As i understand it,no matter what sort of camera you point at the horizon you're never going to get a perfect exposure.ethier the sky is correct & the earth is underexposed or vise versa.
Although i do see this strange effect on the grabs,it's as if the branches have turned blue.

I'm going to have to ask the obvious question. If 110% is the point of digital clipping how does the camera record 150%?
The camera doesn't / can't. I think it's a conceptual thing. Or those values get clipped off at whatever the cutoff is... since it records into 8-bit Y'CbCr values, and Y' only goes up to 255 (235 is where legal white is).

-----------------------------

In regards to the original topic:

A- Vegas' limitations have been discussed on the SCS board. I won't add much about that here, other than don't trust the scopes or the video preview window.

B- In this particular case, you can recover some extra highlight detail by mapping the superwhites into legal range.
For a 32-bit project (the following numbers won't work for 8-bit), apply the Levels filter. Output start should be 0.907.

C- Most cameras have knee functions and algorithms that try to fix the deficiencies of a simple knee.

A simple knee would just apply something like RGB curves to the whole image... like you had taken the image into Photoshop and done curves there to compress the highlights. The problem with that is that highlights will de-saturate when you do this. So what the various cameras do is implement their (secret?) sauce to try to keep the hue and saturation looking right. In a way, the camera plays colorist with your footage.

In some situations, the knee algorithm is pretty inappropriate and will give you crappy results. I think that's the case here if you choose the HISAT setting (that's what it looks like anyways).

D- To figure out the "ideal" exposure... just do a test. That's the best way in my opinion. Your variables are:

What are you shooting. (e.g. some scenes will have a high dynamic range and be challenging.)
Iris/shutter/exposure. Bracket this (e.g. vary the iris or shutter).
Camera settings.
Color grading / color correction in post.

Play around with all this stuff and see what looks best. And from there, figure out how the camera's display, zebras, etc. etc. correspond to the ideal exposure. This way, in the field, you can quickly nail the desired exposure.

To keep you test simple, go outside on a sunny day and shoot something with lots of highlights and shadow.
Try different camera settings, and talk into the camera's microphone to say what the settings are (or write them down on a sheet of paper and possibly film that).
Vary the iris to get a range of different exposures. (Probably do this in increments of half-stops.)

Take all that stuff into post and play around with it.

Glen: What you say is right but I ask all the members reading here to understand that Piotr and me and a few others ARE NOT SAYING WE CAN'T SHOOT GREAT VIDEO - we can. We are trying to "understand" what this camera is doing in various demanding or special situations and some of us are trying to decide if our camera has a problem or not in time to exchange it if necessary.

I pretty regularly have to deal with broken cameras and VCRs. The probability of what's being discussed here being due to something broken in a camera is very, very slim. Almost all the processing is digital, things digital in general tend to work or not or sometimes produce very dramatic errors. There's many things I'd be more worried about in terms of your camera being below standard.
Dead pixels and missaligned block or optics would be my primary concerns.

I pretty regularly have to deal with broken cameras and VCRs. The probability of what's being discussed here being due to something broken in a camera is very, very slim. Almost all the processing is digital, things digital in general tend to work or not or sometimes produce very dramatic errors. There's many things I'd be more worried about in terms of your camera being below standard.
Dead pixels and missaligned block or optics would be my primary concerns.

True Bob: I think I did wrong to emphasis the broken thing. 90% of this to me is an intellectual exercise in wanting to understand. I still am totally baffled as to why my images reach maximum exposure (IE no white detail going away and looking fantastic) when the EX1 histogram goes from 10 to 80 say and the Vegas histogram goes from -15 to 115! And maybe I should stop worrying and just go shoot some pictures but no one, not Glen or Bill or anyone seems to really have an understanding of this that have been able to explain.

And maybe I should stop worrying and just go shoot some pictures but no one, not Glen or Bill or anyone seems to really have an understanding of this that have been able to explain.

Exactly what I think, too. Even though Glenn (unlike Bill) very politely encourages to ask these questions as completely legitimate, it seems nobody has complete understanding of the relationship between the EX1 scopes vs Vegas scopes, especially in the context of Vegas 8bit vs 32bit processing, and/or colour space conversions - not to add the extra complication that the PAL video format introduces as opposed to NTSC format.

Having technical and scientific background (in completely different areas than videography), I hate being unsure and using the trial&error method rather than understanding the theory behind what I'm doing, but I've given up asking about this specific issue, and instead am going to use my own eyes plus my own experimentation with different combinations of settings - I'm sure that just like with my previous cameras, I'll master the EX1 sooner or later, as well.

Because you see, while I realize my English is not perfect (far from that), I still believe my questions have not only been legitimate, but also worded clear enough. If anybody knew the answers and was willing to help, he would. Just see how clear and in-depth Alexander's posts can be...

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

Michael,

Sorry I didn't notice your post (especially its SECOND point) earlier. Taking the scopes screenshots is easy in Windows - just click on its window to focus, press Alt+PrtScn on your keyboard, and voila!...nothing happens :) But you have the window in your clipboard, which you can now paste into e.g. the Paint program (which you have in Windows Accesories). Than "Save it As" a .jpg file...

Don't knock these guy. They happen to be very intelligent with these subjects.
It's really down to owning the camera and determinig yourself what these tools can do for you.

It appears you can't assume that images are safe by the extreme ends of the histogram.

... it seems nobody has complete understanding of the relationship between the EX1 scopes vs Vegas scopes, especially in the context of Vegas 8bit vs 32bit processing, and/or colour space conversions - not to add the extra complication that the PAL video format introduces as opposed to NTSC format.

I don't use Vegas, but Glen Chan said, "Vegas' limitations have been discussed on the SCS board. I won't add much about that here, other than don't trust the scopes or the video preview window."

