The Picture profiles from one can not be used in the other. I tried this for a test and it was not a good result.


Thanks Paul & Alister - that's what I wanted to know.


The 350 handles the edge sharpness/natural look much better then the EX1. I say EX1 since I don't have a EX3.

I'm sure it does, Paul. Unfortunately, it's beyond my means at this time...

As Paul said the settings for the 350 don't cross over to the EX1 as the 350's default "sharpness" is higher than that of the EX. On the 350 I'm looking at a much higher amount of softening from the default than I would use for a similar look on the EX1.

That said, I'd just like to make sure (don't have access to a 350, so cannot check myself):

- the difference between your 350 scene settings and those for the EX1/3 cameras are only quantitative, not qualitative, am I right?

In other words, are the mechanism of the picture sharpness/noise related settings the same in both camera types? I'd say they are (detail, frequency, white/black limits, crispening); not sure about aperture - but please confirm.

Thanks,

Piotr

Both the EX and PMW detail systems do the same thing, adding a white or black outline to outlines and edges. The amount of correction is different between the two cameras.

Aperture is an additional adjustment not available on the EX1/EX3.

Thanks Alister.

Regarding the ongoing strive for keeping as much detail as possible without exaggeration of the outlines and noise, I've already had several surges of energy for experimenting with these settings on my EX1, but frankly, I ended up with just two - quite different yet simple - looks to be chosen from, depending on the destination of my video.

When I'm after that filmic, dreamy look I usually dial the detail setting down to some -15, and crush blacks. This looks best with 180 Deg shutter; sometimes no shutter at all. OF course, this is accompanied by very specific color/gamma choice(s), but that's another subject.

When I'm after the opposite - i.e. the most "realistic" look - I must admit I like it sharp, so I use faster shutters, and crank detail up into default territories, or even up to +10 (but no more than this - above +15, the picture looks almost "embossed"). I have been trying to fight the "echo" around edges with detail set high like this using the black/white limits, frequency and crispening settings, but with varying success. I'd appreciate it very much if some of you guys (Alister, Paul or Tom) share your EX1 experience in this regard.

Piotr,

You will probably get 3 different answers on this, but for a highly detailed look from the EX1, I prefer:

Detail Level: +1 (or soften to taste)
Frequency: +65
White Limit: +75
Black Limit: +75

all the others at default.

That setting has worked well for me with std gamma 3, Black -4, and the knee point and slope adjusted for the scene, and also for both 60i and 24p shooting modes.

The PMW350, just like the EX1 will clip the colors (think of bare tree branches against a bright sky, like some of the pictures you posted in the past), if you don't manage the knee point and slope properly with the standard gammas.

Compared to the EX1, the PMW350 needs the detail level dialed back to -10 to -15. I think the PMW350 benefits from having the Frequency set lower as well, +55. Although the default level of sharpening in the PMW350 is higher than the EX1, the PMW350 better avoids the heavy black and white outlines drawn around high contrast edges than the EX1. That said, they can still be effectively mitigated on the EX1 with the above black/white limits and frequency settings.

What I observed on the PMW350, is if the Aperture setting is too high, (at least in some combinations with the other settings), specular highlights get exagerrated and blown out, think of glinting pinpoint sources of light from waves on the water, or reflections. I prefer the Aperture -20. That's why in the end, I don't prefer Aperture alone to be the primary detail enhancement mechanism. It can work alone within some limits, but only on certain parts of the picture, and can be overdone. It's why I think the Detail-On circuit is still preferred, to achieve overall balance.

Piotr,

You will probably get 3 different answers on this, but for a highly detailed look from the EX1, I prefer:

Detail Level: +1 (or soften to taste)
Frequency: +65
White Limit: +75
Black Limit: +75

all the others at default.

That setting has worked well for me with std gamma 3, Black -4, and the knee point and slope adjusted for the scene, and also for both 60i and 24p shooting modes.



Dear Tom : bingo!

The above are almost identical to what I considered my best my own settings for that punchy, detailed look -except that for even more punchiness (when I feel in the mood for it), I use Cine1 (or even Std1 with carefully adjusted, manual knee). And, I use 25p exclusively (I don't do fast action, though).

Good to know that quite independently, we've both come to similar results...

