PDA

View Full Version : How to increase Canon 7D dynamic range



marco0782
10-27-2009, 10:56 AM
Sorry if this has been posted before, but I didn't see it. This is pretty incredible:

7256322

Kholi
10-27-2009, 11:01 AM
I'm just surprised that there are so many people that don't bother to read manuals or explore their camera's image.

marco0782
10-27-2009, 11:08 AM
Well everything gets confused when someone does extensive chart testing to determine that a camera only has 7-8 stops of latitude. Not to say I'm not grateful for the time spent, because I am, but an extensive test like that sort of cements results as fact, even though with a custom picture profile the test could have demonstrated closer to 11 stops of latitude.


Marco

Kholi
10-27-2009, 11:14 AM
Well everything gets confused when someone does extensive chart testing to determine that a camera only has 7-8 stops of latitude. Not to say I'm not grateful for the time spent, because I am, but an extensive test like that sort of cements results as fact, even though with a custom picture profile the test could have demonstrated closer to 11 stops of latitude.


Marco

Barry wasn't using the Standard Pictuer profile. He pretty much went by Stu's.

And 11 usable stops? Come on now...

Barry_Green
10-27-2009, 11:15 AM
Point me to the scene file you want tested and I'll retest. I've downloaded the "superflat" one -- is there any other you want it compared to, to see these 11 usable stops?

marco0782
10-27-2009, 03:06 PM
Where are the results of your 'superflat' test? I will perform a test in the next few days. 11 stops is my guess but I could be off. What I do know is that it will definitely be more than 7-8 as you reported.


Marco

PS Not trying to be confrontational. I just don't believe 7-8 stops based on my experience.

artforme
10-27-2009, 03:25 PM
cool video.

Barry_Green
10-27-2009, 04:14 PM
Where are the results of your 'superflat' test? I will perform a test in the next few days. 11 stops is my guess but I could be off. What I do know is that it will definitely be more than 7-8 as you reported.
I reported exactly what I found, which is exactly what the camera does with its onboard scene files. I tested every one of them, against a calibrated test chart. There really is no margin for error there.

If the superflat adds dynamic range, I'll find that out too. I have not yet run that, may get to it tomorrow.

marco0782
10-27-2009, 07:38 PM
If the superflat adds dynamic range, I'll find that out too. I have not yet run that, may get to it tomorrow.

Here's the thing. The 'superflat' profile doesn't add dynamic range. It's the built-in picture profiles that REDUCE dynamic range by increasing the contrast. The 7D has a ridiculous native dynamic range, similar to the Red camera, which is evident when you shoot stills and edit them RAW. By using the 'superflat' picture profile you keep the camera from crushing everything, and since this is done prior to compression, you end up with similar latitude to shooting RAW.

I would really appreciate you testing it, but if you don't have time I'll order myself one of the Stouffer charts. I predict at least 10 stops of latitude.


Marco

PS I wish that Canon was more up front about the potential of these custom picture profiles. With stills photography, at least we have RAW which will let us utilize the full latitude of the sensor. But with video, we need a picture profile such as 'superflat' to reap the same benefits as RAW prior to compression because compression is basically the point of no return.

Kholi
10-27-2009, 08:04 PM
PS I wish that Canon was more up front about the potential of these custom picture profiles. With stills photography, at least we have RAW which will let us utilize the full latitude of the sensor. But with video, we need a picture profile such as 'superflat' to reap the same benefits as RAW prior to compression because compression is basically the point of no return.


It is the point of no return, right. And grading 7D footage after that point is certainly no RED affair. So if you shoot flat and try to grade back to where you want it to be, you suffer more image destruction as opposed to just getting it in camera.

We've done pretty extensive grading tests in house through several different methods and the result, for serious acquisition-- if not all-- you capture as close as you can in-camera.

But I'm interested in seeing a usable 10 stops out of this camera in video mode.

marco0782
10-27-2009, 08:20 PM
When you transcode H.264 (native 7D .MOV files) into ProRes 422, the result is almost lossless. And ProRes can be re-compressed up to approximately ten times before you start to see degredation.

Adding contrast to a ProRes image will not increase compression artifacts, nor will it result in any other type of artifact. It is when you try to lift the gamma that you will see it start to break up because there was no information in the shadows, etc.