That concerns me.

I don't know why that should be the case- or in what way they tend to fail. For me that would be a reason to stop using Vegas. If the developers can screw up something that straightforward then what else is wrong?

Regardless, it does make the case neatly for a real hardware waveform monitor and external video monitoring.

The cheapest option I know is getting an SDI monitor with a built in Waveform/Vectorscope like the Sony LMD series. I wasn't happy with the detail in the scope displays- but it is fairly accurate and reliable. It shouldn't be your first choice for scopes, but it will let you know straight away if something is fishy with any of your other scopes. (Software scopes... I'm looking at you!)


Having technical and scientific background (in completely different areas), I hate being unsure and using the trial&error method rather than understanding the theory behind what I'm doing, but I've given up asking about this specific issue, and instead am going to use my own eyes plus my own experimentation with different combinations of settings - I'm sure that just like with my previous cameras, I'll master the EX1 sooner or later, as well.

The main thing is that we need for an EX1 user to sit down with test charts, a good set of scopes, and a light meter and map out what the camera can do in some detail. Then we need to take that into the various bits of software and compare.

If anybody knew the answers and was willing to help, he would. Just see how clear and in-depth Alexander's posts can be...

Flattery will get you places! Thanks, I'm just glad its worth the read.

For whatever reason, and not a reason I understand, using the Computer RGB to Video RGB performs an excessive amount of attenuating of the hilites and shadows of a native .mxf file in V8. All you have to do is look at the histogram. You're right guys, the image looks, and is, washed out.

The solution is simple, ignore the LEVELS FX preset and make your own, limiting the video to 16-235, instead of 24-220, or whatever weird levels the preset is generating. This has been very successful for me, not just on the EX1, but, the JVC HD110 images. I don't know why everyone is so tied into the presets.

WHATEVER the camera does, if delivery is via NTSC, , regardless of the processing precision, 8 or 32 bit, then set it for RGB16-235. The Histogram is the easiest way to see the levels. Now, having said that, scenes are constantly changing in brightness and shadow value, not to mention that some scenes don't have pure white or pure black. So, some DISCRETION is advised. This requires some thought....one can't just push a button and make it perfect, que no?

Both the JVC HD110 and the EX1 capture data outside of the conventional bandwidth everyone is used to. One can force the camera to legacy limits, or, one can accept the new paradigm and work with it, given the tools available, e.g. Vegas8.I'd bet 1 dollar US to a box of dognuts, Vegas will evolve to resolve the current apparent incongruities.

Actually, I think Steve Mullen is right. Vegas is hamstrung because it works in the RGB color space. Times have moved on and Vegas hasn't. Get over it. As for his contention that conversion introduces chroma errors...he doesn't know what he's talking about. It's easy to test by importing the NTSC bars FX onto the vegas timeline and setting the precision to 8 bit. Look at the WFM. It's "studio RGB", i.e. REC601. Now, convert to 32 bit precision....the WFM is not right, 'cuz you're looking at a REC601 COLORBAR with REC709 WFM.. Now, perform a Levels FX on the pattern, converting it to "Computer RGB". Whaddaya get? Yep, REC709 chroma and luma. So, what's the big mystery?

If you really wanna feel good, do the same NTSC pattern test only do it with a captured colorbar from the camera.

As for [Steve Mullen's] contention that conversion introduces chroma errors...he doesn't know what he's talking about.

I don't know the comment Steve Mullen made, but going on your refutation:

Steve is half right. Conversion always introduces all sorts of errors- including chroma errors. Usually its rounding/aliasing errors because the color spaces don't have the same gamut- so your colors may shift slightly.

(A bad conversion algorithm can wreak havoc- but last time I saw that was ... I can't remember a LONG time ago. Pre 2000.)

You are right Bill, in that that doesn't seem to be the main culprit in this case.

If the developers can screw up something that straightforward then what else is wrong?
Well many software scopes are inaccurate. FCP has some errors... its scopes don't always show superblacks correctly, and sometimes the broadcast safe filter does not render out (but it will show in the preview).

I think these errors stick around because very few people need accurate scopes (it's only broadcast delivery where you really need them), and of those people they likely have real hardware scopes anyways.

2- Part of the problem is inherent in the way Vegas handles levels. Unlike other NLEs, manual colorspace/levels conversions are in some cases required. Most NLEs handle that stuff automatically.


For whatever reason, and not a reason I understand, using the Computer RGB to Video RGB performs an excessive amount of attenuating of the hilites and shadows of a native .mxf file in V8. All you have to do is look at the histogram. You're right guys, the image looks, and is, washed out.
1- Performing a computer RGB to studio RGB conversion isn't appropriate in this situation.
2- The video preview may not be accurate.


WHATEVER the camera does, if delivery is via NTSC, , regardless of the processing precision, 8 or 32 bit, then set it for RGB16-235.
I disagree. This will give you the wrong results if you are in 32-bit and render to 10-bit SonyYUV (and possibly some other situations).
You should consult a table like this one since you need to know what the codecs are doing:
http://glennchan.info/articles/vegas/v8color/v8color.htm

2- I think you're getting tripped up in assuming that Rec. 601 is associated with studio RGB, and that Rec. 709 should be associated with computer RGB. It's not true.

*Anyone can download ITU-R BT. 601 and 709 for themselves. They don't specify a standard conversion to R'G'B' except for editing purposes (nor would that make any sense).

10-Bit Sony YUV is not a distribution format. I stand by what I said. I associate REC 601 with DV and older SD formats. REC709 is more related to HD(v) formats. REC 709 allows for RGB 0-255, REC 601 does not.

You can go through the 10-bit SonyYUV codec to SDI to say, a digital betacam (SD) or HDCAM (HD) deck. That is a distribution format in the sense that it goes to the broadcaster.

