V1U Picture Profiles / Presets

Annie Haycock · June 8th, 2008, 01:30 PM

Alan

Thanks for this. Someone told me a year that this information could be found on the BBC website, but I didn't really know what I was looking for, so didn't find it then. Now I've downloaded the papers for both the Sony A1e and the Canon XH A1 - how did I manage to end up with two cameras having the same A1 tag?

David Kirshner · June 14th, 2008, 12:26 AM

Very interesting read, that BBC paper. One of the things that most interested me is the mentioning of a softness in the image in apertures smaller than F5.6, suggesting that the neutral density filters be used rather than stopping down the lens. Has anyone else noticed this? This may explain the softness of many of the clips I took on a recent field trip. At first I thought my focusing must be really off, but I couldn't find anything in the soft images that was crisp, so it wasn't as though the focus was off by even a small margin. The image was just soft.

(I had sharpness set to 8 in picture profile).

Alan Craven · June 14th, 2008, 01:06 AM

The softness is not peculiar to the V1, it occurs with all cameras which use a small sensor. It is caused by diffraction, which is inevitable when any wave - including sound and water waves - passes through a gap whose width is comparable to the wavelength.

The small sensors used in video cameras necessitate very small iris diameters when the lens has to be stopped down in bright light, hence the incorporation of built-in ND filtration. The problem is much less acute with 35 mm cameras due to the larger sensors, which require a larger diameter iris for a given light transmission level.

David Kirshner · June 14th, 2008, 07:13 PM

Thanks for that explanation, Alan. There I was, aiming for the smallest possible aperture to maximise depth of field (I was shooting wildlife), when I would have been better off with the iris half open. It's not as though I needed the extra depth of field for the V1, anyway, because of the size of the sensor. Now if only I'd had this discussion before going overseas... :(

David Kirshner · July 4th, 2008, 07:25 PM

An update - turns out the video wasn't soft at all. When I captured the footage I had downconverted it from the camera into SD because my plan was to do a simple edit for DVD, then do a high definition version some other time (hopefully following a major computer upgrade). I had expected the SD version to be clear, but just lower resolution, when in fact it was of much poorer quality than my old SD PD150. After reading that downloading it as HDV and then downconverting it to SD DV in a video editing program gives better results, I tried downloading a few clips as HD. What a difference!

June 8th, 2008, 01:30 PM	#46
Annie Haycock Major Player Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Pembrokeshire, Wales Posts: 734	Alan Thanks for this. Someone told me a year that this information could be found on the BBC website, but I didn't really know what I was looking for, so didn't find it then. Now I've downloaded the papers for both the Sony A1e and the Canon XH A1 - how did I manage to end up with two cameras having the same A1 tag? __________________ Canon XH A1; Canon XF100; Nikon D800

June 14th, 2008, 12:26 AM	#47
David Kirshner New Boot Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sydney NSW Australia Posts: 13	Very interesting read, that BBC paper. One of the things that most interested me is the mentioning of a softness in the image in apertures smaller than F5.6, suggesting that the neutral density filters be used rather than stopping down the lens. Has anyone else noticed this? This may explain the softness of many of the clips I took on a recent field trip. At first I thought my focusing must be really off, but I couldn't find anything in the soft images that was crisp, so it wasn't as though the focus was off by even a small margin. The image was just soft. (I had sharpness set to 8 in picture profile).

June 14th, 2008, 01:06 AM	#48
Alan Craven Major Player Join Date: May 2003 Location: York, England Posts: 518	The softness is not peculiar to the V1, it occurs with all cameras which use a small sensor. It is caused by diffraction, which is inevitable when any wave - including sound and water waves - passes through a gap whose width is comparable to the wavelength. The small sensors used in video cameras necessitate very small iris diameters when the lens has to be stopped down in bright light, hence the incorporation of built-in ND filtration. The problem is much less acute with 35 mm cameras due to the larger sensors, which require a larger diameter iris for a given light transmission level.

June 14th, 2008, 07:13 PM	#49
David Kirshner New Boot Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sydney NSW Australia Posts: 13	Thanks for that explanation, Alan. There I was, aiming for the smallest possible aperture to maximise depth of field (I was shooting wildlife), when I would have been better off with the iris half open. It's not as though I needed the extra depth of field for the V1, anyway, because of the size of the sensor. Now if only I'd had this discussion before going overseas... :(

July 4th, 2008, 07:25 PM	#50
David Kirshner New Boot Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Sydney NSW Australia Posts: 13	An update - turns out the video wasn't soft at all. When I captured the footage I had downconverted it from the camera into SD because my plan was to do a simple edit for DVD, then do a high definition version some other time (hopefully following a major computer upgrade). I had expected the SD version to be clear, but just lower resolution, when in fact it was of much poorer quality than my old SD PD150. After reading that downloading it as HDV and then downconverting it to SD DV in a video editing program gives better results, I tried downloading a few clips as HD. What a difference!