So when you shoot as flat as possible in camera, obviously you still end up with a compressed H.264 file, but the compression doesn't really hurt you in post because adding contrast does not produce artifacts.


Marco

Lammy
10-27-2009, 08:55 PM
So if you shoot flat and try to grade back to where you want it to be, you suffer more image destruction as opposed to just getting it in camera.

We've done pretty extensive grading tests in house through several different methods and the result, for serious acquisition-- if not all-- you capture as close as you can in-camera.

But I'm interested in seeing a usable 10 stops out of this camera in video mode.


I haven't got a 7d but this is not the experience I have with the d90 and it should also apply here.

When the image is flat, there is so much more highlight and shadow detail preserved. Then when you colour grade that to where you want it to be, you can still see the highlight and shadow detail and it still exists. Transcode that to whatever format you want after.

Whereas if you tried to get the look in camera, all you will see in the highlight and shadow areas is increased macro blocking and mushiness. You know it already dude, they're in your sticky, and Mattsand and Martin Lang have posted results from their own flat custum curves.

Kholi
10-27-2009, 09:05 PM
I haven't got a 7d but this is not the experience I have with the d90 and it should also apply here.

When the image is flat, there is so much more highlight and shadow detail preserved. Then when you colour grade that to where you want it to be, you can still see the highlight and shadow detail and it still exists. Transcode that to whatever format you want after.

Whereas if you tried to get the look in camera, all you will see in the highlight and shadow areas is increased macro blocking and mushiness. You know it already dude, they're in your sticky, and Mattsand and Martin Lang have posted results from their own flat custum curves.

I shoot toward flat because I like flat images. Not because I'm shooting for a grade. At the very most it's a contrast boost or saturation boost but I am NOT a fan of heavy post grading unless for a hyper-stylized image.

Just for clarifacation as to why I choose to shoot flat(er).

I do see chroma noise and mid noise in images that've been caked in post. Converting to ProRes doesn't help the noise already captured that's obviously there. Just nudge the gamma a bit to see.

Barry_Green
10-27-2009, 11:17 PM
Okay, decided not to wait. I went to the cinema5d forum (http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=3401)and downloaded the "superflat (http://www.stubbings.ch/yay/superflat01.zip)" scene file (.pf2) as recommended in that video. I installed the EOS utility. I downloaded the superflat scene file to the 7D. I went into the camera and confirmed that I was, indeed, shooting with the superflat scene file, on custom user file 1.

Then I re-shot the stouffer.

Here are the results.
http://dvxuser.com/barry/SuperFlat.jpg

Jad
10-27-2009, 11:57 PM
aren't these super secret settings just in-camera contrast and saturation adjustments? Can you not do that through the menu button?

themusic
10-28-2009, 01:40 AM
I don't understand the results. What do they mean?

Duke M.
10-28-2009, 04:40 AM
This is the T4110 chart, which is in 1/3 f stop increments. You can read about the charts here, an excellent link:

http://www.imatest.com/docs/q13.html

My read of image was 24 increments usable DR, though I think I see hints of disernable increments below that. [EDIT: when magnified I can sample the increment edge to 27, which is 9 f stops.] An argument could be made for a usable maximum of 8.5 f stops. Also, there could be some loss looking at it on a monitor for an uploaded file like this.

However, for the sake of discussion 24 / 3 = 8 f stops of usable DR. Not bad at all. As for the Red being 11.3 stops, as I recall that was Red's measurement. Other tests have been as low as 8 for the Red (I assume as usable DR), but generally seem to be 9-ish range. (I prefer to try to figure usable DR rather than absolute max, but they are all indicitive.)

Red of course wins, but the 7D is showing good DR, and of course DOF control similar to the Red.

Barry_Green
10-28-2009, 08:54 AM
I don't understand the results. What do they mean?
It means that about 8.5 stops is the limit on a 7D, according to every picture profile I've run through it. Whatever "Luka" did on his video, I cannot replicate his results with the magical super-duper-wide contrast range that he demonstrates.

Kholi
10-28-2009, 10:03 AM
Thanks to Barry (as usual) and Duke for your insight on the testing. Ending speculation immediately about technicals that need clearing up, obviously.

There's NOTHING wrong with having 8 USABLE stops of range to work with. 8.5 is incredible at this price point.