REC 709 allows for RGB 0-255, REC 601 does not.
This is not true... you can read ITU-R BT. 601 and 709 for yourself.

The studio versus computer RGB stuff is a Vegas thing... not ITU-R.

2- Vegas is also confusing because not all HD formats use a 0-255 range. Cineform doesn't, most codecs in 8-bit don't, etc. etc. You need to consult a table (or some other equivalent method). There's no connection between SD/HD and whether the codecs use computer (0-255) or studio (16-235) levels.

it seems nobody has complete understanding of the relationship between the EX1 scopes vs Vegas scopes, especially in the context of Vegas 8bit vs 32bit processing, and/or colour space conversions - not to add the extra complication that the PAL video format introduces as opposed to NTSC format.

Piotr, here are my articles on how color spaces in Vegas work.

http://glennchan.info/articles/vegas/colorspaces/colorspaces.html <--Read that first, then:
http://glennchan.info/articles/vegas/v8color/v8color.htm

I've done the tests (including checking on real scopes) to arrive at that information. It's how Vegas works.

My first post in this thread (#220) gives you the relevant info to handle the color space part of your test. The only thing I've left out is that you might need to change the output end setting on the Levels filter lower. That is because the Y'CbCr color space contains many colors that lie outside typical R'G'B' space / the camera might be shooting some weird Y'CbCr values.

Glenn, Alexander, Bill and Bob;

Thank you so much for your response to my (a bit bitter - sorry for that) post. Please get me right: I'm not _demanding_ that any forum member is _obliged_ to answer complex questions. In fact, it's SONY (the camera manufacturer), and Sony Creative Software (Vegas producer) who should provide us, the licenced users, with enough information to never run into doubts like this.

As a side note: I've been selling, implementing and supporting the highest-end CAD/CAM/CAE software since the mid-1980's and believe me, leaving a customer on his own while facing similar dilemma would have been unthinkable!

And yet - even though both the hardware we're discussing here (the XDCAM EX CineAlta) and the software (Vegas) are both _Professional_ products - getting appropriate support from Sony is impossible. Hence my bitterness...

The more we're grateful to forum members like you for trying to help us, the less-knowledgeable members, by sharing your in-depth expertise for free...

Back to the merits:

Glenn, I have read your articles you have provided the links to, as well as your, Bill's, and other's posts here and on the SCS Vegas forum. Unfortunately, you guys not always agree in your interpretations of the matters involved...

One thing that has never been addressed (as it _perhaps_only applies to PAL users) is what I observed, and enquired about, many times before:

- OK, so the Vegas preview window is not a thing to blindly trust; what's important is my final render. But in the "Advanced video" tab of any "Render as..." template, one can choose the "Video format" to be either NTSC (the Vegas default), PAL, or Component. Now, this can dramatically change the look of my final renders!

For the time being I'd be comfortable enough if I knew for sure that the following workflow with my EX1 mxf's is OK:

- stay in 8bit video all the way through and not apply any colour space conversion, even though the preview window looks washed-out

- make sure the Video format is set to PAL in the final render.

Well, I know this has made the equation even more complicated, but I'd appreciate an explicit answer. TIA!

Piotr

Piotr...

AFAIK, my workflow is to stay in 8-bit until I'm ready to render. Then I convert to 32-bit for final render. I ALWAYS carry along a colorbar for 2-secs in every render and check the pluge aginst the WFM after rendering. This is de riguer until I get my head around which codecs do what.

In the end, it's really up to each of us to test our own workflow from start to DVD production and viewing on a consumer monitor.....or whatever our chosen distribution media is. Once we're satisfied with the results, we can reproduce that workflow, exactly. If the workflow changes, repeat the testing ...all the way thru to the end.

There's tons of advice available here, much of it is wrong, my own advice included. There are so many variables and places to get tripped up in one's workflow, this part of the process really needs to be methodical and repeateble. Bad results or "flyers" need to be ignored. There's too much else to focus on. I've listened to other people without testing all the way thru to distribution, before, and it's gotten me in trouble. If you have a paying customer, and you deliver late because your workflow is erroneous, you've just lost a customer.

BTW, before I retired, I was a daily user of CAD/CAM(Solidworks, Pro-E and Unigraphics) Now THERE's a mess!!

Bill,
do you have Cineform NEO HD?

Currently I have NEO HDV, which only supports up to 1440x1080.

I'm thinking about upgrading to NEO HD, but I want to make sure I can benefit with this upgrade over just staying with the mxf files.

I'm well aware of the overall benefit of Cineform, and some day I hope to capture directly to their codec via their future SDI portable recorder (I'm really looking forward to this!).

My normal work flow usually involves staying in Vegas 8.0b using internal plugins,color grading, effects, ect.. so this implies only one render at the end to my final distribution format (DVD, or Blu-ray). When going to DVD, I usually frame serve to Procoder. Vegas 8.0b makes great looking m2v files for Blu-ray.

Will I benefit from NEO HD using this work flow?

I upgraded to Neo HD a few months ago, primarily for the 1920x1080 size capability. Honestly, I'm undecided about the utility of CFHD. I lose timecode by transcoding to CFHD. It makes a really great intermediate, and usually render to CFHD in my process. I guess, the jury's still out on this choice.

what's important is my final render. But in the "Advanced video" tab of any "Render as..." template, one can choose the "Video format" to be either NTSC (the Vegas default), PAL, or Component. Now, this can dramatically change the look of my final renders!
I'm not seeing that on my end.

What are the steps you are taking?
What codec?

What program are you using to view those files?

