Cinelook Stuff at DVinfo.net

Barry Gribble · July 13th, 2004, 09:15 AM

I am wondering about all the new Cinelook settings the XL2 offers: color matrix, gamma, knee, black stretch, vertical detail, coring, sharpness, noise reduction, color gain, hue, film grain, Master RGB, Setup Level, Master Pedestal, Skin Tone Detail

It seems to be the most comprehensive list on the market... my question is: how much of a difference will it make? Is this huge, or is it just nice?

I am not an expert on color correction, but I know a lot of that can be done in post. But if the camera is doing it well, then it is doing it with the raw, uncompressed image, which I think would be a significant advantage. On top of that, you will be able to see it in the monitor real time as you set lights, etc., which could be big.

I guess I am wondering what the trade-off is going to be between committing to setting such as gamma or knee in the camera and getting the pre-compression processing, and doing that in post with obviously the post-compressing processing but more flexibility?

Any input is appreciated.

Rob Lohman · July 13th, 2004, 09:21 AM

Yes it does this on the RAW data. So it can make a difference, but
I'm not sure how much since the chips are still 8 bit. We'll have to
wait and see, I guess.

The advantage is that you can see it instantly. The disadvantage
is that it will be harder to change in post if needed.

Luis Caffesse · July 13th, 2004, 09:26 AM

While I like the addition of so much image control, I find it odd that Canon would add something so 'consumerish' as "film grain"
to the camera.

I mean, it's no big deal...much like the digital zoom that they finally dropped in this model, I just won't use the option.

And, of course, I'll have to make sure people I know aren't shooting with it either, THAT one would probably be a nightmare in post.

-Luis

Josh Brusin · July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM

I wonder if "film grain" will help avoiding the vortex of doom of the Mini35. Otherwise I think these settings should likely be used to maximize the detail and amount of information accepted to tape... on a scene by scene basis it may have the unintended result in making every scene look slightly different...

bottom line?
better to have the options than not.

Charles Papert · July 13th, 2004, 01:42 PM

The "vortex" (which is no longer an issue with the 400 series ("Oszie") Mini35) would be visible regardless of an overlay of grain. IMHO, the Mini35 adds something akin to grain to the image anyway, so using this setting would be redundant.

The nice thing is that it appears that the XL2 will be compatible with all versions of the Mini35. In 4:3 mode, there will be the same magnification of the film lens field of view as one would experience with the standard lenses (1.3x, I believe).

Holly Miller · July 13th, 2004, 01:53 PM

Charles: Yes it would magnify the same as with any other lense because the adapter projects the image through the relay lense onto the CCD block and then it is captured from the CCD block with the slight 1.3x magnification as described on the watchdog page.

Not that you didn't know that, and not that this post is giving any new information either. Silly.

Josh Brusin · July 13th, 2004, 01:57 PM

sadly able only to afford the 300 series I was hoping it could help. Do you see a spinning doughnut with the 400 at extreme f-8+?

Holly Miller · July 13th, 2004, 03:22 PM

Also, I do believe it would only magnify in 4:3 mode (I think), since the XL2 16:9 uses the full width of the CCD block.

July 13th, 2004, 09:15 AM	#1
Barry Gribble Major Player Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 817	Cinelook Stuff I am wondering about all the new Cinelook settings the XL2 offers: color matrix, gamma, knee, black stretch, vertical detail, coring, sharpness, noise reduction, color gain, hue, film grain, Master RGB, Setup Level, Master Pedestal, Skin Tone Detail It seems to be the most comprehensive list on the market... my question is: how much of a difference will it make? Is this huge, or is it just nice? I am not an expert on color correction, but I know a lot of that can be done in post. But if the camera is doing it well, then it is doing it with the raw, uncompressed image, which I think would be a significant advantage. On top of that, you will be able to see it in the monitor real time as you set lights, etc., which could be big. I guess I am wondering what the trade-off is going to be between committing to setting such as gamma or knee in the camera and getting the pre-compression processing, and doing that in post with obviously the post-compressing processing but more flexibility? Any input is appreciated. __________________ Barry Gribble Integral Arts, IMDB

July 13th, 2004, 09:21 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Yes it does this on the RAW data. So it can make a difference, but I'm not sure how much since the chips are still 8 bit. We'll have to wait and see, I guess. The advantage is that you can see it instantly. The disadvantage is that it will be harder to change in post if needed. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

July 13th, 2004, 01:42 PM	#5
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	The "vortex" (which is no longer an issue with the 400 series ("Oszie") Mini35) would be visible regardless of an overlay of grain. IMHO, the Mini35 adds something akin to grain to the image anyway, so using this setting would be redundant. The nice thing is that it appears that the XL2 will be compatible with all versions of the Mini35. In 4:3 mode, there will be the same magnification of the film lens field of view as one would experience with the standard lenses (1.3x, I believe). __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

July 13th, 2004, 09:26 AM	#3
Luis Caffesse Major Player Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Austin, Texas Posts: 704	While I like the addition of so much image control, I find it odd that Canon would add something so 'consumerish' as "film grain" to the camera. I mean, it's no big deal...much like the digital zoom that they finally dropped in this model, I just won't use the option. And, of course, I'll have to make sure people I know aren't shooting with it either, THAT one would probably be a nightmare in post. -Luis

July 13th, 2004, 09:56 AM	#4
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	I wonder if "film grain" will help avoiding the vortex of doom of the Mini35. Otherwise I think these settings should likely be used to maximize the detail and amount of information accepted to tape... on a scene by scene basis it may have the unintended result in making every scene look slightly different... bottom line? better to have the options than not.

July 13th, 2004, 01:53 PM	#6
Holly Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 56	Charles: Yes it would magnify the same as with any other lense because the adapter projects the image through the relay lense onto the CCD block and then it is captured from the CCD block with the slight 1.3x magnification as described on the watchdog page. Not that you didn't know that, and not that this post is giving any new information either. Silly.

July 13th, 2004, 01:57 PM	#7
Josh Brusin Major Player Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 439	sadly able only to afford the 300 series I was hoping it could help. Do you see a spinning doughnut with the 400 at extreme f-8+?

July 13th, 2004, 03:22 PM	#8
Holly Miller Regular Crew Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: New York, NY Posts: 56	Also, I do believe it would only magnify in 4:3 mode (I think), since the XL2 16:9 uses the full width of the CCD block.