bit on the SxS cards most NLEs can handle the super whites and blacks. Vegas certainly doesn't have any issues with them although most delivery formats might. Only a matter of wrangling them and there's a number of ways to do that.

So are you saying Bob, that while editing and preview is easier the quality using the NEO-HD codex from mp4 to avi is no better than the Sony mp4 to mxf?

When Alexander said: "Acquiring in a higher quality codec will help. Chroma subsampling is not the key issue in this particular case, though it certainly wouldn't hurt. Mostly you want a 10 (or higher) bit codec. Such codecs have more ability to handle "superwhite" and "superblack." " does he mean acquiring like with Cineform NEO-HD?

Yes that is exactly what I mean.

I think ideally you want a 10bit recording medium and the only way to get to the 10bit output from the camera is from HD-SDI port and all the options that could be used in the field are rather expensive.

In the field the only option I know RIGHT NOW is the AJA ioHD coupled with a laptop and an external drive- possibly a drive array.

So, yeah that's expensive as it will cost about as much as the camera itself.

In the near future, we have the Convergent Designs Flash XDR (http://www.convergent-design.com/downloads/Flash%20XDR.pdf).

Also Cineform has begun developing its own solid state recorder, which I have nicknamed "SOLID." (http://www.cineform.com/products/CineFormRecorder.htm")

Once encoded to 8 bit on the SxS cards most NLEs can handle the super whites and blacks. Vegas certainly doesn't have any issues with them although most delivery formats might. Only a matter of wrangling them and there's a number of ways to do that.

This statement is perfectly true and completely misses my point.

The key in my statement is that a 10 bit codec has more ability to handle superwhite and superblack.

8 bit codecs can certainly represent these levels.

8 bit codecs like XDCAM, HDV, DV, DVCPRO HD etc can only represent 256 levels of luma and color intensity.

10 bit codecs can represent 1024 levels. There is just a lot more luminance data, all of which will be available to represent your image.

7.5 IRE to 100 IRE represents your average NTSC image. 0 to 109 IRE represents the range of the EX1. If you use the "super" ranges for image composition you are asking your codec to handle 17% more data. Well strictly speaking you are asking the codec to handle 17% greater range in the data- which compromises its ability to compress efficiently. If you ask this from the codec designed to handle four times the levels, you get better results.

In other words- less abrupt clipping.

8 bit codecs like XDCAM, HDV, DV, DVCPRO HD etc can only represent 256 levels of luma and color intensity.

10 bit codecs can represent 1024 levels. There is just a lot more luminance data, all of which will be available to represent your image.

7.5 IRE to 100 IRE represents your average NTSC image. 0 to 109 IRE represents the range of the EX1. If you use the "super" ranges for image composition you are asking your codec to handle 17% more data. Well strictly speaking you are asking the codec to handle 17% greater range in the data- which compromises its ability to compress efficiently. If you ask this from the codec designed to handle four times the levels, you get better results.

In other words- less abrupt clipping.

This is an excellent point, Alexander - I mentioned earlier in this thread that it's the lack of mid-tones in the partially clipped area that looks bad; as if banding occured due to the chroma/luma resolution not being enough.

I'd like to see the same areas using 10-bit output from HD-SDI!

Nice post Alexander. Hope we will hear more from you.

I'm asking, if the mpg4 files on the SxS card are 8-bit how does Cinform NEO-HD turn them into 10-bit avi files?

Snip...

7.5 IRE to 100 IRE represents your average NTSC image. 0 to 109 IRE represents the range of the EX1. If you use the "super" ranges for image composition you are asking your codec to handle 17% more data. Well strictly speaking you are asking the codec to handle 17% greater range in the data- which compromises its ability to compress efficiently. If you ask this from the codec designed to handle four times the levels, you get better results.

In other words- less abrupt clipping.

There's no 7.5 IRE setup in the digital realm.
The impact of using the extra range from superblack to superwhite on an mepg-2 encoder would be negligable, certainly nothing like 17%. The biggest issue for the XDCAM or any mpeg-2 encoder is noise and motion.

Recording 10bit or 10bit log certainly can gives you more wiggle room. With the SI-2K I'm effectively under exposing compared to the Z1 or EX1 and then digging into the shadows. It's nice to delay those decisions to post for sure and with care you can get a much more pleasing image. I can just as easily if not more easily mangle it too.

In the end you're pretty much forced to deliver in 8 bits. You can make the hard decisions in a camera like the EX1 or you can spend a lot of money on more expensive cameras or recording systems and shift the decisions to post. Unless you start with a sensor with high dynamic range you might be spending a lot of money to record higher quality noise.

As an update to my research of best PP for different lighting conditions. Today we have the first snow this winter (February used to be all freezing temperatures and plenty of snow, but due probably to global warming I didn't have an opportunity to test my EX1 with snow, until today).