Glenn,

Here is the grab with the setting I mean; if I choose anything other than PAL or Component, the colours of my HDV final renders are less saturated, and the dynamic range narrower, than with the source HDV clips as played in any MPEG-2 software palyer - including WMP or Nero Showtime.

Also, I had to create my own Blu-Ray templates, as those supplied with Vegas all had NTSC as the video format (even the 1440x1080/50i or 1920x1080/50i ones).

This is one of the things that show Vegas has been developed with mainly the NTSC users in mind.

I'm not seeing that on my system- renders between NTSC and component look the same.


Also, I had to create my own Blu-Ray templates, as those supplied with Vegas all had NTSC as the video format (even the 1440x1080/50i or 1920x1080/50i ones).
My 50i templates show component or unspecified.

Glenn: I have read all the links but still would like some specific info related directly to the EX1 such as:

1) If I capture with Clip-Browser, what color space are the mxf files in? (To me they act like computer RGB)
2) If I set my project to 32bit how does that change the mxf files color space?
3)If I capture with Cineform I have a studio RGB, right? So how will footage look or act different from mxf files as in 1 above.
4) If I render out for Blu-ray what color space does the burner get or expect?
5) Do these question indicate I'm totally wacko?

I'm not seeing that on my system- renders between NTSC and component look the same.

Am I hallucinating? Bob, your're PAL - could you please render a few secs of an mxf into 1920x1080/25p in two versions: PAL and NTSC as video format (as per my post above), and compare the resulting colours with those of the input clip? TIA!

Am I hallucinating? Bob, your're PAL - could you please render a few secs of an mxf into 1920x1080/25p in two versions: PAL and NTSC as video format (as per my post above), and compare the resulting colours with those of the input clip? TIA!

No problem but before I do I think that using either PAL or NTSC would be a mistake, there's no such thing as PAL or NTSC in HD, in SD there is a difference between REC 624-2 for PAL and NTSC (slightly different colourspace). There is no such difference in REC 709, Vegas uses the Component profile for all HD mpeg-2 encoding. This would explain why you're seeing a difference, basically you're changing something that you shouldn't.

In fact the use of the terms PAL and NTSC in relation to HD is wrong, it makes more sense to use 50Hz / 60Hz or Region 50 / Region 60.

Glenn: I have read all the links but still would like some specific info related directly to the EX1 such as:

1) If I capture with Clip-Browser, what color space are the mxf files in? (To me they act like computer RGB)
2) If I set my project to 32bit how does that change the mxf files color space?
3)If I capture with Cineform I have a studio RGB, right? So how will footage look or act different from mxf files as in 1 above.
4) If I render out for Blu-ray what color space does the burner get or expect?
5) Do these question indicate I'm totally wacko?


Good questions

No problem but before I do I think that using either PAL or NTSC would be a mistake, there's no such thing as PAL or NTSC in HD, in SD there is a difference between REC 624-2 for PAL and NTSC (slightly different colourspace). There is no such difference in REC 709, Vegas uses the Component profile for all HD mpeg-2 encoding. This would explain why you're seeing a difference, basically you're changing something that you shouldn't.

In fact the use of the terms PAL and NTSC in relation to HD is wrong, it makes more sense to use 50Hz / 60Hz or Region 50 / Region 60.

I would think so, too - but my experience with both HDV from the V1E and MXF from the EX1 shows otherwise. If I leave NTSC (Vegas default), I'm getting washed-out renders. It's true that other than NTSC, all other settings (i.e. PAL, Component, etc.) seem to produce similar results (i.e. with colours and black level identical to my raw clips before rendering in Vegas).

In fact, my first BD I burnt from Veags timeline seemed so much washed-out that I checked the Blu-Ray templates, and discovered they ALL had NTSC as the video format in the Advanced video tab (even the only PAL BD templates, i.e. the 1920/50i and 1440/50i ones). I changed them both to PAL, and am getting beautifully saturated BD's now (all this in 8bit projects, and without the colour space conversion to Computer RGB, which does the same for the preview window).

I would think so, too - but my experience with both HDV from the V1E and MXF from the EX1 shows otherwise. If I leave NTSC (Vegas default), I'm getting washed-out renders. It's true that other than NTSC, all other settings (i.e. PAL, Component, etc.) seem to produce similar results (i.e. with colours and black level identical to my raw clips before rendering in Vegas).

In fact, my first BD I burnt from Veags timeline seemed so much washed-out that I checked the Blu-Ray templates, and discovered they ALL had NTSC as the video format in the Advanced video tab (even the only PAL BD templates, i.e. the 1920/50i and 1440/50i ones). I changed them both to PAL, and am getting beautifully saturated BD's now (all this in 8bit projects, and without the colour space conversion to Computer RGB, which does the same for the preview window).


Sorry but all the BD templates I just checked show Video Format "Unspecified" and the Color primaries etc as Rec 709. Which is I believe exactly as it should be.

Saying that your first disk looked washed out is a pretty meaningless statement really. That could be due to a number of factors or combination of all of them. Without knowing where in the process this is happening and adjusting something could lead you down the road to all manner if problems. I know the old saying "All that matters is how it looks on the big screen" and if that's all that you're after then tweak away. Just be aware it might look very different on another big screen.

Simple suggestion. Record bars in the camera. Go through your whole process using the bog standard settings for everything and then calibrate your monitor(s) and HDTV from those bars.
Better still if you can get a BD calibration disk and calibrate your HDTV if you haven't already done so. That's got to be your first step.

Bob,

I checked the 8.0b original templates and you're right - "Unspecified" is this field value. But when the BD burning from timeline first appeared (i.e. in the original VP 8.0 release), it was NTSC - I remember for sure as it was then when I run accross the colour saturation problems for the first time (it coincided of course with the introduction of 32/2.22 F.P. processing, and made the things really complicated).

