Custom Presets - Your Contributions

Johan Forssblad · June 10th, 2006, 04:38 AM

Hi Chris,
Great idea to compile the different CP settings, thank you. I was a bit confused while filming with different presets and screwed them up. You could improve your spreadsheet by moving the coloumn "Download files: PRESET...". As it is now if you read one complete line the left side and right doesn't match because you have put "FACTORY" on left top but "AC PREF1" on the right top row. I suggest you match the notes comments to the left with the download files to the right. Your forum is really a good place to learn more!
(PS: Yes, I understand you liked to have PRESET01 for the FACTORY setting but it is too late now!)

Bruce S. Yarock · June 10th, 2006, 08:22 AM

"But HDV recquires, demands, some very serious attention in order to get something that's more than just "sharp".. I'm speaking from experience, because even though I've been a professional cinematographer for over 30 years I've managed to screw up some footgae that would have been a cake-walk in DV..

HDV is less forgiving than probably any other format - know that going in... Steve Rosen"

Steve,
Could you elaborate on the more challenging side of hdv? I haven't been able to get an H1 yet, but I picked up a Sony FX1(which I've just started to fool with). I'd like to hear your take on what's more difficult about hdv.
Bruce S. Yarock

Steve Rosen · June 10th, 2006, 09:05 AM

There are many subtle things and some glaring ones, and some are purely subjective -

The most glaring, and it can be shocking, is the default detail creates very unattractive closeups of faces, especially with women.. every flaw stands out - for some reason much more than with 35.. I am constantly juggling filters - in fact, I NEVER shoot without some sort of diffusion - I've discussed this often before... And I never shoot with the detail at 0...

Also, exposure and white balance seem more critical than with other video formats.. a stop either way (or a few points Kelvin either way) with DV is not that noticeable, but with HDV it is.. It is correctable in post, of course, but I prefer not to have to do that if I can.. Part of this could be the viewfinder on the Canon makes exposure estimation difficult (to be honest and fair, it's not any better on any of the other prosumer cameras I've tried)..

And, related to the viewfinder, and much discussed elsewhere, focus is critical...

But what hasn't been much talked about (and this is one of the subjective opinions) is that out of focus areas can have an ugly, "artificial" look, as if a blur filter was added in post.. I assume this has something to do with HDV's compression, but I find the soft areas of the frame more distracting than with any other medium - even the footage I've seen shot with systems like the Mini35 don't look natural...

Johan Forssblad · June 10th, 2006, 09:41 AM

Hello Bruce and Steve,
Yes you are right. I think it has to do with the exceptional picture quality compared to DV. If the picture quality is generally lower you don't care that much if the white balance, focus, pan, etc are a little weak. When the overall picture quality is better you notice every single thing which is weak.

In my youth I had a cheap Hi-Fi system. I started to buy a very good preamplifier (at that time, 1976), listening through headphones. Then I suddenly heard the tuner had an annoying pilote-tone so I had to change the tuner. The turntable had weak treble so I changed it. Started to hear tape noise so I had to buy new tape recorder. Then I needed new loudspeakers but first a power amplifier. Then I heard noise so I bought a noise reduction system ... The sound wasn't good until I had changed everything.

I think the better the system the more critical everything will become. And the system need to be balanced.

For example, you will find that your pans will stutter if you don't get an expensive tripod head. (Steve - this comment was not for you.)
If you put on cheap EF lenses you will se the cromatic abberation which was not visible on DV.
And lousy sound doesn't match the great pictures.

Yeah, everything will demand more skill and expensive equipment. I am afraid that an ordinary less interested consumer will get maybe worse video results with this better camera than an older DV. I have shot about 10 hours with my XL H1 and realize that footage, settings and camera operation could be much improved. I would say that you cannot just rent an XL H1 and expect to get impressive results. Everybody will need training and experience to get most out of it.

Jeremiah Thompson · June 11th, 2006, 12:07 PM

I have tried several of the custom presets contributed in the sticky. And from my experience the AC PREF1 has been the the best for me with shooting outdoors.

Johan Forssblad · June 14th, 2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeremiah Thompson

... the AC PREF1 has been the the best for me with shooting outdoors.

Hi,
so which one do you or anybody else prefer indoors?

