DETAIL level?

[Tim Dashwood]

Thanks Barry.

Detail setting is a question that gets asked alot around here, so I think I'll make this a sticky.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Interesting to see that almost everyone here is using between MIN and -6, which equates to the usable ranges on the other cameras too. MIN looks like about -5 on the HVX and +5 on the Sony; you can't go lower than +5 on the Sony without the picture becoming irretrievably blurry (I'd say quite a bit blurrier than the HVX at -7 or the JVC at OFF!) Something weird happens to the Sony below 5, the picture looks actively blurred.

Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?

[Stephen L. Noe]

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail. I agree with this in my findings as well. For instance, if the intended delivery is SD-DVD I think you can safely go into the + ranges to get the image to be more detailed on the smaller screen (without much penalty). However, on a 51" HDTV you'll want the detail lower (I selected -7) because the edge enhancement is more apparent. The bigger the screen the lower detail should be set.

[Earl Thurston]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail. I agree with this in my findings...

I agree too, but I'd rather add it in post with a sharpening filter than shoot with it. It's easy to add later but very difficult, if not impossible, to take out. And if you're targetting smaller screens by scaling down the image (e.g. HDV to SD) then it's not much of a processing hit to add the extra filter.

[Ian E. Pearson]

If you look at Tim Dashwood's resolution charts in the thread about the 13x, youll see that turning the detail from off to min:high:high is a pretty huge difference in my opinion. I think on the min setting it gives you a significantly sharper picture but doesnt look like too much artificial sharpness. But off is just too soft.

[Mike Marriage]

Originally Posted by Stephen L. Noe

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail.

Good point, I hadn't thought of this before.

The only time that I add sharpening to still photos is when I post things on ebay and I am limited to their 400x400 image size. For the lower resolution, sharpening really helps the picture look sharp. If you do the same on a larger image it looks terrible.

[Jim Giberti]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Good point, I hadn't thought of this before.

The only time that I add sharpening to still photos is when I post things on ebay and I am limited to their 400x400 image size. For the lower resolution, sharpening really helps the picture look sharp. If you do the same on a larger image it looks terrible.

I didn't see the screening, but if I remember correctly, one of Andrew's regrets regarding the film transfer of his documentary shot on the HD100 was that his settings were pretty much set to default given his last minute use of the camera. Specifically that it may have looked better on the big screen had he dialed the detail down.

[Miklos Philips]

I find from my tests that under -6 the image starts to look too soft for me. I would never use "MIN" that's way too soft for me. Above -3 it's starting to look too "video sharp." I adjust according to envorinment, i.e. outdoors on a sunlit day go -6, indoors in a fluorescent lit room I'd probabaly dial it up to -3, tungsten lit interior I'd probabaly go to -4 or -5. The lens iris setting makes a subtle difference in overall sense of sharpness not just DOF.

[Gary Williams]

Ya, I agree those settings in detail are very similar to what I use, but I prefer -4 for outdoor shots.

[Andy Robertson]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?

Judging from the design of the camera itself, location of controls, & over all functionality, I think JVC is not only targeting those of us shooting for a film-esque look, but also a big target is TV stations around the country. A multiformat, rugged, familiar camera at a great price & that uses tapes that don't cost $80ea. is very attractive to TV stations who are also having to invest $100,000s to outfit their facilities with HD to comply with the upcoming FCC mandated broadcast SD retirement. Imagine: a thousand stations who need as many as 40 new cameras!!!! The enhanced detail will probably be more appreciated by station news crews & in-house production.

[Stephan Ahonen]

FCC is not mandating an end to standard def. They are mandating an end to analog broadcasting. It is possible to broadcast SD over ATSC, and it is an option for many stations to simply slap an analog to digital converter on the signal chain just before the transmitter to remain legal. Well, they still have to buy a new transmitter, but they don't have to retool the whole station for HD.

[John Yamamoto]

I agree with all the gurus on -7 and min.
i ran a test and find that only these are acceptable.

min is a bit soft on edges, i used virtualdub to sharpen it at 30 or 40
the overall is much more beter on SD TV. not yet know to HDTV, i have no $$ to buy.

but aliasing is also a problem and some artifacts will enhanc along with it.

to me the edge enhancement is max at -7, anything beyond that is too much.

if i have a HD TV and possibly or35mm blow up i will let u know more

but likely put it at between min and - 7 is best as a range

personally i will put -7 or even -5 for SD broadcasting.

and for film and 35mm i will use min.

when i need to sharpen can get a much apealing on SD.

time is issue if u r running on slow pc

JY

[Andy Robertson]

Originally Posted by Stephan Ahonen

FCC is not mandating an end to standard def. They are mandating an end to analog broadcasting. It is possible to broadcast SD over ATSC, and it is an option for many stations to simply slap an analog to digital converter on the signal chain just before the transmitter to remain legal. Well, they still have to buy a new transmitter, but they don't have to retool the whole station for HD.

I wasn't entirely clear. Analog broadcast is going away. Many stations have used a little bit of their digital bandwidth to "tuck" an SD signal into their ATSC transmission.

I also didn't put in the background, anecdotal as it may be, basis for my statement. Many stations, at least in top 60 markets, if they are wanting to be "power players" in their markets are going to switch over to full HD local broadcast. At least that's what the chief engineer at the station where I work tells me. Our station is going to be full HD by 2008 I think...I can't remember exactly...that's if all the budgeted stuff happens.

Anyway, back to the point. IMO a broadcast station would prefer settings on the JVC camera to be everything that the "cinema" people hate and there's probably an opportunity for JVC to sell a lot more cameras intended to create broadcast content than cinema content. That's what I was trying to say.

[Antony Michael Wilson]

Originally Posted by Mike Marriage

Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?

Yes, I think that's partly the point. I have spoken to many DoPs using HD kit (from the HD100 all the way up to CineAlta) here in the UK for both cinema and broadcast. The concensus is that the first thing people do when they get the gear from the rental house is turn the detail setting right down. It would appear that an enhanced detail setting is more to the taste of the Japanese market where these cameras come from. Thoughts?

[Alexei Berteig]

The lifespan and workflow is important to consider before using in-camera effects. Personally, it makes sense to me to preserve every ounce of information if you are recording on tape as opposed to SDI out. It doesn't matter what the effect is, if you are using any effect it means you are recording less information on the tape. Most people wouldn't consider edge enhancement an effect, but think of it this way: if you record with detail at OFF, you can add it in post. If you record with edge enhancement at MIN, you CAN'T remove it after-the-fact. If you record at OFF and you find that you ALWAYS add it back in during post, then, what the heck, record at -7 to MIN and save yourself the rendering time.

If you are transferring to film, I'd recommend OFF. Film, after all, has no edge enhancement. This is, however, educated guesswork on my part since I won't see any of my footage on film for another month or so.