Great information to have, although I don't like the superflat setting because it looks a little strange to my eyes. Almost like an odd gamma shift.

I'll have to DL it and play with it myself, but I think I'll stick to dialing neutral all the way down instead.

PSA1
10-28-2009, 10:26 AM
aren't these super secret settings just in-camera contrast and saturation adjustments? Can you not do that through the menu button?

You have to use the picture style editor software that came with the camera to adjust the gamma curve but it is a pia to adjust it.

Rakesh Jacob
10-28-2009, 10:29 AM
Thnx for all the info guys, especially Barry and Duke



Great information to have, although I don't like the superflat setting because it looks a little strange to my eyes. Almost like an odd gamma shift.

I'll have to DL it and play with it myself, but I think I'll stick to dialing neutral all the way down instead.
Dude I totally agree, I don't think I can look at superflat on my LCD and psychologically feel good about what I'm shooting... I hate to be a baby, but it's just to f-ing bizarre looking to me.
I've been using neutral on the 7D and T1i and so far I'm pleased with the results, sure there's plenty of room for improvement but it's a good start and I'm having a good time :)

Kholi
10-28-2009, 10:38 AM
Thnx for all the info guys, especially Barry and Duke


Dude I totally agree, I don't think I can look at superflat on my LCD and psychologically feel good about what I'm shooting... I hate to be a baby, but it's just to f-ing bizarre looking to me.
I've been using neutral on the 7D and T1i and so far I'm pleased with the results, sure there's plenty of room for improvement but it's a good start and I'm having a good time :)

IT seriously looks a bit posterized to me. I can live with 7.5 or 8 stops of range off of the Neutral setting with a clean ISO.

I mean, maybe you could DL the Superflat and Marvel Films settings and tweak them back a bit so that it didn't look like that and get your 8ish stops. I'd rather just use filters and lighting, personally.

Eddy Robinson
10-28-2009, 11:36 AM
Vreat video - I'm a bit surprised there hasn't been more talk about the picture styles and Canon software utilities, since being able to manage these things from a cheap laptop in the field has always seemed like a win to me.

I agree it's much harder to shoot with a flat, dull image and tell yourself that it'll look beautiful later, but it's really worth it for the extra control you'll have over the image later. Going for a beautiful look in camera is certainly satisfying, but you are trading away a lot of freedom because the real-time processing power of the camera imposes so many limits.

Osslund
10-28-2009, 11:42 AM
I shot in cloudy weather this week with the 7D and the footage was all greyish. It looked like a flat setting but it was on standard. Today when I went for grading I managed to pull pretty much out of it. So regardless of the dynamic range it gives me more options with a flat setting and then in post I can go in any direction.

It's just the way you shot with RED or like a HVX200. Flat and then go for the look you want. When we used film 35mm or 16mm I always asked for a one-light on DIGIBETACAM to have the option for grading in SD.

seven.b
10-28-2009, 12:25 PM
Thanks for all the great information posted in this thread thus far. It's been a great help!

Quick question; After a quick search I couldn't find the what the HMC/HVX/HPX's dynamic range values were? Anyone know what those are? Just trying to compare to my old HMC.

Thanks.

Kholi
10-28-2009, 12:34 PM
I shot in cloudy weather this week with the 7D and the footage was all greyish. It looked like a flat setting but it was on standard. Today when I went for grading I managed to pull pretty much out of it. So regardless of the dynamic range it gives me more options with a flat setting and then in post I can go in any direction.

It's just the way you shot with RED or like a HVX200. Flat and then go for the look you want. When we used film 35mm or 16mm I always asked for a one-light on DIGIBETACAM to have the option for grading in SD.

Hvx200 an RED are nowhere near the same. You are no working with a RAW image (technically not wig RED either buy a
flavor of raw) or anywhere near to even by converting to am uncompressed format.

You may see more detail but The adverse is that it's probably dragging out the cooked in chroma an luma noise.

Duke M.
10-28-2009, 12:34 PM
There's a lot to be said for grading in post when you have 10-12 bits to play with.

It's all to easy cause banding and other issues with 8 bit files. That was one of the things I always liked about my A1. With the presets you can get the look you want in camera (way more settings than the 7D) so you might need to only correct a few scenes in post.