Now, it might have been an SCS bug; indeed I have just finished a quick render with video format "Unspecified" rather than "PAL", and it looks OK (i.e. same as PAL, more saturated than with NTSC).

If this is the case, it looks like I'm back to a more comfortable situation I used to be in with Vegas 7, when I didn't have any doubts regarding the colour space whatsoever. Meaning that - unless a project involves heavy edits that actually involve colour re-calculations - I can follow exactly my workflow used with HDV and Vegas 7 (stay in 8 bit, do not use RGB conversion, have anything BUT NTSC in the final render's template Advanced Video tab).

Should need arise, I'd be switching to 32bit mode and follow Glenn's colourspace conversions table... If this all works as expected, than the only doubt left would be the Vegas preview window colours, and Vegas scopes, credibility...

Looks like a plan to test out thoroughly now!

Just as a follow-up:

I have turned the colour management on, and checked the Studio RGB on the Windows Secondary Display properties sheet - what a difference! When I click the "external monitor" icon above Vegas preview window, before the monitor switches into the overlay mode, I can see it increase the colours' saturation and dynamic range - what I can see full-screen is now exactly the same punchy colours and levels as in the raw MXF's. All this _WITHOUT_ unnecessary converting the colour space in my mxf's, and in 8bit mode...

I definitely recommned doing it to all complaining about the Vegas preview window showing washed-out colours, before fooling around with colour space RGB conversion, or engaging the time consumming 32-bit processing.

Of course, if someone uses a separate monitor, it will do the trick as well. Thanks Glenn!

Just as a follow-up:



I definitely recommned doing it to all complaining about the Vegas preview window showing washed-out colours, before fooling around with colour space RGB conversion, or engaging the time consumming 32-bit processing.



duh!

sorry, Piotr, I couldn't resist ;o)

1) If I capture with Clip-Browser, what color space are the mxf files in? (To me they act like computer RGB)
2) If I set my project to 32bit how does that change the mxf files color space?
8-bit Vegas project: studio RGB
32-bit Vegas project: computer RGB

3)If I capture with Cineform I have a studio RGB, right? So how will footage look or act different from mxf files as in 1 above.
Decodes to studio RGB, regardless of what mode your Vegas project is in.

4) If I render out for Blu-ray what color space does the burner get or expect?
It expects Y'CbCr values. You need to make sure the Y'CbCr values are encoded properly. So you need to know what type of RGB-->Y'CbCr conversion is being done. Or stated differently, the encoder will expect either studio or computer RGB levels. You need to feed it those levels.

One way to achieve that is to nest your .veg, and then apply a color space conversion if necessary (sometimes it is not necessary). No color space conversion is necessary in your case, if you're not using Cineform (and assuming you ONLY have EX1 footage in your timeline; if you bring in some other formats, they will need color space conversion).
In an 8-bit project, you should make sure fades to black are fading to 16 16 16 RGB black (not the default 0 0 0 RGB). Lay a solid color generator on the bottom-most track.

5) Do these question indicate I'm totally wacko?
Nope :)

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)

Just an update:

Today I tested my above mentioned "Relelease Candidate" PP6 preset for outdoors at dusk; semi-dark, no additional lighting, sky 100% overcast with those dark gray clouds being the brightest part of the scenery. What I did was basically use the PP4 (see above), but further stretch blacks (Black Gamma up at 40), and compensate for that with increasing overall colour saturation (Hisat Matrix with level as high as 75). Frankly, I was afraid what I shoot would be watchable at all; it certainly wouldn't with my old good V1E.

Imagine my nice surprise when I got quite watchable, saturated video, with trees clearly against the sky without the "abrupt clipping" (thank to the Cine4's low and gradual knee), and the dark, dull foreground stretched enough to show all details, yet without virtually any noise (I managed to keep gain at -3dB for the first 15 mins, than had to go up to 3dB as it was getting dark fast). I started with the shutter of 1/50th but, since it was a low-light handling experiment, I sacrificed some movement fluidity for the extra stop, and when it became even darker switched the shutter off (1080/25p with 25fps).

Of course the grab below is certainly not the best picture that could possibly be obtained, but I think it's a step to the right direction. This camera can really "brighten the reality"...

I decided to put it in this thread, as many others - also dealing with various aspects of the EX1 picture settings - have been heavily biased towards their interactions with what Vegas does, and how it displays what it does :)

OK, so I must say that - after having tested all gamma curves in various conditions - the ugly patches of colour, resulting from how the camera handles light in the vicinity of the knee ("abrupt highlights clipping") can actually happen with ANY gamma curve.

Of course, one can avoid this by carefully watching the picture and zebra/histogram and either decrease or increase exposure to avoid the tricky area. This is now always possible, however.

Even though the Cine curves (especially, CINE2) are more forgiving than the Standard ones, they have fixed Knee settings which prevents the user from tweaking them to his preferrences.

I wonder, since nobody is reporting similar observations, do most people just accept it, or is my camera (for whatever reason) more sensitive to the phenomenon?

Also, is it just me, or does every unit brighten the picture for split second (like some 2 frames) when switching between auto iris on and off? I find this annoying, as - when I switch the iris to Auto - before it gently adopts the new aperture value, the exposure goes up for no apparent reason (sometimes by as much a couple of stops - it's only visible in the picture, though; the aperture reading in the LCD doesn't reflect it).

?

Also, is it just me, or does every unit brighten the picture for split second (like some 2 frames) when switching between auto iris on and off? I find this annoying, as - when I switch the iris to Auto - before it gently adopts the new aperture value, the exposure goes up for no apparent reason (sometimes by as much a couple of stops - it's only visible in the picture, though; the aperture reading in the LCD doesn't reflect it).[/QUOTE]


Bill,mine does that aswell.
Paul.

