Cine gamma settings in the EX1

Alister Chapman · June 24th, 2009, 01:58 AM

I'm largely with Piotr with the exception of using Standard gamma 1 in low light. Std 1 is very noisy and in low key shots the last thing you want in my opinion is a noisy picture.

I would use std 4 with some negative black gamma to achieve a similar look to std1 but without the noise.

Piotr Wozniacki · June 24th, 2009, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman

I'm largely with Piotr with the exception of using Standard gamma 1 in low light. Std 1 is very noisy and in low key shots the last thing you want in my opinion is a noisy picture.

I would use std 4 with some negative black gamma to achieve a similar look to std1 but without the noise.

Interesting observation, Alister - I haven't noticed that; will have an eye on the Std1 noise. Of course you're right that (especially with Std curves), you can basically use any single one, and tweak its black gamma / knee to mimic the other ones...

BTW. I use Std1 very sporadically indeed - only when I'm after the very punchy look with crushed shadows; it's usually accompanied by lowered detail settings and detail Frequency and Crispening way up... Perhaps this is the reason I haven't noticed any excessive noise.

Joe Lawry · June 24th, 2009, 05:09 AM

I dont leave the Cinegammas when i shoot on my EX1.

Im still using Bills True Color Profiles with a few minor tweaking.

Cine1 for Exterior bright days.
Cine3 for General all round use - it also provides a nice normal saturated look.
Cine4 for lowlight night footage or where ever i really need to stretch the blacks.

All my profiles run -3 gamma and matrix on Hisat.

My matrix settings are all the same settings as Bills TC Profiles.

If im multicam shooting with EX3s i leave everything stock and run with Cine Gammas, Matrix on HiSat and -3 Gamma.

Currently grading a project that has footage shot both with Cine Gamma and Standard Gamma settings from multiple operators.. And judging from how much work i have to do to the Standard Gamma footage im never going to even think twice about only using Cine Gamma again. Standard gamma is just horrible.

Piotr Wozniacki · June 24th, 2009, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Lawry

Standard gamma is just horrible.

Matter of taste and depending on the scene being shot, Joe. Technically, there is nothing "horrible" with STD gammas (except for the "abrupt highlights clipping" phenomenon, as discussed here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/sony-xdca...-clipping.html

- but this can be easily avoided by setting Knee Auto=OFF).

Bill Ravens · June 24th, 2009, 08:27 AM

Serena..

There's a few mathematical models that fit quite well, not the least of which is a cubic equation, but also, a sigmoidal model, an exponential growth model, a hyperbolic model, and a power model. I'm sure there are many others. At least as far as the one curve I studied, C4.

My point is that no matter what kind of mathematical model you choose, you're predicting, from some sort of linear regression, points that are more than 100% away from the data. In most circles, this is known as extrapolation. I can be fairly confident that most scientists would not put much credence in an extrapolation of more than 10%. Given the number of possible mathematical models available, the uncertainty is high enough to question the validity in the region of interest, near the 90-100% subject brightness intercept.

Vincent Oliver · June 24th, 2009, 08:55 AM

Well put Bill,

mind you I didn't understand a word of what you are talking about.

The key to good photography and video, is to get out and shoot some material, take a look at it and if it looks good then it probably is.

Piotr Wozniacki · June 24th, 2009, 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vincent Oliver

Well put Bill,

mind you I didn't understand a word of what you are talking about.

The key to good photography and video, is to get out and shoot some material, take a look at it and if it looks good then it probably is.

Bill is 100% right in doubting the value of far extrapolation (as opposed to interpolation, which usually gives reliable results).

Indeed, no extrapolation method (however sophisticated) can guarantee the shape of the unmeasured gamma curve fragment - Sony may as well have implemented some sort of a hard knee there...

Vincent Oliver · June 24th, 2009, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Bill is 100% right
Indeed, no extrapolation method (however sophisticated) can guarantee the shape of the unmeasured gamma curve fragment - Sony may as well have implemented some sort of a hard knee there...