I do want to try some CC with the neoscene 10 bit 4.2.2 files. They should grade better than 8 bit 4.2.0 files even though some color data is being 'inherited' from nearby pixels. I just haven't gotten around to it yet after the latest release.

Has anyone been trying the updated neoscene?

Barry, did you try a rotating non-circular PL filter on the moire patterns? I ordered a filter for my 70-200 L lens, but don't have it yet.

Osslund
10-28-2009, 02:12 PM
Hvx200 an RED are nowhere near the same. You are no working with a RAW image (technically not wig RED either buy a
flavor of raw) or anywhere near to even by converting to am uncompressed format.

You may see more detail but The adverse is that it's probably dragging out the cooked in chroma an luma noise.

I'm not comparing RED RAW vs H264 but the flat recording one do with the RED and if you do the same with H264 you have more to play with in grading. I was surprised I actually could pull out information out of the sky in some clips where it looked to be blown.

Rakesh Jacob
10-28-2009, 03:07 PM
I'm all for a flat image in camera, I shoot neutral on the 7D and T1i, but "superflat" is a little too far for me. I'll give it a try though, see what happens. I'll just tell people that are looking over my shoulder "just wait till I edit it, it will look awesome...then" I'm sure that's just what all clients like to hear LOL

Sttratos
10-30-2009, 12:47 PM
I saw the super flat picture style but did not get the chance to test it yet. So it squeezes out an extra stop of dynamic range? Seems worth it.
Did anybody try marvelfilms picture style and also the panalog one which is floating around?

PaPa
10-30-2009, 01:31 PM
Going to try this out, but am having a tough time getting C1 C2 and C3 to have manual controls. Something need to be done in order to have manual iso/shutter ?

PaPa
10-31-2009, 08:40 AM
just tried out the superflat settings. gotta say the image looks amazing to my eyes in the editor. Unfortunately the tradeoff is that anything that is remotely under exposed to very under exposed gets very macro blocky and these large thick horizontal lines run through the footage. That's really unfortunate, looks like this preset won't be shooting anything serious... damn.

I guess the next test is to try and match something that looks good out of the camera to the superflat settings in post and see if the results are better.

PaPa
10-31-2009, 09:11 AM
trying to match them im post, it's clear that the superflat setting has the lesser level of noise compared to shooting neutral and boostin low's in post.

darn. What are others doing about these vertical lines through lower exposed areas?

PSA1
10-31-2009, 09:30 AM
"What are others doing about these vertical lines through lower exposed areas? "

Don't underexposed. (-:

PaPa
10-31-2009, 09:59 AM
lol, it's not as simple as that. To get a dramatic image, you sometimes want to use the full range of the camera. Which means you may have an area that is 4 stops above and 4 stops under. Thus, whenever something is under you will suffer from these lines.

PSA1
10-31-2009, 10:22 AM
Well what I meant is that if you properly exposed the shadows, then the encoder should gives it enough bitrate and you won't see artifacts, then in post you can grade it the way you like it, I can remember where I read it but with H.264 that is what you want to do.

Kholi
10-31-2009, 10:23 AM
I Agree with you by the way. Just saying.

PaPa
10-31-2009, 10:34 AM
Well what I meant is that if you properly exposed the shadows, then the encoder should gives it enough bitrate and you won't see artifacts, then in post you can grade it the way you like it, I can remember where I read it but with H.264 that is what you want to do.

ah, very good point. will check it out some more.

I guess the end result is, don't shoot with superflat in low light ;) Even if the camera is capable of attaining an image at 200 iso.

Barry_Green
10-31-2009, 10:34 AM
Going back to the original post -- has anyone been able to duplicate anything like the extreme differences shown in the video in the original post?

I tested with "superflat" and it made practically no difference.

Was that video just a joke?

Tim Joy
10-31-2009, 10:57 AM
The video example looks like the grading pretty much brings it back to what you could of got in-camera in the first place. I don't see the point.

My results have been best on a setting with higher saturation and lower contrast. Every time I shot with a flat setting, (esp low saturation) and boosted the saturation in post, the results were ugly. If I shoot with a high sat, pulling in back later is much easier if you don't want all that color.

I'm in agreement with Kholi- shooting as close to the way you want it in-camera seems to produce the best results.

