I'm curious at what others are setting as far as:

Color space? (sRGB/Adobe RGB)
Picture style?
highlight tone priority?
etc..

I've seen a number of recommendations, but haven't come to a solid conclusion. I'm mainly looking for settings that are a MUST.

Thanks in advance,

SA

EDIT: If it wasn't obvious, I am just referring to video on the 5D2

bueller... bueller...

Color Space is the range of reproducible colors.
sRGB is what you should use, Adobe RGB is used in commercial printing and will give subdued colors and your monitor is most likely sRGB not Adobe RGB.
Picture styles give certain kinds of image effects that deal with the color space that includes sharpness, color tone, saturation, contrast and filter effects and toning for Monochrome. You can also make up custom ones to suit your tastes. Many people will shoot a neutral image and make these corrections or effects in post. Think of it like a custom preset on your video camera with less variables.

Dave

Thanks for the reply... I bought Phillip Bloom's 5D2 video and he mentioned turning on highlight tone priority, then setting the picture style to neutral... as well as bringing down sharpness, contrast and saturation (in one of the user def's). This produces rather drab video, but as you (and Bloom) explained, it will allow for the greatest range of correction.

So, I guess you confirmed his advice... thanks!

EDIT: This was great info as well: How to increase the Canon 7D dynamic range (Tutorial) on Vimeo

Turning on (HTP) introduces noise pg. 177 manual. Also check out:
Cinematography | Hurlbut Visuals (http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/category/cinematography/)

Great blog info there. Also sign-up for Shane's newsletter @
Hurlbut Visuals (http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/)

In his latest newsletter one bit of info.....
......."Go into your menu and turn off the auto light optimizer.* It jacks your video.* In the image menu area and turn off your highlight tone priority because this ads noise.* Staying in that section, take your high ISO noise reduction setting and change it to low or disable it. It will help in the post color correction process.* The same applies to the sharpness in your picture style menu, which should always be at zero.* Do not use the cheap pro-sumer sharpening tool."..........

I don't think color space has any affect on video, but I could be wrong. With respect to stills, shoot RAW and color space doesn't matter.

Great blog info there. Also sign-up for Shane's newsletter @
Hurlbut Visuals (http://hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/)

That is a great blog, thanks for sharing!

Turning on (HTP) introduces noise

For what it's worth, I find that for most scenes, the increase in noise is well worth the additional stop of highlight headroom. Also, be aware that above ISO 1600, HTP should always be enabled: 1600+HTP has the exact same noise as ISO 3200, but still retains the headroom benefit.

For what it's worth, I find that for most scenes, the increase in noise is well worth the additional stop of highlight headroom. Also, be aware that above ISO 1600, HTP should always be enabled: 1600+HTP has the exact same noise as ISO 3200, but still retains the headroom benefit.

I've been running under the assumption that all HTP is doing is playing digital tricks with the signal, meaning that if you nail your exposure manually and use curves in post, you'll be no worse off than using HTP, and you might even be better off because then you make the decisions in post how to handle it. But I could be completely wrong. I personally don't see the point in under-exposing a stop "just in case" I clip the highlights (a la HTP) because you're leaving the highest signal-to-noise part of the resolution on the table doing that. I guess it comes down to how confident you are in exposing to the right without clipping? Or am I missing something here?

I've been running under the assumption that all HTP is doing is playing digital tricks with the signal,

That's one valid way to put it.


meaning that if you nail your exposure manually and use curves in post, you'll be no worse off than using HTP, and you might even be better off because then you make the decisions in post how to handle it.


In the case of video, it's better to use HTP (which takes effect on the raw 14-bit data) than a curve in post (which only has the heavily processed 8 bits to work with).

In case you were talking about raw stills, choosing HTP or not really has no effect on the raw data. All it does is set the ISO one lower than the number indicated on the camera, without changing the meter. That is, ISO 200+HTP is the exact same as ISO 100, except it meters for ISO 200. Personally, I prefer to just skip HTP for raw to make things simple.


