HVX and the Film Look

[Barry Green]

Anyone else think Cine D was softer detailwise?

No, it has the same detail, but it's a flatter contrast image so it looks softer to us. Remember, we perceive "sharpness" based on two factors: actual resolved detail ("resolution"), and contrast. A softer-detail picture can look "sharper" to us if it has a lot of contrast, and a more-detailed picture may look softer to us if it has less contrast. cinelike-D has the least contrast, so it looks softer.

[Robert Lane]

Phil,

We tried and liked changing the shutter angle to 200 rather than the default 180deg, so we're keeping it. Thanks for the tip.

The final settings we're now using for production is simple:

We're using the built-in Scene File setting of F6 (Cinelike D/Cinelike Matrix). The only two modifications were to boost detail to +5 and detail coring to +1. We did NOT boost detail because of any inherent softness we just like the look the detail boost gives.

With the above settings the colors are rich, the dynamic response is wide, and coupled with 24p FILM-CAM mode it is most film-like indeed.

[Jon Fairhurst]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

No, it has the same detail, but it's a flatter contrast image so it looks softer to us. Remember, we perceive "sharpness" based on two factors: actual resolved detail ("resolution"), and contrast. A softer-detail picture can look "sharper" to us if it has a lot of contrast, and a more-detailed picture may look softer to us if it has less contrast. cinelike-D has the least contrast, so it looks softer.

Here's a fun example of contrast perception that has to do with the limits of the eye at low contrast and high frequencies. Look at the picture at this link up close and pick which photo is of an angry man. Move ten feet or so away from your monitor and choose again.

http://www.theschubinreport.com/Angry_Neutral.jpg

I got this from The Schubin Report. It's a good podcast for us video geeks.

Sorry for the detour. Now back to the film look discussion...

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Say, that's a pretty trick slick. 8)

Originally Posted by Jon Fairhurst

Here's a fun example of contrast perception that has to do with the limits of the eye at low contrast and high frequencies. Look at the picture at this link up close and pick which photo is of an angry man. Move ten feet or so away from your monitor and choose again.

http://www.theschubinreport.com/Angry_Neutral.jpg

[Bob Gundu]

I use CineGamma D all the time but I do change the Matrix from Cine to Norm. I personally find the Cine adds way too much noise. It may actually be the same amount of noise at this setting but at least its monochromatic. You can see some clips with these settings:

http://10framehandles.com/movies/iPo...ondNewText.mov

http://10framehandles.com/movies/distillery_small.mov

Bob

[Robert Lane]

I can't post movies from the current production, but I am posting some still samples that nicely show the color output from the HVX using the "F6" Cinelike D/Cine Matrix settting. Is there more noise than NORM matrix? It's hard to tell; on my 30" Cinema Display I can certainly see every imperfection, but on an NTSC monitor downcoverted to SD widescreen it's near perfect even before FC color correction.

I'll put those samples in the Image Gallery now but I can't leave them there indefinitely. Not until the project launches to DVD in about 2 months.

The samples are in the HVX gallery titled: "HVX color output samples".

[Ash Greyson]

Bob, that is my exact experience... the matrix, not gamma seems to add the noise. Another thing worth adding, in lower light, the video matrix seems to work better as well...



ash =o)

[Eniola Akintoye]

Originally Posted by Robert Lane

I'm currently in production on the biggest project I've ever done (more details when the website is updated) but just yesterday found the "magic touch" for getting really good looking film-like looks from the HVX.

As I've always said, acheiving ANY look in-camera comes from good composition and lighting skills which of course we're using in the studio currently, but I also experimented with GAMMA settings that I previously had not.

Yesterday we did a skin tone test with a model, GMB Color Checker and Kodak IT8 cards. After half an hour of playing with KNEE, PEDESTAL and a few other camera setups I tried the built-in "CINELIKE D" gamma setting - that did the trick!

Shooting in 720p 24P(N) with the CINELIKE D gamma setting gives us the most film-like look - from a color/chroma perspective - than I've ever seen from any of the HD/HDV cameras - I'm just flat-out amazed.

I must admit, that until yesterday I had snubbed my nose at built-in gamma settings in the HVX because of experiences with the XL2 "frame" mode and the Z1 CINEFRAME mode, niether of which looked good at all to me. But like I say, after we all looked at the A-B difference between HD NORM and CINELIKE D, it was plainly clear that Panasonic nailed it for a film-like output.