Below is a grab with Cine4 (my PP4); as you can see it's very safe - no abrupt clipping (in fact, hardly ANY clipping). With Cine1 (my PP3), it is very difficult to keep the snow on the safe side, while avoiding the "abrupt clipping" behind the trees silhuettes and still getting the dark parts bright enough... Also, I'll be experimenting in the remaining two cine gammas (Cine2 and Cine3), as my PP4 seems to be very conservative in terms of using this camera's latitude potential.

What's interesting, when I switch to 32bit in Vegas, not only does the picture look better, but I'm getting the scopes range from well below 0 up to full 110 (see pictures to the right side).

Sorry I shot my old, good barn again, and trough the window, too - but it's really freezing and that was just a PP experiment :)

For comparison's sake, similar grab with my PP3 (Cine1), also from 32bit Vegas timeline. It's juicier, but more difficult to handle (also, the sun has gone down by some 2 hours ...).

What's interesting, when I switch to 32bit in Vegas, not only does the picture look better, but I'm getting the scopes range from well below 0 up to full 110 (see pictures to the right side).


In 32bit Vegas converts from StudioRGB to ComputerRGB, on the output side you need to / should add the inverse conversion. You can achieve much the same image improvement without going to 32bit and suffering the extended render time.

Bob, I'm getting similar results when I convert from Studio to Computer RGB while still in 8bit (time-saving) mode - is this what you mean?

The key in my statement is that a 10 bit codec has more ability to handle superwhite and superblack.

8 bit codecs can certainly represent these levels.

8 bit codecs like XDCAM, HDV, DV, DVCPRO HD etc can only represent 256 levels of luma and color intensity.

10 bit codecs can represent 1024 levels. There is just a lot more luminance data, all of which will be available to represent your image.



You guys absolutely amaze me with your compulsive analyzing of things. For example, the statement that one should move from 256 levels to 1024 levels. Keep in mind that each channel carries 256 values. Therefore for all three channels(and ignoring alpha channel), we're talking 256x256x256=1.68 MILLION colors. OTOH, 1024 levels would be over 1 BILLION colors! There isn't a display screen in the world that can display that.

True, the real benefit for 10 bit is in post.

Piort:

Did you read my post that addressed this issue? It looks to me that the Vegas scopes can not cope with the super blacks or whites as they show both ends as clipped. So what use are the Vegas scopes now??? I wish someone could explain in detail just how NLE cope with these extreams.

Piort:

Did you read my post that addressed this issue? It looks to me that the Vegas scopes can not cope with the super blacks or whites as they show both ends as clipped. So what use are the Vegas scopes now??? I wish someone could explain in detail just how NLE cope with these extreams.

Michael,

No, I am myself a bit lost here. In fact, while I can see the scopes reaching from below zero on the left, to well over 108 on the right - the picture itself doesn't show any traces of clipping.

I think it takes Glenn Chan or somebody equally knowledgeable to finaly explain all this to us, regular Vegas users :)

Piort:

I started a post on this on the Vegas forum so hopefully Glenn will give us his wisdom.

Piort:

I started a post on this on the Vegas forum so hopefully Glenn will give us his wisdom.

Michael,

I started one there, too - since yesterday Glenn hasn't responded yet; still hoping he will :)

Piotr (like Peter or Pietro; not Piort :))

Michael,

I started one there, too - since yesterday Glenn hasn't responded yet; still hoping he will :)

Piotr (like Peter or Pietro; not Piort :))

Sorry Piotr. How does your name sound?

It's OK :) Cannot find the phonetic transcription right now; with short 'i' anyway...

Piotr:

OK thanks for the hint on changing color space. I now DO SEE the the washing out when moving from Computer RGB to Studio RGB. However I don't see this as a problem as there is no reason to go to Studio RGB is there?

SECONDLY: How do you take those Vegas scopes screen shot?

THIRDLY: I researched your name: pronounced pē-ŌT, or in english sounds Pea.oh'.tr

You guys absolutely amaze me with your compulsive analyzing of things. For example, the statement that one should move from 256 levels to 1024 levels. Keep in mind that each channel carries 256 values. Therefore for all three channels(and ignoring alpha channel), we're talking 256x256x256=1.68 MILLION colors. OTOH, 1024 levels would be over 1 BILLION colors!

Right on brother!

There isn't a display screen in the world that can display that.

Oh... wait up now. You've gone too far.

Sony BVM-L230 is a 10 bit LCD panel, and a 12 bit display engine. It will show 10 bit video color and fully complies with ITU-R BT.709, EBU and SMPTE C. It can also approximate D-Cinema display space, but can not display all the colors in the DCDM gamut. (And it can switch between all those color spaces too.)