Just be aware that the details circuits on the EX1/EX3 generate additional aliasing when the detail level is above -8. This has a serious impact on SD downconverts and highly detailed textures.

Yes Alister - I'm aware of that. In my experience with Vegas Pro, with detail on at 0-10, any aliasing that results from downrezzing to SD can be eliminated successfully by applying just a tiny bit of Gaussian blur before, and just a tad of sharpening - after the downconversion.

I agree though that high detail settings may need mitigating on a scene-to-scene basis (very fine textures, etc.). But, it's nowehere as bad as with the V1E in 25p mode!

As to the aperture setting which enhances fine details on the 350, and is not present on the EX1/EX3: the latter have another setting with "aperture" in its name, the KNEE APERTURE. While DETAIL emphasizes the entire luminance range of the signal, KNEE APERTURE emphasizes signals only in the highlight areas that were compressed by the KNEE function.

My very specific question is:

- is this setting active with both std and cine gammas? It's always accessible in PP menu, but frankly, I couldn't notice any difference even with big changes to its value, when any cine gamma is active. With standard gammas, where you can define manual knee, with some slope/knee combinations the influence of knee aperture on the compressed highlights' content can be very significant!

Knee aperture only works with the standard gammas and not with Cinegammas.

Knee aperture only works with the standard gammas and not with Cinegammas.

So I thought - but then, it should be disabled in the Detail settings when a Cinegamma is on (just like most of the Knee options are)...

What is the easiest way to crank up saturation a bit in the PMW-350 paint settings?

Thierry.

There's not an easy way. You have to bump the saturation 16 times, one for each axis in the multi-matrix menu.

*************************************************************
Name : Alister_Hybrid:

Gamma Select: (Hypergamma) 4 4609

Black Gamma : On
Level : -40
Range: H.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +5

Comments: Hybrid preset combines elements of Alister's gamma settings with Tom's detail and color settings. Pros: Neutral, wide latitude, forgiving of exposure, punchy preset works indoors or out.
Cons: Compresses highlights, disables Knee, about 1 f-stop slower than ITU - R709.

**************************************************************

Name : ITU - R709 SAT

Gamma Select : 5 R709

Black Gamma : On
Level : +10
Range: H.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Knee : On
Knee Point : 84%
Knee Slope : +30

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +10

Comments: Dynamic, wide range preset for transparent capture with perceived detail and contrast.
Pros: About 1 f-stop faster than Hypergamma 4, very clean and saturated, preserves Knee function. Maximum dynamic range.
Cons: Sensitive to overexposing of highlights. Use Auto-Iris -0.5, or expose scene manually.

**************************************************************

Name : Low Light

Gamma Select : 5 R709

Black Gamma : On
Level : +10
Range: L.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Crispening : +20
Level Depend Level : +15
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Low Key Saturation : On
Level : +10
Range: L.Mid

Knee : On
Knee Point : 84%
Knee Slope : +35

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +15

Comments:
Indoor preset is low noise and saturated, with maximum sensitivity.
Pros: Preserves sensitivity and shadow detail in varying low light conditions, retains color without emphasizing noise.
Cons: Sensitive to overexposing of highlights, use Auto-Iris -0.5 or expose manually

**************************************************************

End

Wow Tom you have been busy. Thank you for posting three detailed settings. I will add these to my scene files and check them out. So far my scene file of choice has been Alister's Natural.

This weekend if it ever stops raining or early next week I will be testing on my EX350 a Canon HJ17x and Fujinon ZA17x. I will look at each setting in the proper light to help me decide which lens to buy. I have a strong feeling already for my lens of choice, but testing in the field with my 350 and a friend with his F800 will be the true deciding factor. I think it is easy to get narrow vision with studio testing and scopes and miss the point, which is what the client will receive. Besides I don’t have scopes but I do know what I like and what my clients are looking for. So my testing will be real world shooting as if I was delivering to a client.

Alister have you modified your Natural setting after your trip North?

Again Thank You Tom for all of your hard work making this happen.

I actually had one more Paul, which was another variation of Alister's but with a slightly higher saturation. In the end, I too preferred the natural look, and to not overemphasize the color saturation with the hypergamma, that seemed to work better with the ITU R709 gamma, so I omitted that preset.