PaPa
10-31-2009, 11:01 AM
going to give it a shot now barry, and post the results in a few.

PaPa
10-31-2009, 11:13 AM
here they are.

http://img28.imageshack.us/img28/4862/sf01f.jpg


http://img442.imageshack.us/img442/654/standard01.jpg

I also kept part of my blinds in the right side of the frame to compare what happens at the lower end of exposure.

Once nice thing about superflat, is that all of the detail from the tree branches above the house come back into the image, which is great, but low end stuff suffers quite a bit, and yeah, even the curtain was quite bright to the eye.

Ian-T
10-31-2009, 11:18 AM
I don't see why it shoud'nt make a difference. The picture editor is basically doing the same type of thing that an HV20 does when using its Cinemode feature. Using cinemode on the HV20 (as opposed to the standard settings) was like night and day (literally) when it comes to seeing in the dark and preserving more highlights. This had to do with a gamma curve adjustment in camera that one really had no control over. It helped tremendously with color grading. The sweet thing about the 7D is you have tons more control on how much you want to flatten the picture.

Kholi
10-31-2009, 11:27 AM
The video example looks like the grading pretty much brings it back to what you could of got in-camera in the first place. I don't see the point.

My results have been best on a setting with higher saturation and lower contrast. Every time I shot with a flat setting, (esp low saturation) and boosted the saturation in post, the results were ugly. If I shoot with a high sat, pulling in back later is much easier if you don't want all that color.

I'm in agreement with Kholi- shooting as close to the way you want it in-camera seems to produce the best results.



Exactly. It's almost counter-productive to me to go through the extra steps. As far as I've seen no matter what you convert to for correction or grading it always exposes compression if you touch the mids and below.

If the look is extreme then it won't matter but for a minimalist grade, color in shadows etc, i just don't think it's plausible with this camera or more so necessary. A more important issue, to me, is image correction between different lenses.

Barry_Green
10-31-2009, 11:45 AM
Once nice thing about superflat, is that all of the detail from the tree branches above the house come back into the image, which is great, but low end stuff suffers quite a bit, and yeah, even the curtain was quite bright to the eye.
Well, yeah, and ... that's about what I'd expect. It looks about like CINE-D vs. HD NORM on an HVX200/HPX170 product, you get a flatter look and a little bit more dynamic range added.

But in the video, he's claiming that the difference is THIS:

http://dvxuser.com/barry/Luka.jpg
And I'm just not seeing anything anywhere near like that! Has anyone gotten any results like what the video shows, or do we just chalk this up to another example of the excellent sense of humor he displayed throughout that video?

Tim Joy
10-31-2009, 11:49 AM
Papa. I brought both of those images into photoshop and it's clear as day that the highlights are over exposed, which is why you lose the branch detail.

Tim Joy
10-31-2009, 11:50 AM
Barry, if he's on 'standard' with the contrast at neutral, Vs. a flat picture style with the contrast all the way down, (and then some) I can see how you could achieve that.

PaPa
10-31-2009, 11:55 AM
Papa. I brought both of those images into photoshop and it's clear as day that the highlights are over exposed, which is why you lose the branch detail.

right, however we retain the detail in the superflat image.

Tim Joy
10-31-2009, 12:44 PM
right, however we retain the detail in the superflat image.

I think you would achieve the same result by lowering the exposure. It doesn't seem right to keep the exposure the same when using different picture profiles if one is over and the other is not, just like you would adjust exposure for different film stocks.

PSA1
10-31-2009, 12:51 PM
Going back to the original post -- has anyone been able to duplicate anything like the extreme differences shown in the video in the original post?

I tested with "superflat" and it made practically no difference.

Was that video just a joke?

No but I do see a different with marvel's preset, just load a picture into PSE that is extreme on both end, do a split screen and zoom in, I for sure see more details in the dark with less chroma noise and more details in the highlights compare to the standard style picture and so if you can preserved it when shooting, isn't it easier to adjust later on than when you don't have it in the first place?

marco0782
11-01-2009, 06:53 PM
Thanks to everyone who did tests (Barry, PaPa, etc.). My schedule has been out of control lately and I haven't had time to do any empirical testing. I have however been shooting a lot with the 7D and the Superflat profile and it is fantastic. Combined with Highlight Tone Priority, I am getting a better balance of shadow and highlight detail than I am used to.

