Detail Settings with cinema lens adapters and possible film out... at DVinfo.net

Giuseppe Pugliese · January 12th, 2008, 10:42 AM

Now I've owned a Letus35 adapter and this comes from using that...

On my HD110 i've shot some footage (stock lens) with the detail set to normal or even +1 for a Chroma key test I shot and it wasn't unpleasingly sharp, kinda looked good for that application... That got me thinking, when I buy the new Letus35 thats coming out soon, would it help to keep the detail settings to normal considering the softness that occurs with a ground glass in front of the sensors?

It seems that people set their sharpness settings to MIN or OFF because when they shoot subjects they look quite sharp and "videoy" with the STOCK lens. But once you have a 35mm lens adapter (mounted directly to camera without stock lens, or on front of stock lens) some softness occurs due to the ground glass.

Has anyone done tests with this to show the differences between the two? In my own thought experiment, it would seem wise to keep the detail to normal considering the slight softness that will happen with GG devices anyway... Is there any good information to back this up or oppose this thought?

The second part would be doing a film out. Lots of people talk about how softness and degradation of a 720p happens when blown up and printed to 35mm positive film for projection... If you're using the stock lens for some limited amounts of shots in a feature, and you are considering doing a film out later on, is it wise to keep the detail on normal, for keeping in mind the stretching and softening when blown up to 35mm ? Ultimately I know this will be hard to match shots done with the cinema lens adapter, but just for better knowledge on this if anyone has done this before, would be great.

I'm curious to see what you guys think about this.

Claude Mangold · January 12th, 2008, 12:30 PM

We ran some quick improvised tests with Zeiss HS Distagons and Planars on mini35 vs. stock lens before xmas.
We simulated difficult indoor lighting conditions
Didn't change the detail setting though,
but if you'd like I'll put up the Zeiss vs. stock lens sequences.

Paolo Ciccone · January 12th, 2008, 02:54 PM

Giuseppe, when I used the Mini35, similar situation, ground glass, with a Cooke cine zoom we kept the detail at MIN and the image was perfectly sharp.

Giuseppe Pugliese · January 12th, 2008, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claude Mangold

We ran some quick improvised tests with Zeiss HS Distagons and Planars on mini35 vs. stock lens before xmas.
We simulated difficult indoor lighting conditions
Didn't change the detail setting though,
but if you'd like I'll put up the Zeiss vs. stock lens sequences.

That would be very helpful to me, I plan on shooting a feature this summer using the new letus35 with Zeiss primes, I have a lot of testing to do ahead of me, but would love to see what you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paolo Ciccone

Giuseppe, when I used the Mini35, similar situation, ground glass, with a Cooke cine zoom we kept the detail at MIN and the image was perfectly sharp.

Really? I very much do notice the sharpness drop from normal to MIN, i heard that this is actually a "Digital Sharpening" and adds some kind of visual noise... I have yet to do enough tests to see this, but already with the stock lens i noticed that at MIN it is softer and worrying about the sharpness suffering on a ground glass. I guess ill have to wait until i see someone elses footage, or wait until the letus comes out.

any luck with film outs? I've found very few information on actual HD100/110 film outs and their problems, its a mystery to me :-o

Claude Mangold · January 15th, 2008, 10:42 AM

Paolo, what Cooke zoom was that? the 20-100 T3.1 ? We were actually afraid it would bust the mini35 because of its weight and size so we didn't test it but later the vendor told us it would have been ok.

how do you use this lens ? exclusively tripod-mounted I suppose ? do you think it's usable for indoor concert scenes ?

Claude Mangold · January 15th, 2008, 10:56 AM

Giuseppe, I'll put it up hopefully by next Monday

Paolo Ciccone · January 15th, 2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claude Mangold

Paolo, what Cooke zoom was that? the 20-100 T3.1 ? We were actually afraid it would bust the mini35 because of its weight and size so we didn't test it but later the vendor told us it would have been ok.

how do you use this lens ? exclusively tripod-mounted I suppose ? do you think it's usable for indoor concert scenes ?