If you where to use the same settings on an XL2, what presets would you advice on, or what would your settings be?.

[Leonard Levy]

My perception about noise is simple and it fundamentally doesn't have to do specifically with what matrix or gamma you choose, but how you set up the camera within those choices.

1. More shadow detail and higher blacks = more noise
2. More Chroma = more noise

If you use Cine D and crush the black level it will look less noisy at the expense of shadow detail.
If you use Cine matrix and drop the Chroma you will lose noise.

This is just how video works and the gamma and matrix names just obscure the basic principles.
In fully professional cameras you don't have these fancy names you just have numerical settings for these things so the principles are obvious.

BTW - I can't see any difference between Cine Matrix and Normal Matrix other than the Chroma level. If somebody else does let me know what it is. I haven't looked at it on a scope though.

BTW Robert,
Where are you setting your black level with Cine Gamma D?

[Robert Lane]

Eniola,

I have no idea how to replicate this look in the XL2; I'd start with "frame mode" and play with knee, pedastal, chroma and gamma settings on an external monitor and see what you like best.

Leonard,

I haven't touched black levels; I've left them in the preset position because I like the wider gamut. Makes color correction easier and I can always add black if I want it in post.

[Sam Jankis]

I have both the HVX200 and the XL2. The XL2 is not capable (overall) of the same color detail as the HVX (I was pretty amazed by the difference between the two cameras)... but you could change the XL2's settings for each shot to get close to the Cinelike settings of the HVX.

[Leonard Levy]

Robert,

I would think that instead of a wider gamut your actually compressing your recording.

This has irritated and confused me for awhile about HVX and DVX black level settings.

Every engineer I've ever worked with in video sets the black levels up so that cap black is at the bottom of the IRE scale. As its been explained to me you are otherwise just recording milky blacks and actually limiting the available range for recorded information.
If set-up is 7.5 they set the cap black up to 7.5 . If set-up is "0" they set it at "0". (perhaps a hair above for safety)

In the HVX if you choose set-up at 7.5 and set your black level ( or Master Pedestal) in the menu to "0" the IRE level of cap black will be somewhere around 7.5. This is correct.

However when you switch to "0" setup the cap black does not come down to "0" IRE as it should but stays up around 4 or 5. You will not record any more information this way, you will just record a milkier black. I guess this could be a matter of taste, & will give you a more pastel and gentle look but at the expense of saturation and general "pop". It is a "look" and people flash flim in a similar manner, but I generally don't like it as much in video as in film. Maybe HD is different. At any rate I think it shouldn't be considered a normal way to set-up the camera for good video.

(In a fully pro camera you usually prefer to get a gentle look by raising gamma levels or black stretch but keeping the pedestal low.)
Maybe I'm old fashioned though.

This was generally recommended in many settings published on the web for the DVX100 as well.

The other negative to me would be increased noise both from the elevated black and the fact that you will need more chroma saturation to achieve normal color.
Also you are just increasing the need to lower blacks in post and thus spend more time color correcting which also may introduce subtle noise.

You may not notice your blacks are high unless you actually do have your monitors setup properly. In my experience many people using Final Cut Pro in particular don't pay much attention to black level or proper monitor set-up.

I've always been curious why the Panasonics work this way in the first place, and why so many people don't adjust their settings. If someone has a different point of view I'd be interested.

Maybe this is a Barry question and its own thread.

[Brian Sargent]

Why is the preset when shooting to P2 at a default of 7.5 and the tape default 0%. Is this because of different NTSC analogue/digital standards?
Sorry but I don't get it.

[Federico Prieto]

Originally Posted by Bob Gundu

I use CineGamma D all the time but I do change the Matrix from Cine to Norm. I personally find the Cine adds way too much noise. It may actually be the same amount of noise at this setting but at least its monochromatic. You can see some clips with these settings:

http://10framehandles.com/movies/iPo...ondNewText.mov

http://10framehandles.com/movies/distillery_small.mov

Bob

Hello Bob...thanks for posting your experiment....The colors really looks Great!!!

By the way, of the all HVX200 tests and demos I have collected from about two months, "distillery" has, imho, the best color I have seen...or in other words the wonderfull color I want to get from my new panny...I remember another one I saw some weeks ago "motivity snow day"....good job too..........

[Bob Gundu]

I did another test here:

http://10framehandles.com/movies/tracksLaneway.mov