...

OK, so I must say that - after having tested all gamma curves in various conditions - the ugly patches of colour, resulting from how the camera handles light in the vicinity of the knee ("abrupt highlights clipping") can actually happen with ANY gamma curve.

Of course, one can avoid this by carefully watching the picture and zebra/histogram and either decrease or increase exposure to avoid the tricky area. This is now always possible, however.

Funny I remember reading this sort of statement elsewhere.

If it isn't possible to set exposure properly, then the next step is to modify the lighting, or the cameras view of that light- again as I've said here before.

Some combination of netting, scrims, neutral density and other tricks to bring that portion of the image under control.

If you are shooting something without the budget and/or time to implement those lighting controls then your clients, and the audience, aren't likely to notice or care.

I wonder, since nobody is reporting similar observations, do most people just accept it, or is my camera (for whatever reason) more sensitive to the phenomenon?

This happens with ANY camera... from your eye to a fisher price pixelvision, and yes even the EX1.

Its pretty hard to notice with your eye though because your eye is equipped with the best auto iris ever- oh and don't forget a ridiculous dynamic range... but you can see it.

So... do I notice it? Sure, in most every camera I've used in a similar situation. Do I complain? Nope. I either correct the exposure or modify the lighting. If I can't do any of that then the shot wasn't worth worrying about and I accept it.


Also, is it just me, or does every unit brighten the picture for split second (like some 2 frames) when switching between auto iris on and off? I find this annoying, as - when I switch the iris to Auto - before it gently adopts the new aperture value, the exposure goes up for no apparent reason (sometimes by as much a couple of stops - it's only visible in the picture, though; the aperture reading in the LCD doesn't reflect it).

I hadn't noticed that... but then I haven't looked. The first thing I do with an EX1 is turn off auto anything. I don't turn them back on.

Leaving aside my peculiarities, why on earth would you change from manual to auto iris during a take?

Alexander;

I cannot agree with you this time:)

Regarding the "abrupt clipping" - it's untrue that "every camera does that". My V1E didn't. The only thing to worry about when filming a back-lit scene was choosing what I wanted to expose properly: the bright backgroud so it doesn't clip, or perhaps a person standing against it so it's not under-exposed? That was quite normal; the decision was mine. With the EX1, a third factor is involved: how to avoid the clipped colour patches I can't even see in the LCD while shooting? I certainly consider the way it handles it as being flawed; it's not just the question of inevitable clipping! For instance, can you tell me why are those patches always bluish - regardles whether it's clipping the blue sky, or a gray cloud?

Also, with regards to auto iris on/off thing: very often, when following my subject in an uncontrolled scenery, I'd just switch to auto and let the camera decide while I'm busy with framing and focussing. Then, having re-framed and re-focussed, I'd like to take the exposure control back from the camera.... Again, with the V1, all I had to do was push a button; the camera would take / release control gracefully. But not the EX1 - it will open the iris momentarily, severely overexposing 1-2 frames, and only then set the appropriate aperture.

So frankly I really DO consider these to be flaws in practical use outside a controlled environment like a studio. And one more thing: you said elsewhere that PP's (and the tweakable parameters in general) should serve artistic purposes, not "fighting" for a usable picture... Well, I wish you were right!!! I also would be very glad, but it simply isn't true. Without tweaking, the picture from my EX1 is much worse than that from the V1E I had (also tweakable, but in much more straighforward and predictable fashion). The only obvious advantages over my previous camera are then reduced to better low-light sensitivity and better MPEG-2 codec - but NOT colours and latitude! This is less than what I was expecting, therefore I'm trying to find best PP for each type of lighting conditions, in order to optimize the EX1 picture. Only when (or if?) I succeed, will I play further with the picture parameters for the "artistic purposes"!

There is only one possible explanation, or if you like: excuse, for the above "peculiarities": if the EX1 is treated as a stationary camera for shooting under carefully controlled light, and with enough time to set-up each take - the flaws (including sticking ND switch) become irrelevant. With ENG use, however, they are really serious (is there anything you could call "a take" in run'n'gun shooting?). With its handycam form factor, has the EX1 been designed as a stationary-only (or -mainly) camera? From what you are advising, Alexander, I take it that you're advocating to use it that way...

PS. Oh, and Alexander - even if you never switch auto iris on during shots, could you just check it for me, please? Perhaps it's just my unit - you don't need to actually shoot and play the recording back; it's enough to observe the iris ring: when I slide the Iris switch into the Auto position, the ring does a very jerky movement, and only then slowly and gently adopts the new position (the second, proper movement's range depending of course on the difference betweeen the current manual setting, and what the camera thinks it should be).

Same request to everyone else... TIA!

Yes, my EX1's iris does a jump when I switch from manual to auto. Thinking it through I might be asking for my money back if it didn't. This was advertised as a camera with a full manual lens. That means the operator can control the lens through purely mechanical means i.e. no electronics between human and lens. Actually I think we got dudded with the zoom but I guess given the huge cost of real zooms I can live with that.
Anyway, for the iris control when switched to manual the servo motor has to be powered down or mechanically disengaged. The latter is what happens from memory on the big broadcast lenses. In the EX1 I think the servo motor is simply power off, you'd sure never move the iris ring if it was powered up.
When power comes back on (you switch to Auto) the the motor will jump, something about coils of wire and magnets come to mind from high school physics.
The V1 is a different beast from memory, not a real manual iris. In manual you takeover from the feedback loop in the exposure servo control circuit, the iris servo is still powered up. When you switch to auto the control goes back to the feedback control from the exposure metering circuit.

You wanted a better camera than the V1, you got it. Does not mean it'll be easier to use, that was a given as far as I was concerned. Take the next step up in cameras and you'll find there's no autofocus. Next step or two up the rung and you'll find auto iris doesn't exist either.