That was it. You will need a solid support but it's definitely OK. Here are a couple of shots of the camera setup:

http://www.paolociccone.com/ImageLin...ageline-07.jpg
http://www.paolociccone.com/images/imageline-06.jpg

Michael Maier · January 15th, 2008, 02:21 PM

I would also think that if I knew the material would end up on 35mm and I used a 35mm adapter, that some detail should be added. HD normally needs some detail boosting. Even the F900 when used for features like SW has the detail boosted. HD is not the same as SD. For SD you should avoid detail boosting like the plague, even if going to 35mm. HD actually benefits from some detail boosting.

Charles Papert · January 15th, 2008, 02:35 PM

Yes, Mini35 is perfectly capable of accepting fullbore zooms as long as you are using the proper support as you would with any camera. See here for some historical pictures with the 300 series Mini.

Michael Maier · January 15th, 2008, 02:49 PM

Any opinions on the detail setting issue Charles? You're pretty experienced with 35mm adapters.

Claude Mangold · January 16th, 2008, 03:05 AM

Thanks, Paolo
takes some planning at rock concerts in small clubs ! did you use that only in studio or also on location ?

Giuseppe Pugliese · January 16th, 2008, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

I would also think that if I knew the material would end up on 35mm and I used a 35mm adapter, that some detail should be added. HD normally needs some detail boosting. Even the F900 when used for features like SW has the detail boosted. HD is not the same as SD. For SD you should avoid detail boosting like the plague, even if going to 35mm. HD actually benefits from some detail boosting.

Ah yes thank you. I had a feeling that was likely, because a varicam guy I know told me eveything was slightly soft when he went to film. But he said it was tack sharp on his hd monitor. He wasnt using a 35 mm adapter so I can't think of how much softer it would be with one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Maier

Any opinions on the detail setting issue Charles? You're pretty experienced with 35mm adapters.

i second that question. Thanks :)

Paolo Ciccone · January 16th, 2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Claude Mangold

Thanks, Paolo
takes some planning at rock concerts in small clubs ! did you use that only in studio or also on location ?

That was the only time I got to work with that setup, although I used setups that were bigger than that (XDCAM with Fujinon 10x10 comes to mind). If your concern is about the stability of the the rig I would say that it can be used with a fair amount of movement. It all depends on the support. The system didn't seem to flex of go out of alignment easily.

Sean Adair · January 19th, 2008, 11:48 AM

My feeling is if in doubt, shoot with less detail processing in camera.
It would be a lot harder to remove edge and artifacts from too much detail, while post-production sharpening and/or edge enhancement should be just as effective (I suspect much better), and adjustable to your specific shots and final delivery format. Especially for a film-out project.
Correct me if I'm wrong - is there anything about the signal path or method of in camera detail that is inherently superior to post-proccessing or is it just time? I realize you wouldn't want to do this in a HDV workflow with re-compression to mpg2.

Paolo Ciccone · January 19th, 2008, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sean Adair

Correct me if I'm wrong - is there anything about the signal path or method of in camera detail that is inherently superior to post-proccessing or is it just time?

Sean, you are correct. The so-called "detail" is an edge detection function that creates an outline for high-contrast areas. It's fast because it's implemented in hardware and it uses the higher color resolution of the sensor but it's an artificial edge enhancement that adds noise to the image, reduces the amount of compression achievable and it's irreversible. The camera does not create blurry images with the detail set to off or MIN. You can add edge enhancement in post and in doing so you can take advantage of advanced tools like masking.

If you have access to a waveform monitor I suggest that you shoot a chart, even a print out of a 11-step grayscale pattern will do. Once you have the chart correctly lit and centered you will see the characteristic "X" shape. Now set the detail to off, take a snapshot and then turn the detail to 0 or +3. Even at 0 you sill see a lot of "fuzz" around each square. That is all noise. On the other side, lower the detail and you will see that each square look actually sharper.