OK, I will take your word for this.

I wonder if Degas talked with Monet about how many hairs they had on their brushes, and if the end result was better with 335 hairs, compared to a brush with 257 hairs.

All very interesting stuff.

I can remember trimming some of my prints for an exhibition, and carefully measuring each print to a fraction of an inch. My father (who was an artist) took the blade and did the whole lot by eye.

The lesson here was to do your creative work by eye, rely on your own judgement. Sure a Cinegamma 1 will give a different look to Cinegamma 4 or 2 or 3, but experience and practice will tell you which one to use for a particular scenario.

Piotr Wozniacki · June 24th, 2009, 10:00 AM

Ha ha, you're right, Vincent.

Both me and Bill are engineers, but as far as I'm concerned, I always judge my video picture (both quality and aesthetic - wise) by eye.

Serena Steuart · June 24th, 2009, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Serena..

There's a few mathematical models that fit quite well, not the least of which is a cubic equation, but also, a sigmoidal model, an exponential growth model, a hyperbolic model, and a power model. I'm sure there are many others. At least as far as the one curve I studied, C4.

My point is that no matter what kind of mathematical model you choose, you're predicting, from some sort of linear regression, points that are more than 100% away from the data. .

Obviously I didn't try hard enough, limiting myself to the polynomials available in Excel; I was only interesting in creating a nicely drawn line over my measured points and no curve I tried was satisfactory over the whole range. On extrapolation I agree totally with your comments. However I point out, again, that I didn't extrapolate the curves by any means other than measurement.

Leonard Levy · June 24th, 2009, 07:34 PM

Have to agree with Piotr,
Joe may prefer Cine gammas for many reasons , perhaps all are legitimate but to declare that std gammas are horrible is off the charts to me. i use them all the time with excellent results.

Serena Steuart · June 24th, 2009, 10:26 PM

The gamma curve options, like all the other camera options, are tools. Understanding the available tools and how and where to use them is essential for good results over the wide range of situations we may encounter. While I use Cine4 as default, there are many situations where the std gammas give far superior rendering. We need the whole tool-box.

Serena Steuart · June 24th, 2009, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr Wozniacki

Sony may as well have implemented some sort of a hard knee there...

Piotr, true. That's why it is important to know what is there. Be nice if Sony published the real curves, rather than just the crude representations in the brochure.

Bill Ravens · June 25th, 2009, 06:35 AM

I am left wondering why Sony is so secretive about their gamma curve data.

Serena...in the FWIW category, there is a nice plugin for EXCEL that does a VERY nice job of curve-fitting data. It has a library of algorithms one can apply. It is rather pricey at $795, but, a good tool for engineers and scientists...
http://www.excelcurvefitting.com/XLfit5_new.html
...and they offer a free 30 day trial.

John Peterson · June 25th, 2009, 06:55 AM

I am finding that I don't like the Cinegammas at all because of the nasty looking skin tones they tend to impart. There is nothing wrong with the camera because even the demo DVD Sony distributed for the EX1 that I saw before I bought the camera had those nasty orange / red skin tones. There are some Hollywood movies that have those skin tones as well. To each his own I guess, but for my work the standard gammas look much better to my eyes.

John

June 24th, 2009, 01:58 AM	#16
Alister Chapman Inner Circle Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Bracknell, Berkshire, UK Posts: 4,957	I'm largely with Piotr with the exception of using Standard gamma 1 in low light. Std 1 is very noisy and in low key shots the last thing you want in my opinion is a noisy picture. I would use std 4 with some negative black gamma to achieve a similar look to std1 but without the noise. __________________ Alister Chapman, Film-Maker/Stormchaser http://www.xdcam-user.com/alisters-blog/ My XDCAM site and blog. http://www.hurricane-rig.com

