My Settings plus Footage

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 01:22 PM

Thanks Luis -- hope to see more custom preset files fom you! I'll make the change to sharpness and shoot some more today. How do you feel about calling this one "Terra" or did you have another name in mind? Because the name "DeLaCerda1" will not fit the file naming scheme!

Paul Doherty · May 5th, 2006, 01:23 PM

I'll happily admit I come from a non-technical background, but my instant reaction was that I prefer the stills on the left ie the ones taken with the stock settings.

In comparison the ones with the "terra" setting look dull and flat. More specifically the cats eye and the hedge in the background show noticeably more detail with the stock setting (IMG_0133).

If the "terra" setting is supposed to be an improvement then I can't see it. I can see a bit more detail on the "sculpture" but that's all. Am I missing something?

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 01:28 PM

Paul that could be my fault for just grabbing the camera and shooting in Auto mode with available light (at dusk no less). I would like to see the preset from Luis in a better environment, better lighting and a manually dialed camera.

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 01:40 PM

Hehehe. The name terra sounds great to me. Funny thing, because the footage from the pool was named terra because it was shot at a hotel called Terranova in Veracruz, Mexico. :) I need to get myself a macbeth color chart to make more presets. The best tool to make them is the trial version of canon's console, because it allows you to check numerical color values for individual pixels onscreen, but it is rapidly nearing expiration for me. And as great as it is, I'm not sure I want to pay the 500 bux for it, because the functionality it brings to the table is limited in my opinion. Carrying a laptop around all the time is not my idea of an efficient way to operate, plus glidecam work is impossible with any kind of cable hanging from the camera, plus there's no way to charge laptop batteries away from the laptop itself, plus the display lags too much to be useable as a field monitor. I think I'll rather buy a firestore, even though I will lose out on the preset tweaking.

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 01:44 PM

Paul, of course the stock images look more detailed, the preset I did dials sharpening all the way down. It's in the way it handles color and contrast that it shines, in my opinion.

Johan Forssblad · May 5th, 2006, 02:01 PM

Luis,
Your setting seems to reduce those red/green fringes quite much. Should be interesting to see what more sharpness makes.
In my opinion I prefer the stock setting for Chris photos so far. However, your pool film looks very nice and I am impressed you could handle those sunlight reflections in the water without problems.
But to be fair, your setting makes the picture look darker and that will of course reduce the blown out problem with white. So, if you increase the exposure and sharpness a bit - what would it look like?

James Go · May 5th, 2006, 02:03 PM

I do not understand

why 4:3 not 16:9 luis ?

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 02:19 PM

James, 4:3 because I was shooting a video that will be displayed on regular TV's through the hotel's internal system.

Johan, the image becomes darker because of the cinema gamma 2 setting. Cinema 1 and Video Gamma increase overall brightness of the image, with video gamma being the brightest of both. However, it tends to look washed out and noisy. I prefer my contrast to live within the higher levels of luminance, where sensors tend to have the greatest dynamic range and less noise. It's amazing how much information is in there before 100% zebras start showing. Color also becomes more vivid as a side effect. I was also sursrised at the reduced fringing with those settings, no more magenta in bright areas. Look at the detail in the white fur on Chris' cat with both settings.

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 03:15 PM

Here's a quick comparison I just shot. I looked for a spot with really high contrast to see how each setting reacts to contrast as well as color. I did a poor job at white balancing, but I kept the same white balance for both shots, only modified the settings from stock to terra. I had to adjust exposure for each setting, as it varies from one to the other by about a stop. but both were adjusted to keep highlights within limits, using the stones at the door as a reference.

http://www.js-films.com/test/stock.jpg
http://www.js-films.com/test/terra.jpg

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 05:18 PM

Hope you don't mind me attaching those images Luis...

Stock on left / above, Terra on right / below.

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 05:25 PM

The next time I try this, I'll be sure to change exposure accordingly when switching to the preset.

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 05:39 PM

Not at all :)

By the way, settings are meant to be played with, so anyone who has any improvements is very welcome. I wish there was a way to input color curves into the camera, wouldn't that be the ultimate? Nikon SLR's can do this AFAIK.

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 06:43 PM

Okay, another comparison sample... this time with changes to the preset as suggested by Luis: sharpening at -3 and coring at -4. There is about a full stop of difference in exposure between the stock version and the preset version (somebody needs to groom that horse!) Preset image is on the right / bottom.

Luis de la Cerda · May 5th, 2006, 07:30 PM

So that's the bad news, it costs yet another extra stop to get the extra dynamic range. But look at the darker horse, in the terra version you can make out the tonalities much better than the stock version. To me it seems to be worth it. :) Let's work on a low light version :)

Chris Hurd · May 5th, 2006, 07:54 PM

Hi Luis, even though the sun was setting fast and I was rapidly losing light, I still had plenty of room to play with exposure. Here are the EXIF data for both images: the stock version was 1/100, f/9.5, Exp. Compensation -1.5. The Terra version was 1/60, f/7.1, Exp. Compensation -0.33.