Thanks Bob for confirming the iris thing. Yes - the first thing that came to my mind when I first noticed it was: this is the price I have to pay for the fully manual iris ring...

Please do not get me wrong; I'm not bashing the camera. I'm simply trying to point out that opinions such as Alexander's (that it behaves exactly like any other camera would) are simply wrong: it does not! And those people who - like myself - are asking questions in order to understand it better, are fully entitled to do so, rather than treat everything specific to this camera as "normal".

I had some doubts and problems with my V1E as well, if you remember - so I hope that after some more time I'll make friends with the EX1 just like I did with its predecessor. If I regret anything, it is only that I had to sell the V1E as keeping both would not have been "economically justified" in my case - the two would complement each other perfectly!

OK, so - following the conclusions in previous posts - I'm asking those more knowledgeable to help me in the following:

Having established that the CINE curves are more forgiving than the STANDARD ones, I'll keep my PP's build around the CINE gammas as the safe settings. However, in case I'd like the punchy look that only STD1 offers, while trying to avoid "abrupt clipping patches" -

- would you move the KNEE point up or down?
- would you make the curve above it more or less sloppy?
- would you increase or decrease the compressed highlights' saturation?

Any opinions welcome!

No comments? ;)

Well, here is a go:

upper: TC2 with CINE1
lower: TC2 with STD1, and both Knee point & Slope UP (and I mean waaay up, too!)

I also tried STD1 with Knee and Slope down from default, but the compression starts much too early, effectively neutralizing the extra headroom for highlights that the STD1 offers. So - as could be expected - rising the Knee allows for an even brighter picture. It's easier now to blow highlights past the "abrupt clipping" zone; however I am still unsure whether the Slope should be up as well, or lowered, or unchanged - in order to narrow the offending (abrupt partial clipping) zone...

Any theory behind that?

PS Sorry - I was so busy tweaking in haste that I didn't notice at once how crappy my tripod was positioned :)

With the EX1, a third factor is involved: how to avoid the clipped colour patches I can't even see in the LCD while shooting? I certainly consider the way it handles it as being flawed; it's not just the question of inevitable clipping!

Welcome to the world of extended dynamic range.

For the first time your foreground subjects and background fit within the camera's ability to render images. Just barely as it turns out, but they are there.

These colored areas are REAL. They are there if you turn your eye to that portion of your scene.

The V1 would need to be set to a useless exposure to create this effect. The foreground would be far too dark and the sky still hopelessly over exposed

I haven't been able to do a latitude test on the EX1, but I've read that the camera gives 10 stops. Seems about right.

If the camera had a latitude of 11 or 12 stops you'd see the "problem" blossom into complete detailed skies on a lot of these shots.

For instance, can you tell me why are those patches always bluish - regardles whether it's clipping the blue sky, or a gray cloud?

Because its SUNLIGHT that's causing the effect in both cases. Your looking at either hard sunlight in clear skies or diffuse sunlight in cloudy skies.

If you create an analogous situation using a tungsten light source then the effect will appear to be that characteristic yellow orange tungsten color.

So frankly I really DO consider these to be flaws in practical use outside a controlled environment like a studio.

I see you never did understand me.

Everywhere the photographer works is a controlled photographic environment because the photographer is imposing control on the environment.

That gentlemen is the the nutshell description of our job.

A photojournalist (i.e. a news photographer) has a different task- they are to capture the scene as it was without altering or modifying it. In that regard any number of picture problems is acceptable provided that the image represents the reality of the event. This means that the photojournalist must exert only unobtrusive photographic control.

Even so in news videography cameramen place lights, use reflectors/bounce, hang nets or silks and do all sorts of modification whenever they can.

I certainly didn't put those lights and grip gear in the truck, I didn't even know what it was back then! I'm guessing ABC put it there... and I'm further guessing that they meant for me to use it when they stuck it in there.

So... why aren't you controlling your scene?

Without tweaking, the picture from my EX1 is much worse than that from the V1E I had

<sigh>That statement is enlightening, and I disagree with you vehemently.

This camera can do a TON more than the consumer cams you say you've used... but it also won't do any of it for you.

Think about this for a minute- either I am right and something basic about photography is hurting how you take images or Sony is selling a worthless piece of junk for way more than its worth.

Let me put it differently... if you are runnin and gunnin all fast and furious and some new situation rears its ugly head, you won't have time to sit down work through the menus and create a picture profile for the occasion.

If you did have the time, it would be far quicker to throw a little net on a french arm off your tripod's neck and go. If you have the right stuff it would be even faster to throw some graduated ND in the filter box and adjust it.

If you are geared for film, you could light the subject to raise their exposure to something you like... a 1K HMI will work wonders... but now you ain't running- which is why I didn't suggest it before.

There is only one possible explanation, or if you like: excuse, for the above "peculiarities": if the EX1 is treated as a stationary camera for shooting under carefully controlled light, and with enough time to set-up each take - the flaws (including sticking ND switch) become irrelevant. With ENG use, however, they are really serious

A stationary camera? That's the worst mischaracterization I've ever heard. Come on!

All this because I suggested using a graduated ND filter in a rotating matte box? Or a net ? Oh dear.

I will say this... everything I suggested is something you can do at or near the camera, and yes even with a run'n'gun field rig while hanging loose out the back of a truck in the jungle on assignment for Nat Geo. For the record that would be a moving camera.

My advice is only predicated on the notion that you want to take time and care with your image.

Frankly right now your worst "abrupt clipping" results are perfectly fine for ENG use. The compression for sat trans will do far worse to your image. I seriously doubt you are really complaining that much about this camera for ENG use though. Putting on my "ENG shooter hat" I can think of a hundred things to complain about the EX1 before I mention the image.

