Picture Profile Recipes

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 10:20 AM

Agreed,
I tend to drop the detail to level to -15 and up the frequency to 20 or so.
This helps take the edge off, but still holds clarity.

Gregor Baumann · January 9th, 2008, 11:04 AM

Nice from you to provide some footage.

I've the excell-file in front and try to understand the differences. PP1 is nearly the same as PP2, except a higher detail, changed blackgamma and matrix setting on PP1.
I can recognise the detailing, but I'm not able to see a difference in the black gamma and matrix settings. The picture of PP2 looks like a cloud is comming and shadowing the front left trees - or is THAT the black gamma influence?

PP3 is a copy of PP2 except a black gamma setting. Why is the image so muddy and dark? It looks underexposed. The white building is now grey...

PP5 looks great I think! In my opinion that looks film-like, just a little unsharp and a with a hight contrast. Well exposed!
Tell me based on the settings, where does this look come from: Std1 against cine1 gamma curve or the matrix?
I'm not willing to believe that a std-gamma-curve produces a more filmic-look than a cine-gamma-curve...

btw, is there a good online-ressource for learning the matrix adjustment?

Paul Cronin · January 9th, 2008, 11:09 AM

Steve do you have a setting you can share with us that has the -15 level and +20 frequency?

Gregor I am not as impressed with PP4 (still can't upload) and PP5 both have loads of noise in the picture.

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 11:12 AM

Yes, I'm wondering if you don't have pp3 mixed up with pp4.
It doesn't make sense looking at the excel table that pp3 would have lower contrast than pp2. Is it possible that your pp3 image is really pp4 settings?
PP4 has the cinema matrix which has lower saturation.

I agree, that the detail off and pushed colors have a more organic look, closer to film. I bet there is a good in between that still holds a tad more clarity, but offers that overall look.

Paul Cronin · January 9th, 2008, 11:19 AM

No PP3 is correct I checked with the PP3 from the site next to PP4 on the screen. If and when I can upload PP4 you will see a huge difference. PP4 is a purple/green tint and noise.

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 11:20 AM

OK, I see it now, PP3 has the black gamma raisied which offers the lower contrast. Thanks.

Gregor Baumann · January 9th, 2008, 12:16 PM

Oh! Sorry, I' ve meant the overall look of PP5 which is great. Yes there is noise, but I've seen it after your notice, not before...

Steven your're right a bit more detail and lower noise, would be better.

I wish my EX1 would be arriving...

Paul Cronin · January 9th, 2008, 02:04 PM

Will have some nice late day light today for more testing. Still would be nice to get some input to get a setting as nice as Steve Dempsey’s Vivid with the Canon A1. All of my clients love that setting not that they understand it they just say my colors are incredible. And yes you can do it in post but not on some of my jobs where I shoot then play on a big screen TV 2 hrs later. That is just enough time to cut a days shoot to a looping 20 min. So great color from the camera is a must for me.

Dive in!

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 03:04 PM

Would you consider PP5 to show the most noise?
I can't really tell from the stills.

I imagine you could drop each by a certain percentage and still have the same balance, but would decrease the overall saturated look. This would probably also decrease noise levels.

Paul Cronin · January 9th, 2008, 05:16 PM

I would say PP4 has more noise then PP5 and both are at a level that is unacceptable for me.

Today I shot all again once then concentrated on PP2 with some over and under crank.

What Picture Profile do you use?

Steven Thomas · January 9th, 2008, 05:43 PM

Essentially I have been using something like PP2 with Cine3, but detail level reduced to -20 & frequency at 20. I also adjusted blacks, but I can't remember what it was, I'll have to look.

Jim Montgomery · January 9th, 2008, 06:33 PM

Paul - I was not refering to anything specifically just making a comment.

Steve it is nice to know that by cranking up the frequency you can retain the sharpness and still lose the edge. Gotta try that.

The TV PP was used to master to Beta SP. Seems that going to analog causes a visual loss.

Jim

Gregor Baumann · January 9th, 2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Montgomery

The TV PP was used to master to Beta SP. Seems that going to analog causes a visual loss.

I don't think so. Betacam SP does not look so contrasty. Maybe the sharpness is good for a downconvert, but why a profile for an old format...

Jim Montgomery · January 9th, 2008, 07:48 PM

Because that is what the station requires. When going to Beta you lose some of your contrast and saturation.

Gregor Baumann · January 10th, 2008, 02:22 AM

You are talking about PP5?
It doesn't make sense to me to raise the contrast above normal for a beta playout...

