PMW-350 Developing Scene Files (Picture Profiles)

[Paul Cronin]

Tom I thought that thought as soon as I posted, but you did not added that much saturation. But it is always better to be safe so ANatural would be the best choice so far.

I will not be doing the post it will be a production house and your right max Latitude is always best.

[Tom Roper]

From 25 feet away, zoomed 100%. Exposure locked.

The parameters for the picture on the left:

Detail: On
Level: -15
H/V Ratio: +35
Freq: +35
Blk Lim: +35
Wht Lim: +35
Aperture: -20

The parameters for the picture on the right:

Detail: Off
Aperture: +10

*********************************

In the area of the contrast highlights, the eagle's head, wings and the text are virtually identical. But there is a big difference. Look at the background area just under the eagle's wings. In the picture on the left, you can clearly make out the texturing of the white wall, whereas in the picture on the right, it is much less perceptable. The Detail-On circuit, rather than adding obvious sharpening, has extracted picture detail in the low contrast, bright area of the wall.

[Cris Daniels]

I didnt read any of the details before I looked at the images but to me the one on the left was clearly better. Wow, I would not turn the sharpening off on that camera if that shot is indicative of what happens. What about something like a clothing pattern or a resolution chart? I wonder if that detail circuit effects aliasing or moire. That textured drywall in the screen grabs wasn't particularly detailed where one could see artifacts.

[Alister Chapman]

Turning the detail circuits of does not change the resolution of the cemera. It only changes the percieved images "sharpness". In the eagle frame grab you have to ask whether the textured wall actually has shadows around the surface textures as that is what the detail circuit on setting makes it look like. Now I'm not saying this is wrong, it's a matter of taste. If you watch a film projected traditionally you will never see hard black or White edges around outlines, and many people will when seeing film and video side by side say that film looks soft. When I run my XDcam masterclasses one of my favourite eye opener slides is one that demonstrates a drop in image resolution due to excessive detail correction. At first glance the age appears sharp do to the heavy, high contrast edges, but a closer look reveals that the thick correction edged are actuallyasking the fine detail and textures within the image.
The one thing we are all agreed on at least is that the default settings are too high. As for the artifacts in the image they appear to be compression artifacts in the frame grab.

[Simon Wyndham]

I'd also like to know whether the background texture was out of focus due to the aperture setting and distance. If that is the case then the sharpening of the texture on the left would be undesirable in most cases.

[Paul Cronin]

Great example Tom,

This confirms what I am seeing and helps us take one more step in the right direction.

Today I will try a similar test with a Fiddle Head Focus Chart in the foreground and with a detail water chart in the background, and post the results. I will use the the same settings and be zoomed in.

Tom how far is the lamp from the wall?

[Piotr Wozniacki]

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

Turning the detail circuits of does not change the resolution of the cemera. It only changes the percieved images "sharpness".

This statement is spot on, Alister - unfortunately, most people tend to confuse sharpness (often artificial) with the actual resolution!

Of course, provided one knows what he's doing, it's a matter of personal taste, after all...

[Tom Roper]

The screen grabs of the lamp is at 100%. There are jpg compression artifacts. Make sure you view these grabs at 100% on your monitor.

The textured wall is about 16 inches behind the eagle's wings. The iris opening was F5.6, zoom level 100%, so the spackled texture is somewhat out of focus due to the shallow depth of field.

Below the eagle's wings, the incident rays are striking the textured wall from above at approximately a 45 degree angle from the incandescent lamp in the fixture, so the appearance of the texture itself owes mostly to a shadow being cast by the embossed area of the texture.

With that said, please answer the question for me. Is the presentation of this shadow detail by the "DETAIL-ON" circuit correct? Or do you feel it is exagerrated and should appear as in the image on the right side?

[Cris Daniels]

I guess that without seeing the actual environment it is impossible for me to know exactly what shot is more accurate to reality. Given the choice I would have put that image up on a 24" production monitor and shot it the straight SDI signal to make those adjustments.

That having been said, I still like the shot on the left better, if only because the wall texture is more uniform and pleasing to my eye.