I am guessing that you are doing EFP and low budget indie film. That's fine... that's how I've been using it, and I expect to do plenty of guerilla film making when I own my own. The main point is that if you are doing indie film or working industrial videos say so... don't pretend your working news.

If your real complaint is that you can't get feature film results out of the camera while using ENG or combat camera techniques then ... well I can't help you.

(is there anything you could call "a take" in run'n'gun shooting?).

A take is anytime the camera is recording.

Since you are a run'n'gun video guy you may consider the phrase "during a take" to be exactly equivalent to "while recording."

With its handycam form factor, has the EX1 been designed as a stationary-only (or -mainly) camera? From what you are advising, Alexander, I take it that you're advocating to use it that way...

I suppose I advise using any camera "that way" whenever you can.

I'll repeat that your calling my suggestions suitable for "stationary-only" cameras is a mischaracterization at best.

That said I think the EX1's ergonomics make it less than desirable as the run'n'gun ENG camera you seem to be searching for.

If my job was to shoot with the camera handheld and on the move all day I'd look for a shoulder mounted unit, and I'd probably turn my eye towards the HPX500 or maybe the XDCAM HD F330. I love solid state though, so I'd probably go to the HPX.

PS. Oh, and Alexander - even if you never switch auto iris on during shots, could you just check it for me, please?

Yes I'll check it next time I have an EX1. FWIW I get that on the camera I have with me. As Bob suggested it seems to be a servo driven thing not an EX1 thing.

No comments? ;)

Piotr, could you please post your metered readings for the foreground subjects and the sky as well as all the camera settings for your images.

When posting comparisons please don't change ANYTHING but what it is you want us to examine between shots.

For example in these shots it looks like a cloud has moved from behind your camera placing more hard light on the foreground scene. Also you panned left and tilted down and... the list goes on.

It would be better if the two shots were absolutely identical, with the ONLY difference being the change in picture profile. Same iris, zoom, focus distance, lighting... same everything please.

A spot meter would be ideal for this issue- if you don't have one please buy, beg, borrow or steal one.

I'm not sure where all the fuss is coming from... I've been taking jaw-dropping footage with the EX1.

If you're not happy with the EX1, sell it quick. Since it's only been out for three months, I'm willing to bet you will get top dollar for it.

I'm not sure where all the fuss is coming from... I've been taking jaw-dropping footage with the EX1.

If you're not happy with the EX1, sell it quick. Since it's only been out for three months, I'm willing to bet you will get top dollar for it.

Amen! Definitely. Either return it if its defective or sell it if its not what you want. If I was as unhappy with it as you seem to be I'd try to recoup my costs as quickly as possible. I think this thread has gone on long enough with no conclusion to indicate that nobody has a real "solution" to the "problem".

Alexander,

Thanks for your elaborated and enlightening post - I really appreciate the effort you put into answering me. However, as others seem to be getting impatient, I am giving up further delving into this subject.

I would like to say though, that if I was understood to be totally critical about the EX1, than I was misunderstood. Perhaps this is a matter of my English. For instance:

- I didn't say it's a "stationary" camera; I said that your advice about nets and alike would be better suited for a stationary camera / environment

- I didn't say it gives worse picture than the V1E; I said it does when straight of the box, and compared to a properly tweaked V1 - etc, etc.

Anyway, I guess that those impatient with me would do a better job by providing their own examples of the "abrupt clipping" and how they control it, instead of their catty remarks. It'd help users like me come to terms with it, as we'd have to accept it as 100% normal for all EX1 units. The thread has lasted for 3 week, yet the only examples were mine - all the other kept saying it's perfectly normal, but no picture was posted! And, when I ask for general suggestions about the Knee settings to alleviate the phenomenon, nobody answers... Oh, and regarding the above comparison: of course the clouds moved; I couldn't stop it - don't have two EX'1 to shot simulatenously, either.

Thanks again, Alexander:)

Users are posting samples of their footage all the time...
I'm not sure what you're talking about.

My guess is there are quite a few users now on this forum.
I don't really hear anyone complaining but yourself. Why would we
post something that's not bothering us?

I'm happy with the exposure coming from the EX1. In fact, it has a LOT more control of getting the right exposure and the headroom than my other cameras could offer.

Steven,

Just to make myself clear, as you obviously didn't get me: people ARE indeed posting their best pieces (I have shot some nice stuff, too), and I enjoy and admire their work. But this is not the point; I'd like to see somebody post the exactly same effect of "abrupt clipping" as I did, along with some technical hints to avoid it (other than controlling how the scene is lit, and preferrably in the form of the camera tweaking with gamma, its Knee settings etc.).

You're right, I'm not following.

What are you trying to acheieve from this further discussion?

If you don't like the "abrupt clipping" I say stay away rom clipping. If you find that you can not achieve what you believe should not show your issue, I'd suggest either living with it, or sell it.

I'm having ABSOLUTELY no issues with mine. In fact, I'm seeing more latitude than my previous 1/3" cameras. You need to pay attention to not just luma, but your color channels.

If you don't like the "abrupt clipping" I say stay away rom clipping.

Very true. I guess this thread could be summarized as follows:

Abrubt clipping results from the combination of the greater dynamic range and some peculiarities of highlight compression handling around the knee point.

Once we're aware of it, we can avoid it - but with the current firmware, only in manual iris. For run'gun'style this is not always practical. With Cine gammas, engaging auto iris - while helping to stay on the safe side and avoid the abrupt clipping - tends to waste a lot of bandwidth in the highlights; with STD ones - auto iris sets the exposure right into the abrupt clipping area.

I guess we would be just fine if Sony included in the future firmware what I mention here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=837165&postcount=61