As for the ITU R709 gamma, I share your concern about recording of the highlights hot. The adjustment I made, is the knee adjustment, and to underexpose the scene by about 1/2 stop, while bumping up the black gamma so as to not crush the blacks.

I tested the Alister_Hybrid and ITU R709 SAT in various lighting conditions, flat lighting, and also high contrast lighting. If you have the proper exposure, both presets take on a similar look that mostly differ in just the extreme highlights and lowlights, with the ITU R709 being more contrasty.

No I have not changed my Neutral settings. If you are going to do any serious grading work I would turn the Black Gamma off. This will give you more shadow detail to play with in post, but straight out of the camera the pictures look rather flat. A compromise would be black gamma on, H-Mid -20.

I have a couple of days set aside next week for some further experimentation.

Alister,
I have been using Black Gamma on, H. Mid, at -30 but will check it out at -20 and also look with Black Gamma off when I do a lot of grading which is very rare. Look forward to any updates you might have. Two delivered jobs on the current setting and both customers are very happy.

Tom,
I tried your settings and still prefer Alister's Natural. Alister's is very easy to expose and does not seem to have the electronic look your setting seem to give. Why are you pushing the B/W limits so high? Also I really like the HG 4609 and can't fully explain why but each time I look at it I have a smile an feel I am on the right path.

Paul,

I'm not really sure what you are calling my setting, but I think you are just stating a clear preference for the HG 4609 which I agree is nice.

Tom,

Sorry if I was not clear. I do prefer the HG 4609. Also I think in Alister setting he keeps the White Limit, Black Limit, Frequency, and Black Gamma setting lower. To me this is a more natural and less electronic look. I could be off base but that was my point.

Paul,

Below are 100% crops from frame grabs from the most recent detail settings Alister posted in #43 (on top) and mine (on bottom). I shot them identically with HG 4609. The difference between the two groups of detail settings are not so large as to expect that the lower one should appear less natural or more electronic, thus the reason for examining the crops in detail. In fact, I find these two settings to be grossly unremarkable for their difference, but you can in fact see the result of the higher Black/White Limit settings as causing slightly softer outlines on the contrast edges. To me this is more natural.

You might find it helpful to examine these at 200%.

**************************************

Alister's detail setting from post #43

Detail level -14
H/V Ratio +15
Frequency +40
White Limit +38
Black Limit +30

Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)

**************************************

Tom's detail setting:

Detail level -12
H/V Ratio +35
Frequency +55
White Limit +75
Black Limit +75

Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)

Tom looking at those two crops I agree one is softer showing less edge detail.

The setting in the group that always causes me the most concern is the Frequency. As the Frequency is increased, the width of the outlines drawn become narrower. It's good on the one hand because it makes the appearance of each individual outline less prominent, analogous to enhancing with a fine artist pencil instead of a black felt marker. But it is a double edged sword because the number of instances (the quantity) of these finer edges within the scene may be vastly higher, stressing the codec, creating haze, moire, or other artifacts.

So the frequency is a compromise, the setting could be too high or too low depending on the scene. Since I don't want to worry about it when I'm shooting, I settle on the above value, and it may not be ideal for every situation. That's why your observation was a big worry to me. I could reduce the Frequency setting and have no worries about the potential for electronic noise, but if it draws cartoon-like outlines around images, that's not good either.

By comparison, the Black/White Limit seems like a low risk proposition. Increasing the Limit makes the outlines stand out less, but the effect of the setting is subtle. So we look at the number 75, and think that's a lot! But it's all relative. It's just a number, and the effect even at 100% limit is not really profound.

Understand Tom but you have to look at it from my point of view. I shoot very fast motion and need as one client says "Show me the detail and have it real". So going too soft on the edges hurts that, and anytime I have increased to the upper numbers with a setting i have not been happy with the results after we land. Too expensive for me to make that mistake. So that is why I did fast motion test and gave the comments I posted.

Alister, Tom, anyone else who is using a 350. I am still trying to tweak my scene files and am not fully happy with the results. Have you tweaked your files and are you happy with the results?

I'm still fiddling a little. I have been looking at the colour matrix of both the 350 and EX1/3 and have some new settings that remove the slight yellow/green cast that I don't really like. It enhances reds and blues a little. I don't have the settings to hand but I'll write them up as soon as I can.

Thanks Alister I will be interested in seeing your dialed in settings.