I personally don't see the point in under-exposing a stop "just in case" I clip the highlights (a la HTP) because you're leaving the highest signal-to-noise part of the resolution on the table doing that.


Well, if you only need 3 stops of highlight headroom, then I can see why you would see HTP that way. For you, the contrast of the scene is so low that none of the highlights are clipping or the ones that do clip are unimportant for the shot. In that case, enabling HTP would only be for extra insurance, "just in case" the scene contrast goes outside what you are expecting.

However, my situation is different. I find that 3 stops is almost never enough for conditions I'm in, so for me it's a matter of needing it all the time, not just in case. I want 4 stops most of the time, and even 5 or 6 (film-like) sometimes. Canon limited HTP to exactly one stop, so I can't get 6 in video, but I get 6 or more in stills raw conversions.

It's a matter of personal taste and shooting conditions.

Unlike others I have always tended to use a picture profile which gives me video which has far more vibrant colour then in the flat settings in Neutral.
I find that because I do a lot of my filming in India where a lot of vibrant colours are to be seen in general, I see no sense in shooting something in the Neutral setting at all.
My rationale has always been that if the camera gives such fantastic pictures out of the box then I save myself the aggro of having to do in post what my camera does out of the box.
Especially when it cuts down the work I have to do in post.

But then what is good for me is not neccessarily good for everyone because at the moment all I do is documentary work.

In my opinion, it is also good to show to the client on the macbook pro over the lunch break who ultimately is the one paying for this sort of work.

I will post the settings when I have a little more time.


Saraswati Films | Home (http://www.ifilm.me.uk)
Films that make a difference

That's one valid way to put it.



In the case of video, it's better to use HTP (which takes effect on the raw 14-bit data) than a curve in post (which only has the heavily processed 8 bits to work with).

In case you were talking about raw stills, choosing HTP or not really has no effect on the raw data. All it does is set the ISO one lower than the number indicated on the camera, without changing the meter. That is, ISO 200+HTP is the exact same as ISO 100, except it meters for ISO 200. Personally, I prefer to just skip HTP for raw to make things simple.



Well, if you only need 3 stops of highlight headroom, then I can see why you would see HTP that way. For you, the contrast of the scene is so low that none of the highlights are clipping or the ones that do clip are unimportant for the shot. In that case, enabling HTP would only be for extra insurance, "just in case" the scene contrast goes outside what you are expecting.

However, my situation is different. I find that 3 stops is almost never enough for conditions I'm in, so for me it's a matter of needing it all the time, not just in case. I want 4 stops most of the time, and even 5 or 6 (film-like) sometimes. Canon limited HTP to exactly one stop, so I can't get 6 in video, but I get 6 or more in stills raw conversions.

It's a matter of personal taste and shooting conditions.

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to get my head out of the stills frame of mind, where I always shoot RAW. HTP in RAW just makes no sense to me, but I have to be honest, I'm still a little lost on what it does exactly. But for stills, if it just lowers my ISO and doesn't adjust my meter, especially when I'm within the real ISO ranges, I just don't see how that is helping me if I know how to nail my exposure, expose to the right, and not clip the highlights -- all I'm getting is one stop under-exposure, what am I missing here? All the rest I can handle in photoshop/lightroom.

But, I do see your point about the higher bit A/D for fully cooked images, less quantization errors (in JPG or MOV/MP4s). That's starting to make sense to me, maybe I should give that a go. Thing is, I do deal with highlight issues all the time, I do a lot of jazz, and spotlights are tough on that front, I basically have to spot meter for the highlights off the spots. If I could get more DR using HTP, that would definitely be useful.

So forgive my ignorance, and I have tried to read about this in the past, but what does HTP actually do then? It underexposes by a stop, then pushes it back using some sort of curves? This is where I start getting lost, it makes me think a little about digital limiters in audio, they're pointless, they're doing nothing I couldn't do myself by lowering gain and adding it back in post. That said, I very much get the quantization thing at 14-bit. Sounds like that might be the one exception to why this might be worth it (just not for RAW stills)?