I shot with an HVX200 and then a 200A for years on dozens and dozens of projects and I believe that the 7D with Superflat has more latitude. This isn't based on chart tests, just on what I see in my footage. It could also be that the 7D handles clipping more gracefully, but I'm betting that it has more latitude, too.


Marco

boulder
11-01-2009, 08:29 PM
OK so I guess I don't quite understand the difference of shooting neutral with everything dialed down and super flat...which is better?

And maybe I shouldn't dial everything down on neutral, but it did seem easy enough to quickly grade:

http://www.vimeo.com/7386096

bwwd
11-04-2009, 11:35 AM
Well flat preset is bad for dark areas cause you will see a lot of codec compression but it might be useful for preserving highlights when you overexpose a little bit.
Anybody heard of plugin which removes the noise and blurs only in dark areas of the video to get rid of codec dompression ?

Kholi
11-04-2009, 01:26 PM
Well flat preset is bad for dark areas cause you will see a lot of codec compression but it might be useful for preserving highlights when you overexpose a little bit.
Anybody heard of plugin which removes the noise and blurs only in dark areas of the video to get rid of codec dompression ?

There are a few. Neat Video does a decent job. The issue is that it also decreases apparent "resolution" or sharpness, and sometimes does weird things when the image moves.

The problem with that is that you still have to correct in post, which is going to expose compression artifacts. You're right back to where you started.

We've tried a lot of grading stuff and the end game, for us, is that if you're shooting with this for anything outside of web distribution, it's safe to just get as close to your look in camera and tweak later.

Adding color to mids and blacks, those sorts of things. Even manipulating contrast tended to expose banding, chroma noise or macroblocking.

bwwd
11-04-2009, 02:03 PM
Yes i tried neatvideo but it works on all areas and decreases sharpness on highlights too but i only need to blur dark parts of video so i would not lose the sharpness on brighter areas , i guess i would need to add some filters on top of it to not touch highlights or does some new version have option to touch only dark colours ?

wonderfilm
11-05-2009, 09:37 AM
Hey this is from the neat video faq:


QHow to filter only the color noise (not the brightness noise)?
A
When the YCrCb spaces are used, set the value of the Y channel noise reduction amount (in the Noise Filter Settings box) to 0%. That will switch off filtration in the brightness (luminance) channel Y.

http://www.neatvideo.com/qna.html

Hope it helps

-Joe

Ian-T
11-05-2009, 11:48 AM
Yes..Neat video is excellent. It has an advanced feature to where you can dial into specifically where you want to clean and not clean. I love it.

andrew00
11-05-2009, 03:21 PM
I've been testing super flat and it seems good at balancing things out, making them more neutral etc - certainly using the Standard mode after there's a clear difference and it makes the Standard seem much too punchy.

I'm a fan of low saturation images, so I'm always taking that out. Esp as I'm coming from a D90 world which always pillaged the saturation and I'd often find myself massively reducing it.

That being said I've not had a big grade session yet so I don't know if it's actually giving me more Dynamic Range, or if it's just pushing the blacks to grey without actually giving me more to work with.

Highlight Tone Priority I am skeptical of because of the noise it introduces. Whilst I'm all for increasing the DRange in the highlights and also giving them a nice curve to calm them down, I, like with super flat, am unsure if it's worth it.

It does seem to introduce a lot more noise - esp if one is sticking to the low noise ISO's in the first place - i.e. b/c if bumps the camera down to the ISO value one less/below, which tends to be the more noisy ISO range. Also aliasing seems to be worse to my eye.

Again, no real tests done, but it does leave me confused still!

Sttratos
11-05-2009, 06:16 PM
Superflat seems to work nicely for external daylight shots. But I'm not sure if it' as good for night shots, interiors and low light.
I also noticed that superflat seems to be saved with ISO1250? I think anything above 640 is too noise. Why is it 1250?

By the way, why is it referred to as the superflat version 1? is there a second version available?

Also, how does it compare to AdvancedFlat or the panalog4? Has anybody tried those?

Kholi
11-06-2009, 03:49 PM
More experimenting with this stuff just re-iterated what I already knew: get as close as you can in camera, don't waste your time.

