DETAIL level?

Steve Oakley · June 17th, 2006, 01:04 PM

AFA as comments about adding detail in post...
1. its a render hit
2. you ARE throwing away information during recording at MIN or OFF. you can't add detail back in that wasn't recorded, all you can do is sharpen edges that already exist, not the same thing. another way of looking at, you have a VHS tape.... so you dub it to BetaSP. Do you now have a BetaSP quality image ? no, all you have is a VHS image on your beta tape. Same thing, you can't add resolution back into an image if it didn't originally exist. all you can do it try to enhance edges of what was originally there.
3. Its much easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it because sharpening also boosts noise in the signal and of course can produce several different types of artifacts. I post you there are a number of ways of taking the edge off, as well as regraining the footage to keep it consistant with other material.Its much easier to degrade the footage, than to try to add what isn't there.

If you ever have to shoot in 4:3 SD mode, you will find that a detail level below -3 or -4 makes for a very mushy image. especially if you need to m ix into other broadcast cameras, or even the VX100 series. For 4:3 shooting, you want to bring the detail level up, maybe even around 0 otherwise you'll get an image thats too soft to be acceptable.

Steve O

Earl Thurston · June 19th, 2006, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Oakley

AFA as comments about adding detail in post...
2. you ARE throwing away information during recording at MIN or OFF. you can't add detail back in that wasn't recorded...

3. Its much easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it...

I have to disagree with you on both of these points.

On the first one, the "DETAIL" setting is nothing more than edge enhancement. It has no effect on the real detail recorded -- the only real detail is what you see at "OFF", everything else is artificially enhanced from there up.

Secondly, having worked for many years in photo retouching and image manipulation, I've never been able to properly remove edge enhancement from an image to the same point as if it wasn't there in the first place, but I've ALWAYS been able to put the enhancement in if I needed it.

But to be fair, we'd all certainly be interested in seeing some of your examples if you can prove me wrong.

Steve Oakley · June 21st, 2006, 01:06 AM

Ok, the detail circut isn't just effecting the outline of of an object, its every part of that object, including noise - for better or worse. If you turn the detail down too far, you can't recover fine detail that would of came out had the detail level been higher. typical examples are hair, grass, branches. You can't enhance was didn't go to tape in the first place.

AFA shooting 4:3, please take your camera and shoot some SD 4:3 with a couple of detail levels, then compare to a D600 or even old 537. If you don't bring the detail level up when shooting 4:3 you will get mush, especially compared to those cameras.

one way of removing edge enhancement is to run a find edges filter on the image, then use that as a matte source for a blur. that way you blur the edges without changing the rest of the image, then regrain. Even the process of an apply mode blur + regrain will remove any "over sharpness". I'm not talking about cranking the detail level so high that you get really distinct edging artifacts like an old 400A. with a detail level of -2 to 0 in 4:3, you'lll its comparable to -6 or so in HD mode

Steve Oakley

John Vincent · June 21st, 2006, 02:01 PM

I'm just wondering - Has JVC or anyone else posted a white paper or something similar on this matter yet?

It's been months now since this important issue has come up. I have read many people opinions on what exactly the detail setting actually do (thanks!), but it all still seems like conjecture.

I too think the min setting is a little soft, but have read that for any sort of film transfer to keep the detail setting at none or min.

I'm so confussed...

john

evilgeniusentertainment.com

Jim Giberti · June 21st, 2006, 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Vincent

I'm just wondering - Has JVC or anyone else posted a white paper or something similar on this matter yet?

It's been months now since this important issue has come up. I have read many people opinions on what exactly the detail setting actually do (thanks!), but it all still seems like conjecture.

I too think the min setting is a little soft, but have read that for any sort of film transfer to keep the detail setting at none or min.

I'm so confussed...

john

evilgeniusentertainment.com

Like anything else, it's a matter of taste and style. There is no "right" or "wrong". It's about trial and error. If you're going to do a cine out then test the setings first to see.