January 9th, 2008, 11:09 AM	#33
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Steve do you have a setting you can share with us that has the -15 level and +20 frequency? Gregor I am not as impressed with PP4 (still can't upload) and PP5 both have loads of noise in the picture. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

January 9th, 2008, 11:19 AM	#35
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	No PP3 is correct I checked with the PP3 from the site next to PP4 on the screen. If and when I can upload PP4 you will see a huge difference. PP4 is a purple/green tint and noise. __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

January 9th, 2008, 02:04 PM	#38
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	Will have some nice late day light today for more testing. Still would be nice to get some input to get a setting as nice as Steve Dempsey’s Vivid with the Canon A1. All of my clients love that setting not that they understand it they just say my colors are incredible. And yes you can do it in post but not on some of my jobs where I shoot then play on a big screen TV 2 hrs later. That is just enough time to cut a days shoot to a looping 20 min. So great color from the camera is a must for me. Dive in! __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

January 9th, 2008, 05:16 PM	#40
Paul Cronin Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Rhode Island Posts: 4,048	I would say PP4 has more noise then PP5 and both are at a level that is unacceptable for me. Today I shot all again once then concentrated on PP2 with some over and under crank. What Picture Profile do you use? __________________ Paul Cronin www.paulcroninstudios.com

January 9th, 2008, 06:33 PM	#42
Jim Montgomery Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vero Beach Posts: 392	Paul - I was not refering to anything specifically just making a comment. Steve it is nice to know that by cranking up the frequency you can retain the sharpness and still lose the edge. Gotta try that. The TV PP was used to master to Beta SP. Seems that going to analog causes a visual loss. Jim __________________ http://www.billfishadventures.com \| http://www.sfgmedia.com \| http://vimeo.com/2015915

January 9th, 2008, 10:20 AM	#31
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Agreed, I tend to drop the detail to level to -15 and up the frequency to 20 or so. This helps take the edge off, but still holds clarity.

January 9th, 2008, 11:04 AM	#32
Gregor Baumann New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 13	Nice from you to provide some footage. I've the excell-file in front and try to understand the differences. PP1 is nearly the same as PP2, except a higher detail, changed blackgamma and matrix setting on PP1. I can recognise the detailing, but I'm not able to see a difference in the black gamma and matrix settings. The picture of PP2 looks like a cloud is comming and shadowing the front left trees - or is THAT the black gamma influence? PP3 is a copy of PP2 except a black gamma setting. Why is the image so muddy and dark? It looks underexposed. The white building is now grey... PP5 looks great I think! In my opinion that looks film-like, just a little unsharp and a with a hight contrast. Well exposed! Tell me based on the settings, where does this look come from: Std1 against cine1 gamma curve or the matrix? I'm not willing to believe that a std-gamma-curve produces a more filmic-look than a cine-gamma-curve... btw, is there a good online-ressource for learning the matrix adjustment?

January 9th, 2008, 11:12 AM	#34
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Yes, I'm wondering if you don't have pp3 mixed up with pp4. It doesn't make sense looking at the excel table that pp3 would have lower contrast than pp2. Is it possible that your pp3 image is really pp4 settings? PP4 has the cinema matrix which has lower saturation. I agree, that the detail off and pushed colors have a more organic look, closer to film. I bet there is a good in between that still holds a tad more clarity, but offers that overall look.

January 9th, 2008, 11:20 AM	#36
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	OK, I see it now, PP3 has the black gamma raisied which offers the lower contrast. Thanks.

January 9th, 2008, 12:16 PM	#37
Gregor Baumann New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 13	Oh! Sorry, I' ve meant the overall look of PP5 which is great. Yes there is noise, but I've seen it after your notice, not before... Steven your're right a bit more detail and lower noise, would be better. I wish my EX1 would be arriving...

January 9th, 2008, 03:04 PM	#39
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Would you consider PP5 to show the most noise? I can't really tell from the stills. I imagine you could drop each by a certain percentage and still have the same balance, but would decrease the overall saturated look. This would probably also decrease noise levels.

January 9th, 2008, 05:43 PM	#41
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Essentially I have been using something like PP2 with Cine3, but detail level reduced to -20 & frequency at 20. I also adjusted blacks, but I can't remember what it was, I'll have to look.

January 9th, 2008, 07:48 PM	#44
Jim Montgomery Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Vero Beach Posts: 392	Because that is what the station requires. When going to Beta you lose some of your contrast and saturation. __________________ http://www.billfishadventures.com \| http://www.sfgmedia.com \| http://vimeo.com/2015915

January 10th, 2008, 02:22 AM	#45
Gregor Baumann New Boot Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Berlin, Germany Posts: 13	You are talking about PP5? It doesn't make sense to me to raise the contrast above normal for a beta playout...