May 5th, 2006, 01:22 PM	#16
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Thanks Luis -- hope to see more custom preset files fom you! I'll make the change to sharpness and shoot some more today. How do you feel about calling this one "Terra" or did you have another name in mind? Because the name "DeLaCerda1" will not fit the file naming scheme! __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 5th, 2006, 01:28 PM	#18
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Paul that could be my fault for just grabbing the camera and shooting in Auto mode with available light (at dusk no less). I would like to see the preset from Luis in a better environment, better lighting and a manually dialed camera. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 5th, 2006, 05:18 PM	#25
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hope you don't mind me attaching those images Luis... Stock on left / above, Terra on right / below. Attached Thumbnails __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 5th, 2006, 05:25 PM	#26
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	The next time I try this, I'll be sure to change exposure accordingly when switching to the preset. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 5th, 2006, 07:54 PM	#30
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Hi Luis, even though the sun was setting fast and I was rapidly losing light, I still had plenty of room to play with exposure. Here are the EXIF data for both images: the stock version was 1/100, f/9.5, Exp. Compensation -1.5. The Terra version was 1/60, f/7.1, Exp. Compensation -0.33. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

May 5th, 2006, 01:23 PM	#17
Paul Doherty Regular Crew Join Date: May 2003 Location: Sherburn, England Posts: 136	I'll happily admit I come from a non-technical background, but my instant reaction was that I prefer the stills on the left ie the ones taken with the stock settings. In comparison the ones with the "terra" setting look dull and flat. More specifically the cats eye and the hedge in the background show noticeably more detail with the stock setting (IMG_0133). If the "terra" setting is supposed to be an improvement then I can't see it. I can see a bit more detail on the "sculpture" but that's all. Am I missing something?

May 5th, 2006, 01:40 PM	#19
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	Hehehe. The name terra sounds great to me. Funny thing, because the footage from the pool was named terra because it was shot at a hotel called Terranova in Veracruz, Mexico. :) I need to get myself a macbeth color chart to make more presets. The best tool to make them is the trial version of canon's console, because it allows you to check numerical color values for individual pixels onscreen, but it is rapidly nearing expiration for me. And as great as it is, I'm not sure I want to pay the 500 bux for it, because the functionality it brings to the table is limited in my opinion. Carrying a laptop around all the time is not my idea of an efficient way to operate, plus glidecam work is impossible with any kind of cable hanging from the camera, plus there's no way to charge laptop batteries away from the laptop itself, plus the display lags too much to be useable as a field monitor. I think I'll rather buy a firestore, even though I will lose out on the preset tweaking.

May 5th, 2006, 01:44 PM	#20
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	Paul, of course the stock images look more detailed, the preset I did dials sharpening all the way down. It's in the way it handles color and contrast that it shines, in my opinion.

May 5th, 2006, 02:01 PM	#21
Johan Forssblad Major Player Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Vittsjö, SKÅNE, SWEDEN Posts: 266	Luis, Your setting seems to reduce those red/green fringes quite much. Should be interesting to see what more sharpness makes. In my opinion I prefer the stock setting for Chris photos so far. However, your pool film looks very nice and I am impressed you could handle those sunlight reflections in the water without problems. But to be fair, your setting makes the picture look darker and that will of course reduce the blown out problem with white. So, if you increase the exposure and sharpness a bit - what would it look like?

May 5th, 2006, 02:03 PM	#22
James Go New Boot Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: HongKong of CHINA Posts: 7	I do not understand why 4:3 not 16:9 luis ?

May 5th, 2006, 02:19 PM	#23
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	James, 4:3 because I was shooting a video that will be displayed on regular TV's through the hotel's internal system. Johan, the image becomes darker because of the cinema gamma 2 setting. Cinema 1 and Video Gamma increase overall brightness of the image, with video gamma being the brightest of both. However, it tends to look washed out and noisy. I prefer my contrast to live within the higher levels of luminance, where sensors tend to have the greatest dynamic range and less noise. It's amazing how much information is in there before 100% zebras start showing. Color also becomes more vivid as a side effect. I was also sursrised at the reduced fringing with those settings, no more magenta in bright areas. Look at the detail in the white fur on Chris' cat with both settings.

May 5th, 2006, 03:15 PM	#24
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	Here's a quick comparison I just shot. I looked for a spot with really high contrast to see how each setting reacts to contrast as well as color. I did a poor job at white balancing, but I kept the same white balance for both shots, only modified the settings from stock to terra. I had to adjust exposure for each setting, as it varies from one to the other by about a stop. but both were adjusted to keep highlights within limits, using the stones at the door as a reference. http://www.js-films.com/test/stock.jpg http://www.js-films.com/test/terra.jpg

May 5th, 2006, 05:39 PM	#27
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	Not at all :) By the way, settings are meant to be played with, so anyone who has any improvements is very welcome. I wish there was a way to input color curves into the camera, wouldn't that be the ultimate? Nikon SLR's can do this AFAIK.

May 5th, 2006, 07:30 PM	#29
Luis de la Cerda Regular Crew Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Mexico City Posts: 181	So that's the bad news, it costs yet another extra stop to get the extra dynamic range. But look at the darker horse, in the terra version you can make out the tonalities much better than the stock version. To me it seems to be worth it. :) Let's work on a low light version :)