June 11th, 2006, 12:07 PM	#20
Jeremiah Thompson New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: Whitefish, Montana Posts: 14	Preferred setting for shooting outdoors I have tried several of the custom presets contributed in the sticky. And from my experience the AC PREF1 has been the the best for me with shooting outdoors.

June 10th, 2006, 04:38 AM	#16
Johan Forssblad Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Vittsjö, SKÅNE, SWEDEN Posts: 266	Hi Chris, Great idea to compile the different CP settings, thank you. I was a bit confused while filming with different presets and screwed them up. You could improve your spreadsheet by moving the coloumn "Download files: PRESET...". As it is now if you read one complete line the left side and right doesn't match because you have put "FACTORY" on left top but "AC PREF1" on the right top row. I suggest you match the notes comments to the left with the download files to the right. Your forum is really a good place to learn more! (PS: Yes, I understand you liked to have PRESET01 for the FACTORY setting but it is too late now!)

June 10th, 2006, 08:22 AM	#17
Bruce S. Yarock Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Pembroke Pines, Fl. Posts: 1,842	"But HDV recquires, demands, some very serious attention in order to get something that's more than just "sharp".. I'm speaking from experience, because even though I've been a professional cinematographer for over 30 years I've managed to screw up some footgae that would have been a cake-walk in DV.. HDV is less forgiving than probably any other format - know that going in... Steve Rosen" Steve, Could you elaborate on the more challenging side of hdv? I haven't been able to get an H1 yet, but I picked up a Sony FX1(which I've just started to fool with). I'd like to hear your take on what's more difficult about hdv. Bruce S. Yarock

June 10th, 2006, 09:05 AM	#18
Steve Rosen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Monterey, California Posts: 895	There are many subtle things and some glaring ones, and some are purely subjective - The most glaring, and it can be shocking, is the default detail creates very unattractive closeups of faces, especially with women.. every flaw stands out - for some reason much more than with 35.. I am constantly juggling filters - in fact, I NEVER shoot without some sort of diffusion - I've discussed this often before... And I never shoot with the detail at 0... Also, exposure and white balance seem more critical than with other video formats.. a stop either way (or a few points Kelvin either way) with DV is not that noticeable, but with HDV it is.. It is correctable in post, of course, but I prefer not to have to do that if I can.. Part of this could be the viewfinder on the Canon makes exposure estimation difficult (to be honest and fair, it's not any better on any of the other prosumer cameras I've tried).. And, related to the viewfinder, and much discussed elsewhere, focus is critical... But what hasn't been much talked about (and this is one of the subjective opinions) is that out of focus areas can have an ugly, "artificial" look, as if a blur filter was added in post.. I assume this has something to do with HDV's compression, but I find the soft areas of the frame more distracting than with any other medium - even the footage I've seen shot with systems like the Mini35 don't look natural...

June 10th, 2006, 09:41 AM	#19
Johan Forssblad Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Vittsjö, SKÅNE, SWEDEN Posts: 266	Hello Bruce and Steve, Yes you are right. I think it has to do with the exceptional picture quality compared to DV. If the picture quality is generally lower you don't care that much if the white balance, focus, pan, etc are a little weak. When the overall picture quality is better you notice every single thing which is weak. In my youth I had a cheap Hi-Fi system. I started to buy a very good preamplifier (at that time, 1976), listening through headphones. Then I suddenly heard the tuner had an annoying pilote-tone so I had to change the tuner. The turntable had weak treble so I changed it. Started to hear tape noise so I had to buy new tape recorder. Then I needed new loudspeakers but first a power amplifier. Then I heard noise so I bought a noise reduction system ... The sound wasn't good until I had changed everything. I think the better the system the more critical everything will become. And the system need to be balanced. For example, you will find that your pans will stutter if you don't get an expensive tripod head. (Steve - this comment was not for you.) If you put on cheap EF lenses you will se the cromatic abberation which was not visible on DV. And lousy sound doesn't match the great pictures. Yeah, everything will demand more skill and expensive equipment. I am afraid that an ordinary less interested consumer will get maybe worse video results with this better camera than an older DV. I have shot about 10 hours with my XL H1 and realize that footage, settings and camera operation could be much improved. I would say that you cannot just rent an XL H1 and expect to get impressive results. Everybody will need training and experience to get most out of it.