The advantage of custom picture profiles to me is more in creating a look in camera, of course you have to be very sure of your look or get it close to.

If you decide to do too much color work you will suffer the image with banding, chroma noise etc etc. Of course, for web distribution and hell, maybe HD (Blu Ray or Download) it might not even be an issue. For projection protection, I just wouldn't do it.

dvollrath
11-07-2009, 06:42 PM
More experimenting with this stuff just re-iterated what I already knew: get as close as you can in camera, don't waste your time.

The advantage of custom picture profiles to me is more in creating a look in camera, of course you have to be very sure of your look or get it close to.

If you decide to do too much color work you will suffer the image with banding, chroma noise etc etc. Of course, for web distribution and hell, maybe HD (Blu Ray or Download) it might not even be an issue. For projection protection, I just wouldn't do it.

Totally agree. I really think Luka should take down that tutorial on vimeo, or at least adjust it. It's not right to misinform that many people.

Sttratos
11-07-2009, 10:00 PM
Totally agree. I really think Luka should take down that tutorial on vimeo, or at least adjust it.

Adjust it how?



By the way, have you seen this: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=6867&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

dvollrath
11-08-2009, 06:46 AM
Adjust it how?



By the way, have you seen this: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=6867&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

I have seen that. It looks alright for web, but I'm sure, just like in my experience using this scene file, that at a less compressed 1080p you will see additional noise from the grading.

He should adjust his video to say that this codec is not as good as the RED's, and warn that treating it as such, could cause banding, noise, and other problems when color corrected.

That being said, I still have superflat and marvel's profile on my camera as options, but I will only use them when I want my image to have a flatter look in general. Like Kholi said, shoot for as little grading as possible and you will get better results.

mhood
11-08-2009, 06:51 AM
By the way, have you seen this: http://www.cinema5d.com/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=6867&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

It seemed very dark to me. I guess that's "cinematic" (or maybe my computer's monitor)? I wonder about shots designed to demonstrate a Glidecam's smoothness when nearly all of the shots are slomo.

RafaelGuetta
11-11-2009, 09:22 PM
This all thread made me cry a few times and lough one time. I get preproduction and preparation will be the way to achieve the look I want. Still, it is so great to hear the advise of fine people like kholi (man, your legend of Zelda trailer is a classic for me. I didnt know you're behind it you cheeky bugger), and barry and other fine filmmakers.

I always read the forums and never find it appropriate to respond, as if not to distract great minds in a brain storming session asking if they want more sandwiches. I think I found a nice pause in the conversation for my graceful drivel of a thanks.

cheers buddies.
rG

Tim Joy
11-14-2009, 07:46 AM
I was testing some diffusion filters the other day, and looking at them on the waveform monitor with filter IN vs. OUT there is a definite dynamic range compression with the filter in. ( any kind of pro mist)

I don't know how much more you get, maybe a 1/2 stop? It brings up the blacks and lowers the highs. It smooths out the image too and helps with aliasing, but won't entirely eliminate it at the strengths I was using. 1/4 BPM, Soft FX 1, 1/4 PM.

USLatin
11-15-2009, 03:31 AM
I can't figure out how to get the .pf2 into the camera with the EOS Utility.

What am I not seeing?

J. Odoms
11-17-2009, 04:41 AM
I can't figure out how to get the .pf2 into the camera with the EOS Utility.

What am I not seeing?

You have to be in live view mode in order for the Picture Preset option to become selectable. Before that it stays grey, then once in live view it becomes Black, which allows you to not only select it but then upload your own into the cam.

USLatin
11-17-2009, 05:39 AM
Am I blind? Where is it?

Is it in the Camera Settings/Remote Shooting? And what does it look like?

J. Odoms
11-18-2009, 06:38 PM
Am I blind? Where is it?

Is it in the Camera Settings/Remote Shooting? And what does it look like?

Sorry actually its in the Photo mode, then it'll become available. Like midway in the setting. Look at the vimeo video the guy actually shows you how to upload them to the cam.

vnguyen972
11-18-2009, 10:01 PM
Yes, once you're in Camera Settings/Remote Shooting from EOS Util, right in the middle panel below the actual setting display, there's a Register User Defined style button, click it, a small window will pop up and let you select 3 User Def. tab that you could load your .pf2 file.