Lots of D-Cinema projectors will show all that - and then some since they typically show the full DCDM gamut and have approximately the same total gamut as film. (They are under gamut in some colors and over gamut in others.)

Even your average 8 bit display will show some benefit- even if you NEVER post your work. For example the only banding you'd ever see would be as a result of the display's limitations, not your video signal. Even fairly light post can mess up a sky gradient- and I'm sure you can think of other examples.

You may think that all this is irrelevant. After all those displays I mentioned are expensive. The Sony is ~$30,000 USD when fully configured. D-Cinema projectors are $90,000 and way up.

Take a look at the HDMI spec. Deepcolor wasn't added as a marketing ploy. LCD manufacturers plan on implementing 10 bit display panels. They thought the panels would be readily available by now (2008) in a fakey format using dynamic display engines and 8 bit panels- a low end version of the Cine-Tal dsplays.

(That isn't a fair comparison. The Cine-Tal displays are suited for delicate DI and grading, and add a whole boatload of other features)

I personally don't think you'll see one at Best Buy until 2012, but they are coming.

You should consider what the footage you shoot today will look like in that post environment and on those consumer displays if you expect your work to have lasting value.

10 bit is starting to make sense for producers today the way HD made sense while we were all still delivering SD (and many of us are STILL delivering SD with our HD cameras!) It also neatly solves some problems we see in 8-bit workflows- just like shooting 720p gave us improved apparent resolution on SD delivery.

Of course, when 10 bit delivery becomes the norm we will all be scrambling to work with 10 bit log systems. The film guys will be working in 16 bit log and using 32 bit linear all day. (Some of them already are!)

That's the business.

There's no 7.5 IRE setup in the digital realm.

Strictly speaking no, which is why I was specific in mentioning NTSC.

If you plan on NTSC delivery then you had better be thinking about NTSC's limitations as you shoot and post.


The impact of using the extra range from superblack to superwhite on an mepg-2 encoder would be negligable, certainly nothing like 17%.

Impact in what sense exactly? Impact on encoding efficiency? Impact on the image quality? How about its impact on the tendency of the codec to clip regions?

The biggest issue for the XDCAM or any mpeg-2 encoder is noise and motion.

I agree, but that aspect isn't relevant to abrupt highlight clipping.


Recording 10bit or 10bit log certainly can gives you more wiggle room.

So... wait I thought you were disagreeing with me? That is exactly what I am saying. Now one way to use that extra "wiggle room" is to benefit exposure latitude. That will help with abrupt clipping... which is what we are supposed to be talking about right?


With the SI-2K I'm effectively under exposing compared to the Z1 or EX1

I am not clear at all what you mean.

Do you mean that you are actually exposing differently when looking at the same pre-lit scene? That wouldn't be surprising. Do you mean that you are setting lighting differently to achieve different exposure targets with the camera? Again unsurprising- the RAW workflow is different.

Are you talking about the fact that the SI-2K records a "RAW" sensor feed and that it looks flat by comparison to the pre corrected ready to view images you get from cameras like the EX1?

In any case I don't see how it impacts the choice between 8 and 10 bit recording on a camera like the EX1.


and then digging into the shadows. It's nice to delay those decisions to post for sure and with care you can get a much more pleasing image. I can just as easily if not more easily mangle it too.

I agree with the first part, and agree conditionally with the bit about mangling. As you gain experience its actually easier to manage the entire workflow with good results from these cameras.

Its not as forgiving as film- but its far more forgiving than standard video cameras. It can be hard to find the new "edge" of performance... its somewhere between film and traditional video.


In the end you're pretty much forced to deliver in 8 bits. You can make the hard decisions in a camera like the EX1 or you can spend a lot of money on more expensive cameras or recording systems and shift the decisions to post. Unless you start with a sensor with high dynamic range you might be spending a lot of money to record higher quality noise.

What I am specifically saying is that the EX1 has a high dynamic range and you get more information when you upgrade from the XDCAM codec to a 10 bit codec.

I haven't measured it carefully yet, so I am not sure you really get 10 bits worth of data- but I am pretty sure you get 9 bits worth... and maybe a touch more. Its enough to be worth the hassle and expense of 10 bit recording provided you can manage and afford it.

Where I specifically disagree with your philosophy is that I can't conceive why you'd desire to make the hard decisions in the camera on set, and then discard the data that might allow you to change your mind.

On set you have all sorts of other concerns, like lighting, camera motion and exposure and schedule and... a lot of stuff. Why should you want to add making your final coloring decisions on set too?

I can understand practical reasons why you may not have a choice- and expense is a huge one - but I can't understand wanting to throw the data away.

Especially since we have so much more flexibility in post if the data exists.