Yeah, sometimes it's hard for me to get my head out of the stills frame of mind, where I always shoot RAW.


Me too. :)


But for stills, [...] I just don't see how that is helping me


That is what I was trying to say in the last post. HTP has no benefits for raw stills (aside from perhaps a minor workflow enhancement in some conditions). It's JPEG and video that get the real benefit of HTP.


...what am I missing here?


I think we agree on the (lack of) benefits of HTP for raw stills.


But, I do see your point about the higher bit A/D for fully cooked images, less quantization errors (in JPG or MOV/MP4s). That's starting to make sense to me, maybe I should give that a go. Thing is, I do deal with highlight issues all the time, I do a lot of jazz, and spotlights are tough on that front, I basically have to spot meter for the highlights off the spots. If I could get more DR using HTP, that would definitely be useful.


Yes. I'm sure you will find that HTP is far superior for video/JPEG, thanks to 14-bit raw vs. 8-bit compressed. If your jazz stuff is at ISO 3200 or higher, you can enable HTP for free -- there is no noise penalty compared to ISO 3200 without HTP. Even at 1600 I find there is very little difference in noise. But the lower the ISO, the higher the noise penalty -- at 800 and below it starts to become more of a trade-off.


what does HTP actually do then?


It affects the gain, meter, metadata, and raw conversion. I think you know all this already, but here it is anyway:


Gain: Reduce the gain by one stop, but leave the ISO display the same. That means ISO 200+HTP has the same gain as ISO 100. Since there is nothing below ISO 100, HTP is disabled for that setting.
Meter: Run the autoexposure meter based on the displayed ISO. That means ISO 200+HTP meters for ISO 200 even though the actual gain is the same as ISO 100.
Metadata: The HTP metadata is a clue that indicates to the raw converter that middle gray occurs one stop lower in the raw file than normal.
Raw conversion: if the raw converter ignores the HTP metadata, the image will just appear one stop too dark. If it uses it (as in the case of the in-camera DIGIC JPEG and movie engine), it will increase the brightness by one stop with compressed exposure compensation (i.e. nonlinear gain), which does not clip highlights.


So from that, there is no benefit for a raw photographer, except possibly for streamlining the workflow with metadata and/or previews that more closely resembles the way in which you will convert it.


That said, I very much get the quantization thing at 14-bit. Sounds like that might be the one exception to why this might be worth it (just not for RAW stills)?

That's certainly what I think.

Hey thanks for the help on all of that, I think I'll give it a try on my next gig. And BTW, it's a rare night of jazz where my ISO is south of 1600, LOL...

What's interesting here, the more I think about it, is that although you pick something up by doing a curve on the highlights in 14-bit, you also are giving up a full stop of true dynamic range. This MUST be the case given the purposeful under exposure by one stop, that's a stop of range I will never get back no matter what kind of futzing it does after-the-fact. I'm not sure that's a tradeoff that's worth it; not sure though, hmmm...

What's interesting here, the more I think about it, is that although you pick something up by doing a curve on the highlights in 14-bit, you also are giving up a full stop of true dynamic range.


I see it differently. To me, it's trading 1 stop of noise for 1 stop of highlights, leaving the total dynamic range the same in the end. And in some cases, such as high ISO (over 1600), the total dynamic range actually goes up, because there is no increase in noise.


This MUST be the case given the purposeful under exposure by one stop, that's a stop of range I will never get back no matter what kind of futzing it does after-the-fact.


Here is an example of how I see it (assuming the same exposure duration, scene luminance).

At ISO 100 f/2.8, my 5D2 raw file has good usable dynamic range of around 9 stops. The variable pattern noise (temporal FPN) in the shadows limits any more than that (depending on the color balance of the light). A typical raw conversion will put white at 0.3 stops below clipping, middle gray at 3 stops below clipping, and black at 7 stops below clipping. So 6.6 out of 9 stops of dynamic range are used.