Personally direct to HD LCD monitors or where ever, I simply find the detail above Min., unrealistic and certainly not "film like". Min I think gets the full res without any digital artifacts (especially in highlights).

Again, my opinion which is all any creeative decision is, but I'd never imagine a need to shot above min and we've tested wuite a bit.

Chad Terpstra · June 21st, 2006, 07:42 PM

I keep it at min for HD, but move it to just below Normal for SD (otherwise it is a bit soft). But the added detail in HD does nothing more than add aliasing and edge enhancement to me.

One example of how electronic edge enhancement ruined some art recently: Just today I was in a coffee house. I saw some B&W prints on the wall so I took a closer look. Once I got close to them they looked cheap because I saw a lot of edge enhancement and little black & white lines. It totally gave away the photos as electronic either in capture or in manipulation and left the works very unpleasant to my eyes. Like I said, suddenly they looked cheap – like someone had taken their point and shoot digital camera and taken some photos with the sharpness nice and high. Perhaps that’s the look they were going for. Either way, it didn’t speak kindly to the real world they represented and ultimately left something BETWEEN me and the world they were showing.

But once again, that's just my opinion.

Jonathan Ames · June 21st, 2006, 08:06 PM

When you call someone in for a full, 3-camera shoot with all the bells and whistles, grips andf gaffers and the like and your subject is George Spiro Dibie, you better have confidence that your lead cameraman knows what he's doing. For 2nd Unit this week we had to use an all non-pro crew because that's the basis for 2nd Unit and so I turned to Paolo Ciccone, telling him who his subject was. If anyone ever doubted Paolo's settings, you can put them to rest becasue even George was astounded at what his setting had the JVC doing. The blacks were incredibly separated and not crushed in the least while he toned-down the stark-white walls that served as the backdrop. So for those of you who are experienceing latitude issues, baby, it ain't the camera!!! Please e-mail Paolo and ask him what settings he used and how he tweaked them to get better results for your own efforts. And even if you don't come back, you have to see the Dibie expose on www.2nd-Unit.tv one time and this isn't a shameless ploy. Yopu really need to see what Paolo can do with a camera.

Jim Giberti · June 22nd, 2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ames

When you call someone in for a full, 3-camera shoot with all the bells and whistles, grips andf gaffers and the like and your subject is George Spiro Dibie, you better have confidence that your lead cameraman knows what he's doing. For 2nd Unit this week we had to use an all non-pro crew because that's the basis for 2nd Unit and so I turned to Paolo Ciccone, telling him who his subject was. If anyone ever doubted Paolo's settings, you can put them to rest becasue even George was astounded at what his setting had the JVC doing. The blacks were incredibly separated and not crushed in the least while he toned-down the stark-white walls that served as the backdrop. So for those of you who are experienceing latitude issues, baby, it ain't the camera!!! Please e-mail Paolo and ask him what settings he used and how he tweaked them to get better results for your own efforts. And even if you don't come back, you have to see the Dibie expose on www.2nd-Unit.tv one time and this isn't a shameless ploy. Yopu really need to see what Paolo can do with a camera.

Hey, really nice of you to be doing that Jonathan. I downloaded the clip and loved George's energy and attitude. Is that you doing the intro and wrap? Can I suggest a lower third identifying you?

Jon Jaschob · July 2nd, 2006, 01:45 PM

http://www.fotgfilms.com/jvc.html

Alex Humphrey · March 8th, 2008, 12:17 AM

I'm shooting 24p around 1/48th and 1/60th of a second, but it's looking like video to me on small patterned subjects like...

1. Chain link fencing (zooming in and out of) looking like interlaced video.

2. Bleachers from across the soccer field looking like interlaced video.

3. Maybe toning down some of my highlights because the highlights are maybe being edged enhanced?

So will changing my Detail setting from Normal to Min or OFF eliminate my issues with the above 3 issues?