June 24th, 2009, 08:55 AM	#21
Vincent Oliver Trustee Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Chislehurst, London Posts: 1,724	Well put Bill, mind you I didn't understand a word of what you are talking about. The key to good photography and video, is to get out and shoot some material, take a look at it and if it looks good then it probably is. __________________ Eyes are a deaf man’s ears. Ears are a blind man’s eyes

June 24th, 2009, 10:00 AM	#24
Piotr Wozniacki Inner Circle Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Poland Posts: 4,086	Ha ha, you're right, Vincent. Both me and Bill are engineers, but as far as I'm concerned, I always judge my video picture (both quality and aesthetic - wise) by eye. __________________ Sony PXW-FS7 \| DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive

June 24th, 2009, 05:09 AM	#18
Joe Lawry Major Player Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Auckland, New Zealand Posts: 418	I dont leave the Cinegammas when i shoot on my EX1. Im still using Bills True Color Profiles with a few minor tweaking. Cine1 for Exterior bright days. Cine3 for General all round use - it also provides a nice normal saturated look. Cine4 for lowlight night footage or where ever i really need to stretch the blacks. All my profiles run -3 gamma and matrix on Hisat. My matrix settings are all the same settings as Bills TC Profiles. If im multicam shooting with EX3s i leave everything stock and run with Cine Gammas, Matrix on HiSat and -3 Gamma. Currently grading a project that has footage shot both with Cine Gamma and Standard Gamma settings from multiple operators.. And judging from how much work i have to do to the Standard Gamma footage im never going to even think twice about only using Cine Gamma again. Standard gamma is just horrible.

June 24th, 2009, 08:27 AM	#20
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	Serena.. There's a few mathematical models that fit quite well, not the least of which is a cubic equation, but also, a sigmoidal model, an exponential growth model, a hyperbolic model, and a power model. I'm sure there are many others. At least as far as the one curve I studied, C4. My point is that no matter what kind of mathematical model you choose, you're predicting, from some sort of linear regression, points that are more than 100% away from the data. In most circles, this is known as extrapolation. I can be fairly confident that most scientists would not put much credence in an extrapolation of more than 10%. Given the number of possible mathematical models available, the uncertainty is high enough to question the validity in the region of interest, near the 90-100% subject brightness intercept.

June 24th, 2009, 07:34 PM	#26
Leonard Levy Trustee Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: USA Posts: 1,684	Have to agree with Piotr, Joe may prefer Cine gammas for many reasons , perhaps all are legitimate but to declare that std gammas are horrible is off the charts to me. i use them all the time with excellent results.

June 24th, 2009, 10:26 PM	#27
Serena Steuart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Studio Alnitak, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia Posts: 640 Images: 3	The gamma curve options, like all the other camera options, are tools. Understanding the available tools and how and where to use them is essential for good results over the wide range of situations we may encounter. While I use Cine4 as default, there are many situations where the std gammas give far superior rendering. We need the whole tool-box.

June 25th, 2009, 06:35 AM	#29
Bill Ravens Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: santa fe, nm Posts: 3,264 Images: 10	I am left wondering why Sony is so secretive about their gamma curve data. Serena...in the FWIW category, there is a nice plugin for EXCEL that does a VERY nice job of curve-fitting data. It has a library of algorithms one can apply. It is rather pricey at $795, but, a good tool for engineers and scientists... http://www.excelcurvefitting.com/XLfit5_new.html ...and they offer a free 30 day trial.

June 25th, 2009, 06:55 AM	#30
John Peterson Major Player Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Monroe, NY Posts: 703	I am finding that I don't like the Cinegammas at all because of the nasty looking skin tones they tend to impart. There is nothing wrong with the camera because even the demo DVD Sony distributed for the EX1 that I saw before I bought the camera had those nasty orange / red skin tones. There are some Hollywood movies that have those skin tones as well. To each his own I guess, but for my work the standard gammas look much better to my eyes. John