I have wondered about the best way to handle in camera settings like this sharpening detail. Much like a JPEG still where the information is "baked in" to the shot, I am hesitant to totally turn off in camera sharpening because I am think that those sharpening algorithms are designed tuned to that sensor and its attributes.

[Tom Roper]

Thanks for your opinion Chris.

The expert panel seems about evenly divided. I found it interesting that the detail enhancement (at these settings) tended to extract the soft details from the wall texture rather than the high contrast transitions on the hard edges.

[Paul Cronin]

Ok I did a few test in my office. My studio is packed with gear so that is out today.

I used one Lowel Tota light off to the left side 5’0” from the Fiddlehead chart at 15 degrees.

The Fiddlehead was 11’-6” from the lens which is all the room I have today.

The Long Island Sound Chart is 16” behind the Fiddlehead chart.

Note the shade area on the right side of the Long Island Sound Chart due to the Fiddlehead. Also the chart had folds which I like since it offers a harder object to shoot.

I shot eight test four with stock lens, and four with Canon J15x9.5B4 IRS SX12 SD lens.

Stock PMW-350 Lens clips
Stock Lens AN-D (Alister’s Natural Detail on at F6.7)
Stock Lens AF (Alister’s Film with Detail off at F6.7)
Stock Lens TS-D (Tom’s Sat with Detail on at F8)
Stock Lens TF (Tom’s Film with Detail off at F8)

Canon J15x AN-D (Alister’s Natural Detail on at F4)
Canon J15x AF (Alister’s Film with Detail off at F4)
Canon J15x TS-D (Tom’s Sat with Detail on at F4.8)
Canon J15x TF (Tom’s Film with Detail off at F4.8)

[Cris Daniels]

Well the only thing I can say is based on what I see on the net since I do not have a 350 yet, so admittedly that isn't very much. The problem is that I don't know what the scene REALLY looked like, so maybe the one on the left is less accurate to reality.

The thing I cant stand is these -99 to +99 settings with no explanation, surely somebody at Sony could do better with the documentation of these settings and exactly what they do and do not adjust.

I am still an advocate of some capture sharpening at some degree, so I am hesitant to shoot with detail turned completely off. I am still a believer that the manufacturer knows something about how to best sharpen their own signals. For the sake of impressing people, it is probably overdone out of the box so finding that sweet spot when you dial it back has been my goal.

I understand that none of that blather is very scientific, but with the charts and experimenting, I have simply grown to rely on my eyes and a production monitor for making those adjustments.

[Alister Chapman]

I spent some more time with the camera today, looking at detail settings. I was comparing it with my PDW-700 which I have well dialed in now. I feel that I had backed the correction down a little too far on the 350. These are the settings I ended up with at the end of today as my general all-round setup:

Detail level -14
H/V Ratio +15
Crispening 0 (really doesn't need this raised at 0db)
Level Depend ON
LD Level 0
Frequency +40
Limit 0
White Limit +38
Black Limit +30

Aperture -15 (maybe -10)

My prefered Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)
For extra "punch" Black Gamma ON, level -40, Range H.Mid

I have a couple of clips on my site in a zip file comparing the 350 and PDW-700, a 35Mb/s MP4 from the 350 and a 50Mb/s MXF from the PDW-700.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/samples/350-700.zip

[Paul Cronin]

Thanks Alister,

They both look like nice scene files and very close. I like the 350 clip when you close down the iris in the middle of the clip.

Are the settings you posted here all that you have changed?
The rest are default?
Multi Matrix is Off
Matrix > Off
Etc..

Interesting how you cut the H/V ration in half and up on Frequency and b/w limits. Do you find this a more natural sharpness then upping detail?

Will give your new setting a try and again thank you for posting your new findings.

[Paul Cronin]

Alister this setting seems very natural with a very slight punch.

Sharp edges with no fringe color on the edges
Exposure is easy and has very nice latitude

I have always heard the Hyper Gamma’s were nice and this proves it.

Thanks for sharing your setting and the experience matching to the 700.