Alex Humphrey · March 17th, 2008, 04:30 PM

Quote:

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.

it's the digital transmitter that I think is the nail in numerous local TV station's coffins. KFTY in california no longer broadcasts over the air. Cable, DirecTV and Dish only. Other rebroadcasters are saying they have to pay as much as $100,000 per channel to go to digital, so they are going off the air this year or next. Sell the airwaves to other industries. weird times. Major cities will be unaffected of course, small rural areas might be without local TV unless they get DirecTV or Dish or cable.

Jon Jaschob · March 19th, 2008, 12:49 PM

I use Min and Off. A couple times even Off was sharper than I wanted so I had to soften in post. I also shoot with low shutter speeds to make motion blur look closer to what I see. So my taste is for natural looking footage without that nasty digital edge on everything, and long motion blur.
Jon

Adam Letch · March 20th, 2008, 01:59 AM

definitely need to sharpen up in 4:3 SD, especially when matching other SD only cams, especially with the standard glass which resolving power is starting to grate on me. And I'm not entering into that whole argument as it does a ok job for something thrown in for $500 on the 251.
But looking at that post where someone showed the different levels of detail with a wire basket and a wrought iron chair on the grass, I would seriously wonder whether the detail is pure edge enhancement, as the no detail shot only showed a blur when it came to wire mesh from what I recall.
I know that you use min or off for film out or large screen, can someone show what this is like I would have thought the bigger the screen, the more it shows up soft edges etc and you loose the whole Hi Definition detail thing? I mean really thats what Hi Def is about isn't it, resolving more information and seeing more detail?

June 21st, 2006, 02:01 PM	#34
John Vincent Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 1,065	JVC's answer? I'm just wondering - Has JVC or anyone else posted a white paper or something similar on this matter yet? It's been months now since this important issue has come up. I have read many people opinions on what exactly the detail setting actually do (thanks!), but it all still seems like conjecture. I too think the min setting is a little soft, but have read that for any sort of film transfer to keep the detail setting at none or min. I'm so confussed... john evilgeniusentertainment.com

July 2nd, 2006, 01:45 PM	#39
Jon Jaschob Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 232	More Samples of Detail Levels http://www.fotgfilms.com/jvc.html

March 20th, 2008, 01:59 AM	#43
Adam Letch Major Player Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 414	I shift detail according to use, definitely need to sharpen up in 4:3 SD, especially when matching other SD only cams, especially with the standard glass which resolving power is starting to grate on me. And I'm not entering into that whole argument as it does a ok job for something thrown in for $500 on the 251. But looking at that post where someone showed the different levels of detail with a wire basket and a wrought iron chair on the grass, I would seriously wonder whether the detail is pure edge enhancement, as the no detail shot only showed a blur when it came to wire mesh from what I recall. I know that you use min or off for film out or large screen, can someone show what this is like I would have thought the bigger the screen, the more it shows up soft edges etc and you loose the whole Hi Definition detail thing? I mean really thats what Hi Def is about isn't it, resolving more information and seeing more detail?

June 17th, 2006, 01:04 PM	#31
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	AFA as comments about adding detail in post... 1. its a render hit 2. you ARE throwing away information during recording at MIN or OFF. you can't add detail back in that wasn't recorded, all you can do is sharpen edges that already exist, not the same thing. another way of looking at, you have a VHS tape.... so you dub it to BetaSP. Do you now have a BetaSP quality image ? no, all you have is a VHS image on your beta tape. Same thing, you can't add resolution back into an image if it didn't originally exist. all you can do it try to enhance edges of what was originally there. 3. Its much easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it because sharpening also boosts noise in the signal and of course can produce several different types of artifacts. I post you there are a number of ways of taking the edge off, as well as regraining the footage to keep it consistant with other material.Its much easier to degrade the footage, than to try to add what isn't there. If you ever have to shoot in 4:3 SD mode, you will find that a detail level below -3 or -4 makes for a very mushy image. especially if you need to m ix into other broadcast cameras, or even the VX100 series. For 4:3 shooting, you want to bring the detail level up, maybe even around 0 otherwise you'll get an image thats too soft to be acceptable. Steve O