After completing the multi camera shootout at Visual Impact, one thing was bothering me about the pictures from the PMW-350 and that was the way the specular highlights in the tin foil were artificially enhanced. During the test the camera was set to factory defaults, which IMHO are too sharp, but the foil in particular looked nasty. Since then I have been further refining my paint settings for the 350 and looking at detail and aperture. Today I was replicating the tin foil test and looking at the aperture settings (not the knee aperture) and I noticed that turning aperture on and off had a very pronounced effect on highlights but a much smaller effect elsewhere in the image. Normally I would expect the aperture setting to act as a high frequency boost making subtle textures more or less enhanced, which it does, but the amount of enhancement appears to vary with the brightness of the image with specular highlights getting a really big hit of correction. With Aperture at +99 there are big ugly black lines around the highlights and textures are enhanced. To some degree this is the expected behaviour although I am surprised by how thick the edges around the highlights are, this looks more like detail correction (it could be "ringing"). With Aperture at -99 textures appear very slightly softer than OFF, which is not unexpected while specular highlights are still sharper than OFF and this is not expected. I don't like this behaviour I'm afraid to say as a typical way to get a filmic look from a video camera is to turn the detail correction off to give a natural picture and then use Aperture correction to boost high frequencies to retain detailed textures. On the PMW-350 you can't do this as this as a high Aperture setting will give you nasty edges on highlights. So what can you do? Well the 350's native, un-enhanced resolution is very high anyway so it doesn't need a lot of correction or boosting. The default Detail and Aperture settings will give some really nasty highlight edges so you need to back things off. If your going for a filmic look I would turn OFF aperture correction altogether, for video work with pictures that have some subtle enhancement I would use Aperture at around -20, certainly never higher than -15 unless you like black lines around specular highlights.

My current prefered detail, aimed at giving a very slight, not obvious enhancement are are as follows:

Detail Level -12, H-V Ratio +15, Crispening 0, Frequency +30, White Limit +30, Black Limit +40 (all other detail settings at default)

Aperture OFF for filmic look, Aperture -20 for video look.

I have also made some changes to the Matrix settings. I have been finding the pictures from Sony cameras to be a little on the Green/Yellow side so I have tweaked things a little to remove the yellow cast and put in a bit of red, this is a subtle change but really helps with skin tones, stopping on screen talent from looking ill! These settings work in the PMW-350, EX1/3 and PDW-700.

On an EX1/EX3 this works best with the Standard Matrix, On a PMW-350 or PDW-700 you can use it on it's own or mix it with one of the preset matrices as a modifier. User Matrix On, R-G 0, R-B +5, G-R -6, G-B +8, B-R -15, B-G -9

There are pictures of the Aperture behavior on my blog at xdcam-user.com.

I re-ran the MTF-50 curves with Imatest for the PMW350. I ran them many times over, each time making adjustments to the detail settings in order to grasp the nature of each control, and to achieve the best balance per Imatest.

The posted curves are neither the best, nor the worst, but are representative. The lessons learned are summarized below:

1.) Most of the settings have very little (if any) influence on the vertical resolution. The settings predominately affect the horizontal resolution.
2.) The settings with the largest influence on resolution are not even in the detail settings, but the lens itself, zoom level and iris opening.
3.) Resolution (and contrast) increases as you go wider. At the lens center, the highest measured resolution is with an aperture opening between f/3.4 and f/4.0.
4.) In relation to a standard 2-pixel sharpening radius, the vertical is virtually always undersharpened, and the horizontal oversharpened, almost no matter what you do with the settings. Ideally, the best balance should be when the horizontal is oversharpened by the same amount the vertical is undersharpened.
5.) When creating a detail setting, due consideration should be given to each end of the zoom, in other words it should look as undersharpened at the long end of the zoom as it looks oversharpened at the wide end.
6.) In viewing the MTF50 curves, of primary importance is the smoothness to the curve, free of peaks and valleys.
7.) After experimenting with many settings, ironically the best curves were produced by the settings that visually had the best appeal, so if you like your settings, they probably exhibit good transfer characteristics. I really was surprised when the settings I already had produced the best curves, though not necessarily putting up the highest numbers, they were nonetheless very good.
8.) The PMW350 with the kit lens easily meets the resolution specification stated by Sony, and moreover reaches the nyquist limit.
9.) There are other factors that define image quality, contrast, flare resistance, pincushion/barrel distortions (spherical aberrations) and digital processing.