January 12th, 2008, 10:42 AM	#1
Giuseppe Pugliese Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: New York Posts: 392	Detail Settings with cinema lens adapters and possible film out... Now I've owned a Letus35 adapter and this comes from using that... On my HD110 i've shot some footage (stock lens) with the detail set to normal or even +1 for a Chroma key test I shot and it wasn't unpleasingly sharp, kinda looked good for that application... That got me thinking, when I buy the new Letus35 thats coming out soon, would it help to keep the detail settings to normal considering the softness that occurs with a ground glass in front of the sensors? It seems that people set their sharpness settings to MIN or OFF because when they shoot subjects they look quite sharp and "videoy" with the STOCK lens. But once you have a 35mm lens adapter (mounted directly to camera without stock lens, or on front of stock lens) some softness occurs due to the ground glass. Has anyone done tests with this to show the differences between the two? In my own thought experiment, it would seem wise to keep the detail to normal considering the slight softness that will happen with GG devices anyway... Is there any good information to back this up or oppose this thought? The second part would be doing a film out. Lots of people talk about how softness and degradation of a 720p happens when blown up and printed to 35mm positive film for projection... If you're using the stock lens for some limited amounts of shots in a feature, and you are considering doing a film out later on, is it wise to keep the detail on normal, for keeping in mind the stretching and softening when blown up to 35mm ? Ultimately I know this will be hard to match shots done with the cinema lens adapter, but just for better knowledge on this if anyone has done this before, would be great. I'm curious to see what you guys think about this.

January 12th, 2008, 02:54 PM	#3
Paolo Ciccone Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Posts: 1,116	Giuseppe, when I used the Mini35, similar situation, ground glass, with a Cooke cine zoom we kept the detail at MIN and the image was perfectly sharp. __________________ Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com Demo Reel

January 15th, 2008, 02:35 PM	#9
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Yes, Mini35 is perfectly capable of accepting fullbore zooms as long as you are using the proper support as you would with any camera. See here for some historical pictures with the 300 series Mini. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

January 19th, 2008, 11:48 AM	#14
Sean Adair Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: New York, NY Posts: 463	tweak sharpness in post? My feeling is if in doubt, shoot with less detail processing in camera. It would be a lot harder to remove edge and artifacts from too much detail, while post-production sharpening and/or edge enhancement should be just as effective (I suspect much better), and adjustable to your specific shots and final delivery format. Especially for a film-out project. Correct me if I'm wrong - is there anything about the signal path or method of in camera detail that is inherently superior to post-proccessing or is it just time? I realize you wouldn't want to do this in a HDV workflow with re-compression to mpg2. __________________ Sean Adair - NYC - www.adairproductions.com JVC GY-HM-700 with 17x5 lens, MacPro 3.2ghz 8-core, 18gb. (JVC HD200 4 sale soon)

January 12th, 2008, 12:30 PM	#2
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	We ran some quick improvised tests with Zeiss HS Distagons and Planars on mini35 vs. stock lens before xmas. We simulated difficult indoor lighting conditions Didn't change the detail setting though, but if you'd like I'll put up the Zeiss vs. stock lens sequences.

January 15th, 2008, 10:42 AM	#5
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	Paolo, what Cooke zoom was that? the 20-100 T3.1 ? We were actually afraid it would bust the mini35 because of its weight and size so we didn't test it but later the vendor told us it would have been ok. how do you use this lens ? exclusively tripod-mounted I suppose ? do you think it's usable for indoor concert scenes ?

January 15th, 2008, 10:56 AM	#6
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	Giuseppe, I'll put it up hopefully by next Monday

January 15th, 2008, 02:21 PM	#8
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	I would also think that if I knew the material would end up on 35mm and I used a 35mm adapter, that some detail should be added. HD normally needs some detail boosting. Even the F900 when used for features like SW has the detail boosted. HD is not the same as SD. For SD you should avoid detail boosting like the plague, even if going to 35mm. HD actually benefits from some detail boosting.

January 15th, 2008, 02:49 PM	#10
Michael Maier Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 1,269	Any opinions on the detail setting issue Charles? You're pretty experienced with 35mm adapters.

January 16th, 2008, 03:05 AM	#11
Claude Mangold Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Berlin and Geneva Posts: 259	Thanks, Paolo takes some planning at rock concerts in small clubs ! did you use that only in studio or also on location ?