June 21st, 2006, 01:06 AM	#33
Steve Oakley Trustee Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: United States Posts: 1,158	Ok, the detail circut isn't just effecting the outline of of an object, its every part of that object, including noise - for better or worse. If you turn the detail down too far, you can't recover fine detail that would of came out had the detail level been higher. typical examples are hair, grass, branches. You can't enhance was didn't go to tape in the first place. AFA shooting 4:3, please take your camera and shoot some SD 4:3 with a couple of detail levels, then compare to a D600 or even old 537. If you don't bring the detail level up when shooting 4:3 you will get mush, especially compared to those cameras. one way of removing edge enhancement is to run a find edges filter on the image, then use that as a matte source for a blur. that way you blur the edges without changing the rest of the image, then regrain. Even the process of an apply mode blur + regrain will remove any "over sharpness". I'm not talking about cranking the detail level so high that you get really distinct edging artifacts like an old 400A. with a detail level of -2 to 0 in 4:3, you'lll its comparable to -6 or so in HD mode Steve Oakley

June 21st, 2006, 07:42 PM	#36
Chad Terpstra Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 320	I keep it at min for HD, but move it to just below Normal for SD (otherwise it is a bit soft). But the added detail in HD does nothing more than add aliasing and edge enhancement to me. One example of how electronic edge enhancement ruined some art recently: Just today I was in a coffee house. I saw some B&W prints on the wall so I took a closer look. Once I got close to them they looked cheap because I saw a lot of edge enhancement and little black & white lines. It totally gave away the photos as electronic either in capture or in manipulation and left the works very unpleasant to my eyes. Like I said, suddenly they looked cheap – like someone had taken their point and shoot digital camera and taken some photos with the sharpness nice and high. Perhaps that’s the look they were going for. Either way, it didn’t speak kindly to the real world they represented and ultimately left something BETWEEN me and the world they were showing. But once again, that's just my opinion.

June 21st, 2006, 08:06 PM	#37
Jonathan Ames 2nd Unit TV Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 509	When you call someone in for a full, 3-camera shoot with all the bells and whistles, grips andf gaffers and the like and your subject is George Spiro Dibie, you better have confidence that your lead cameraman knows what he's doing. For 2nd Unit this week we had to use an all non-pro crew because that's the basis for 2nd Unit and so I turned to Paolo Ciccone, telling him who his subject was. If anyone ever doubted Paolo's settings, you can put them to rest becasue even George was astounded at what his setting had the JVC doing. The blacks were incredibly separated and not crushed in the least while he toned-down the stark-white walls that served as the backdrop. So for those of you who are experienceing latitude issues, baby, it ain't the camera!!! Please e-mail Paolo and ask him what settings he used and how he tweaked them to get better results for your own efforts. And even if you don't come back, you have to see the Dibie expose on www.2nd-Unit.tv one time and this isn't a shameless ploy. Yopu really need to see what Paolo can do with a camera.

March 8th, 2008, 12:17 AM	#40
Alex Humphrey Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: california North and South Posts: 642	I'm shooting 24p around 1/48th and 1/60th of a second, but it's looking like video to me on small patterned subjects like... 1. Chain link fencing (zooming in and out of) looking like interlaced video. 2. Bleachers from across the soccer field looking like interlaced video. 3. Maybe toning down some of my highlights because the highlights are maybe being edged enhanced? So will changing my Detail setting from Normal to Min or OFF eliminate my issues with the above 3 issues?

March 19th, 2008, 12:49 PM	#42
Jon Jaschob Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 232	I use Min and Off. A couple times even Off was sharper than I wanted so I had to soften in post. I also shoot with low shutter speeds to make motion blur look closer to what I see. So my taste is for natural looking footage without that nasty digital edge on everything, and long motion blur. Jon