MTF Curves below, Horizontal and Vertical

Interesting Tom I wonder how this test would change with more expensive lens? It might show the Kit lens is great or is limited.

I'm not surprised that your Imatest results didn't show much change with different detail settings, as detail and aperture only really change perceived image detail levels as opposed to actual camera resolution. The results obtained with the lens are pretty typical of most zoom lenses with the wider end producing more contrast than the tele end and f4 is about where you would expect a well designed lens to perform at it's best. Below F8 you will be in to diffraction limiting anyway.

Here are the AbelCineTech PMW350 looks I've made.

http://blog.abelcine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/SONY.zip

Just unzip and copy onto an SxS card. Enjoy.

Interesting Tom I wonder how this test would change with more expensive lens? It might show the Kit lens is great or is limited.

It would not show anything about the kit lens, although you could compare/contrast the result of the better lens to it. Since the kit lens achieve nyquist at the center, I would expect the expensive lens could be better at the corners, could be better zoomed, could have better bokeh, less flare, better build etc.

I've been using settings based on Alister's HG4 settings but have found the blacks a little washy so now use:

Black Gamma at -30
H Mid

I understand the idea of preserving info for the grade but I was always crushing them so may as well do it in camera prior to compression.

Alistair, I found those matrix settings a little too washed out. May just be personal taste.

if you use the multi-matrix to combine my less yellow matrix with one of the presets you can boost the saturation or raise all of the matrix settings by the same amount you will have higher saturation.

I did suggest suggest using black gamma to give the Hypergamma images more punch at the expense of gradability earlier in the thread. These are my current scene file settings:

Alister-Natural (If you do NOT intend to grade include: Black Gamma On, Level -30, Range High)

Master Black -3, Gamma On, Gamma select 4 4609, Gamma Category HG, Detail On, Level -12, H/V Ratio +15, Crispening 0, Frequency +30, White Limit +30, Black Limit +40, Aperture On, Level -20. Matrix On, Preset Matrix On, Preset select 2, User Matrix On, R-G 0, R-B +5, G-R -6, G-B +8, B-R -15, B-G -9

Alister-Filmic, designed to be graded. (as above but Aperture OFF, Detail Level -16, Preset Matrix OFF)

Master Black -3, Gamma On, Gamma select 4 4609, Gamma Category HG, Detail On, Level -16, H/V Ratio +15, Crispening 0, Frequency +30, White Limit +30, Black Limit +40, Aperture OFF. Matrix On, Preset Matrix OFF, User Matrix On, R-G 0, R-B +5, G-R -6, G-B +8, B-R -15, B-G -9

Alister-Canon-Look (Deep filmic look with semi crushed blacks)

Master Black -4, Gamma On, Gamma select 4 4609, Gamma Category HG, Black Gamma ON, level -40, Range High. Detail On, Level -10, H/V Ratio +15, Crispening 0, Frequency +30, White Limit +30, Black Limit +40, Aperture OFF. Matrix On, Preset Matrix On, Preset select 2, User Matrix On, R-G 0, R-B +7, G-R -6, G-B +9, B-R -17, B-G -10

Alister you posted the screen grabs at twilight in the other thread with the 350 and the 700. Were they also shot with the above or similar settings, in particular HG4? They are very nice.

Gentlemen,

First of all, thank you all for being so selfless and posting your camera settings findings. It takes a lot of precious time to setup so many camera settings.

Yes, I know what is suitable for one may not be for another, however the settings can be a very helpful starting point, even if they are NOT the settings for you!.

I know that Paul uses a ZA lens, but what are you other posters using please?

Thanks very much

Yes, they were done with HG4.

I'm using the kit lens on my 350.

I am happy to post my favorite setting but I am not there yet. When I am I will post it. Appreciate Alister, Tom, and Andy posting. I have looked at Alister and Tom's and changed both to my liking but also have been working on others but nothing is close yet. Andy I will check your settings out.

We did another round of test today still not sun so all cloudy sky test.