At ISO 200+HTP f/4, the raw file, the dynamic range is shifted. The scene luminance that was 0.3 stops below clipping in now 1.3 stops below clipping, and one whole stop of clipped information is no longer clipped. Similarly, scene tones that were 9 stops below clipping before are now 10, and are lost to the pattern noise of the 5D2. Furthermore, all the rest of the tones have increased noise compared to the above. But the total dynamic range is still the same: 9 stops. If the HTP instructions are followed, then instead of using 6.5 out of 9 stops, it will use 7.5: white at 0.3 below clipping, gray at 4 stops below clipping (instead of 3), and black at 8 stops below clipping.

I hope that helps clarify how I look at it.

wow... head=spinning :P

Great info, so if I'm understanding this right... the only time I should use HTP (talking video) is when I'm in a higher ISO range 800+?

Scott,

I was writing the same question but you beat me to it, I was all for leaving it off. Reading the last couple of posts cleared up nil for me and if I had to know all that to choose settings I would have to take up knitting. I didn't know raw setting could be used for video. On color space I thought everything had a range of reproducible colors, monitors, cameras, printers etc. Then again a letter and card arrived yesterday from AARP, so I'm now officially old.

Manish,

I think that getting a list of different presets would be great, maybe even making a sticky on them. Right now Upstate NY is all white and brown snow and did I mention cold? Numerous bold colors sounds so appealing.

Dave

Great info, so if I'm understanding this right... the only time I should use HTP (talking video) is when I'm in a higher ISO range 800+?

Personally, I use it most of the time, at every ISO. I'm willing to pay the price of increased noise at low ISO. But the higher the ISO, the lower the price. Above 1600, the benefits of HTP are "free" -- there is no increase in noise.

I also use HTP regularly enough, even though I always feel a bit weird about using it!

One way in which it's easy to see what you get is by installing Magic Lantern and turning on Zebras. Find a high dynamic range scene and observe what's clipping from the zebras on the LCD. Now enable HTP and see how the clipping is reduced.

Then for the scary bit: zoom into the shadows using 10x magnification in live view and turn HTP on and off.

I've noticed that HTP also increases banding noise. If you're delivering in 720p or smaller, much of this will disappear, especially if you add a nice grain effect (if you're into that I am!). But clipped highlights will always scream "VIDEO!" at any size.

Find a high dynamic range scene and observe what's clipping from the zebras on the LCD. Now enable HTP and see how the clipping is reduced.

Then for the scary bit: zoom into the shadows using 10x magnification in live view and turn HTP on and off.

But the flipside is...

Find a high dynamic range scene and observe what's clipping from the zebras on the LCD. Now reduce your ISO and see how the clipping is reduced.

Of course you then lose some of your shadow detail, but that's the tradeoff right, that plus the better quantization at 14-bit I guess...

David,

I will post the settings most likely tomorrow.
Thing is, I experimented in India with these picture settings approx 6 months ago.

Although I don't now have some of the files and some others will be used in my second film, I noticed that if sharpness went up and I did not use a tripod, then aliasing was definitely distracting to the eye. (the slight movement of the camera hand held was ok for everything but the aliasing).
On the other hand if I used a tripod, (I don't pan or tilt much anyways unless absolutely neccessary), and kept the shot still, even where there was aliasing in buildings, aliasing was still noticeable but acceptable.

Colours wise, I just hate shooting flat video for my documentaries, in India obviously, this matters, colours are superb and very vivid and it is a pain correcting every shot to make it look ..... just the same as with the picture settings. The only difference is with the sky color, where using FCS Colour, I just apply vignettes with variable soft settings to the sky and try and change that hue.
Makes colour correction so much more fun and less tedious in my opinion.


This is one reason where in my current film,now in post, I went back to India and shot everything on a MKii, because the colours are just outstanding out of the box. I had previously shot a lot of stuff with an Ex3, which although satisfactory, the image quality was just not cinematic enough, not to mention the wider angles option with a 14 or 24 mm lens and ability to shoot at night using f1.8.
Of course, this is documentary work only at present, but I can't see myself changing that much when I shoot my medium budget narrative feature next year.

Saraswati Films | News and Events (http://www.ifilm.me.uk/media.php)
Films that make a difference