USLatin
11-19-2009, 08:30 AM
Aha! Finally saw it, damn thing was hiding from me, right in front of my face. Thank you. : )

At least the contrast is already all the way down so you can crank it up, but the results from super flat with contrast up to neutral are very different.

Would you guys say that using super flat with the contrast way up can help with highlight protection? Cause I guess with super flat you are effectively bringing up mids and lows, so you could push those back down in post and expose to capture as much highlight detail as you feel you need. It wouldn't increase dynamic range but it would give you increased perceived dynamic range, right? I gotta test how it holds up with a curve in post I guess. Anyone try it?

EDIT: And does anyone know where to download Advanced Flat? It seems like a nice midpoint, probably one I would actually use.

ROCKMORE
12-01-2009, 10:18 PM
This all thread made me cry a few times and lough one time. I get preproduction and preparation will be the way to achieve the look I want. Still, it is so great to hear the advise of fine people like kholi (man, your legend of Zelda trailer is a classic for me. I didnt know you're behind it you cheeky bugger), and barry and other fine filmmakers.

I always read the forums and never find it appropriate to respond, as if not to distract great minds in a brain storming session asking if they want more sandwiches. I think I found a nice pause in the conversation for my graceful drivel of a thanks.

cheers buddies.
rG

I have to agree to that statement as 110%. I don't even have the 7D yet and I feel like I know it as well, or better than any camera I've ever owned from what I'm learning here.
Thanks for all this valuable detailed information, and a few good laughs too!

ROCKMORE
12-01-2009, 10:25 PM
I was testing some diffusion filters the other day, and looking at them on the waveform monitor with filter IN vs. OUT there is a definite dynamic range compression with the filter in. ( any kind of pro mist)

I don't know how much more you get, maybe a 1/2 stop? It brings up the blacks and lowers the highs. It smooths out the image too and helps with aliasing, but won't entirely eliminate it at the strengths I was using. 1/4 BPM, Soft FX 1, 1/4 PM.

I have the SoftFX .5 / 1.0 / 2.0 . How does the SoftFX 1.0 help with aliasing and moire as apposed to heavier pro-mist options?
Has anyone tried Ultra-contrast filters?

bwwd
12-23-2009, 11:39 AM
very nice example of superflat preset
http://vimeo.com/8288917
I guess it helps to keep proper exposure during hard shooting conditions like snow all over the place

astigmatic
12-23-2009, 12:54 PM
I agree to get closest in-camera. The only time I think super flat is good is if you're going to do selective grading, where you grade various areas in the image differently. but for just doing global grading shifts like most people do.. i dunno.

bwwd
12-24-2009, 08:42 AM
"superflat "looks like gamma adjustment but i couldnt get close to it when i adjusted gamma from "standard" picture style,there was too much codec compression in shadows.
I think "marvels cine" is nice inbetween,with "standard" highlights are blown out more quickly,i see it when chaning picture stle and pointing into a light bulb,with "superflat" and "marvels cine" theres more in highlights,in "standard" its just white hole.
I tried to bring back highlights in "standard" until they appear similar like in "marvels cine" or "superflat" but i couldnt, and you also can bring back highlights in "marvels cine" and "superflat" so "standard" stays far away behind.

Three Billion Seconds
12-31-2009, 10:08 AM
Hi everyone, trying not to be lazy with my questions but what are we using for a definition of Super flat image…

andrew00
12-31-2009, 10:18 AM
If anyone's interested, these were shot w/superflat on my 5d. They've been heavily graded as I wanted to push things but yeah.

http://vimeo.com/8285871
http://vimeo.com/8218417

snowleopard
12-31-2009, 08:59 PM
Thanks Andrew for sharing those. I'm curious to what they looked like before grading. The only things I noticed looking at these clips were a little noise in some of the snow shots, and some blocking in others. It also looks like you did almost nothing to boost the color, and purposefully kept it flat, and a little warm. Yes?

andrew00
01-13-2010, 04:37 PM
I can't remember exactly what I did to be honest, mostly just grabbed a MB preset and played with it a bit to go a bit ott and see what I came up with. I did add film grain 1 or 2% i think for funsies.

Anyone tried the tiffen contrast range? They look like they make the image milky rather than increase contrast but maybe there's something in playing with one and the picture profiles?