Having established that aperture is the cause of the halo's around highlights, I went back and took a fresh look at the detail settings. When I was doing a test shooting a grey scale on a PC screen I noticed a lot of "noise" in some parts of the picture. This noise turned out to be excessive detail correction on the pixels of the computer display. Investigating this I found that the detail "Limit" setting could be used to control the detail correction over-shoots. Playing with this some more I have found that I can use Limit to control the appearance of the detail correction, allowing me to use more detail without the pictures becoming too electronic.
So I am now looking at the following detail settings, which allow me to use less aperture correction, all default unless noted:
Detail: ON, level +5, Limit +60, Frequency +20 (be careful with frequency, as any higher than +30 leads to aliasing)
Aperture: ON, level -50

That's interesting. I had thought Limit was a top level control for Black Limit and White Limit at once.

I'll step outside and give this a checkout.

You are right, it is an overall limiter for both the black and white levels, but if you back off the aperture setting (or turn it off) you can afford to use more detail correction. In a way what I am doing is using Detail as a substitute for aperture. Aperture on the 350 is more than just the high frequency boost that it is in the PWW and HDW cameras. On my PDW-700 I often run with quite a low detail level (or detail off) but with aperture at around +70 to give a crisp picture. This doesn't give the nasty black halos around highlights that the 350 gives. This is the look I'm trying to emulate, crisp, but without obvious edges on everything.

I understand you exactly.

I went outside and tried this, and my first impression is that it looked great, exceptionally clean, with full natural detail, really film like. Only problem, is flat light today.

But I was still able to observe that thin, unleaved tree branches against a white sky retained fine detail without white halos. Detail in the grass, the mortar, the bricks looks resolved, not grainy, and free of outlines. Distant geometric shapes, like roof tops, window frames, siding and fences had appropriate detail, a natural look, again film like.

I suspect this could be pushed farther, although I admit that on first glance I like the way it looks as is.

The question marks remaining for me, how will it work in strong daylight, will it work equally for progressive and interlace shots. No reason to doubt it from what I've seen, and moreover want to see how this looks on the 50 inch Elite 1080p plasma monitor, but for now I want to spend more time shooting with it while it is daylight, even if flat.

Definitely appreciate your further explorations.

Playing with it briefly today I think you could push up the detail level if you want to sharpen the image while halos and edges stay well controlled, I found +8 to be the limit of what I personally consider acceptable. I looked at the behavior with a waveform monitor and the +60 Limit setting is preventing over/undershoots almost completely.

I am currently using my PMW-350 on a shoot in Africa with a lots of challenging light situations. Here are a few observations...

- Latitude does not seem as good as F800. Filming highly contrasted scenes is more challenging than with the F800
- Here and there, I get some weird greenish flare issues when shooting with large bright contrasty areas in the background like windows. This is no typical lens flare (I wish it was...) but more like a geometrical pattern that could be based on the CMOS elements pattern. And that is showing whith F5.6-8 apreture range, so not really pushing it. So, PMW350 not as clean as F800 in those kind of situations.
- Depending of the ambient light (sunny or overcast), I have to play a lot with the black level adjustment to get properly saturated blacks.

One more thing, what about the HDW Gamma curve on that camera? It's good for flat and overcast ligths situation but seems to crush the blacks way to much in bright sunshine. Is it trying to emulate the HDW cameras gamma curves?

Best,

Thierry.

Alister,

I had the chance to try the new limiter setting, exactly as outlined. As sometimes happens when viewing the output on the larger 50 inch 1080p plasma, it changes my opinion somewhat. While the stated goal is to allow using more detail without becoming too electronic, and while it largely succeeds at that, on a subjective level it goes just a bit too far for my taste. Strange from me I know, since I usually advocate a little more and even inquired of you about pushing this setting a bit.

When viewing progressive material, it did not alias, so that was good, and it did not halo or put outlines on edges. I don't usually shoot 24p without a tripod, but this time I did. And when panning and with graceful movements, it did not show moire even on geometric patterns like diagonals, roofing tiles, or other problem areas which is good. But camera movements did reveal a slightly busy side, just a little crispy. The same observations about interlaced generally.

I think the positives to take from this, reducing the aperture and frequency settings, increasing the Limiter were effective. Increasing the detail to +5 is a little too far for my taste. Knowing your dislike for excessive enhancement, I suspect you may upon reflection prefer to go more conservative there as well. Again, your stated goal was to expand the frontier for those preferring a more detailed look while avoiding halos, and this extends that option to them.

What I would ask of you, is to make a comment about my current detail settings, which I think gives a cleaner, less electronic (if less crispy) look, with an eye toward adapting your findings.

Detail Level: -11 (where I am currently, my preferred.)
H/V Balance: +35 (I could be wrong, but I think this gave me a smoother MTF50 transfer curve, with no negative consequences that I could discern, so I have maintained it, looks good.)
Frequency: +50 (I have not discerned aliasing. It's possible I'm wrong, but if you consider an interactive relationship could exist between detail level and frequency, reducing detail could be mitigating aliasing otherwise caused by a higher frequency setting? In other words, +20 or +30 might be the max you could go before aliasing with a +5 detail setting, but at a lower detail level setting -11, perhaps it's possible to go higher on the frequency before the onset of aliasing?)
Black Limit: +75
White Limit: +75 (Since you confirmed the Limit setting of +60 on your waveform monitor, I'm thinking about incorporating that top level setting in lieu of my separate Blk/Wht limits which I would return to zero.)
Aperture: -20 (I see more negative than positive benefits from this adjustment, I was going to adopt the -50 setting).

So if I was going to blend the above factors into a new recipe, would you have a comment about a hypothetical setting as follows?

Detail: -8 or 9
H/V Balance: +35
Frequency: +35 to 45
Limit: +60
Aperture: -50

My current setting is already quite clean. The only reason for considering increasing detail to -8 or 9 would be to offset the loss of detail from dialing back aperture to -50.

Alternatively, I could just do that anyway, keep my exisiting settings except replace the Blk/Wht Limits with the top level Limit setting of +60, and just dial back aperture to -50.

Lot of thinking out loud here. Are you sure Frequency of +50 is too high, sure to cause aliasing, if the detail level were reduced to -11? Cause I don't see a problem with it.

I am currently using my PMW-350 on a shoot in Africa with a lots of challenging light situations.

Thierry, I think the 350 overexposes in some situations. What has been working well for me, is from the menu to enable the Iris Override option. Thereafter the auto exposure can be dialed down a couple notches (-.5) using the little knob on the front, or otherwise reduce the exposure manually. I have also at times enabled the Black gamma, to a setting of +10 H.Mid to prevent the loss of shadow detail when underexposing as described.

Found a page on Sony's website for some standard scene files. Thought I would share the link since I found them very helpful. Not sure if anyone else posted these. If so, sorry in advance.

Sony | Micro Site - XDCAM (http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/micro-xdcam/resource.downloads.bbsccms-assets-micro-xdcam-downloads-xdcamscenefiles.shtml)

Below is a full set of my latest PMW-350 scene files.

Mainly matrix tweaks.
neut2 is one I like that gives rich primary colours while still reasonably true to life.
Cine1 is a sudo filmic look (crushes blacks)
Film1 is meant to emulate well saturated film stock
DSC-1 is based on Chroma-Du-Monde chart for accurate daylight color
Neut is my first matrix tweak for a less green look and warmer skin tones.

Thank you Alister nice of you to share. I will check these out if my camera is still around.

There are some interesting settings that can help manage tough lighting situations.

Iris2 (in the maintenance menu):

Iris Window Ind - By default, the exposure indication window is off. The first thing to do is turn it on.

Iris Window: By default set to #1, this selects a metering window beginning about 1/3 down from the top, and the full width of the frame. An interesting thing to do is change this setting to "Var." This will permit resizing and relocating of the metering window.

Iris Var Width/Iris Var Height: These two settings permit changing the width and height of the metering window. You can have a window the size of the full frame, or reduce it to a very small box (spot meter).

Iris Var V/H Pos: These two settings permit repositioning the window anywhere within the frame.

Clip High Light: By default, this setting is off, but enabling will reduce the luminance range preventing blown out looking highlights.

Iris Level: This is a bit of a misnomer, since it is also capable of adjusting the shutter speed if in auto (and the iris is locked), to raise or lower the exposure. With a range of +/- 99, lowering the setting will reduce the exposure, raising it will increase the exposure.

Using a technique similar to a DSLR, you can lock the iris and shutter in manual mode. Put the spot meter over your talent's skin and press the manual exposure button. Recompose the frame before taking the shot.