PDA

View Full Version : FS-100 Picture Profiles



Pages : [1] 2

Stephen Mick
06-04-2011, 03:01 PM
I had a few minutes before I headed out the door, so I grabbed my DSC Splash chart and shot a series of clips of the pre-loaded Picture Profiles. The first five are the pre-loaded settings, and the last one is mine, cooked up based on what I was seeing on screen.

This was shot with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 Lens.

I'm not considering this a scientific test, but take from it what you will. If I can find a way to upload the original ProResHQ version, I will. Probably later tonight.



http://vimeo.com/24662478

KyleProhaska
06-04-2011, 03:27 PM
I like #5. Very nice color in all of them though.

FelixGER
06-04-2011, 06:18 PM
great!
Could you post your custom settings?

thxdave
06-04-2011, 06:33 PM
Thanks for the clip, Stephen. I noticed that you did your test with an underwater version of the DSC chart. Does this chart measure out the same as the traditional DSC color chart. In other words, is there any kind of color "bias" built into an underwater chart vs. a regular one?

Stephen Mick
06-04-2011, 07:40 PM
Thanks for the clip, Stephen. I noticed that you did your test with an underwater version of the DSC chart. Does this chart measure out the same as the traditional DSC color chart. In other words, is there any kind of color "bias" built into an underwater chart vs. a regular one?

Not that I'm aware of. It's simply coated to be water-resistant.

Stephen Mick
06-04-2011, 07:43 PM
great!
Could you post your custom settings?

Here are the key settings I used to shoot tonight's "test" footage…

Black Level: +2
Gamma: ITU709
Color Level: -1
Detail: -2

FelixGER
06-05-2011, 03:52 AM
Thank you for the new footage! :)

So you prefer ITU709 over Cinetone 1?

Just found this video: http://www.vimeo.com/groups/fs100/videos/24667975

There is a knee option when using cinetone.
Knee Auto seems to bring down the whites below 255 without adding any highlight detail
Manual Knee seems to clip with a brighter white.

maranfilms
06-05-2011, 04:39 AM
Steven, what are your thought of this cam compared to the af100. I know they have different features and strengthes, but do you feel more comfortable shooting the Fs100? And if so why?

Stephen Mick
06-05-2011, 05:31 AM
Thank you for the new footage! :)

So you prefer ITU709 over Cinetone 1?

Just found this video: http://www.vimeo.com/groups/fs100/videos/24667975

There is a knee option when using cinetone.
Knee Auto seems to bring down the whites below 255 without adding any highlight detail
Manual Knee seems to clip with a brighter white.

I can't say which I "prefer" quite yet. I need some more time to get to know all of the different settings, and to do some additional shooting.

Stephen Mick
06-05-2011, 05:36 AM
Steven, what are your thought of this cam compared to the af100. I know they have different features and strengthes, but do you feel more comfortable shooting the Fs100? And if so why?

Well, since I've been using Panasonic cameras for a few years now, I'm obviously more comfortable shooting with the AF-100. But again, I've had the FS-100 for all of two days, and over time, I'm sure I'll get just as comfortable with the Sony.

What I can say is that so far, they're pretty comparable, and each has a feature I wish the other one had. The FS-100 has "expanded focus." The AF-100 has a waveform monitor.

But let's face it… There's really just no way around sensor size and sensitivity, and the FS-100 totally owns in those areas.

Rick Burnett
06-05-2011, 08:30 PM
Yeah, what is funny to me is I *KNOW* the settings in my AF100 now, but I just was dialing in the settings on the FS100 and it's so different, I'm going to have to set up my 7D again and play around with both at the same time. I *LIKE* the look out of my 7D, always have, so for me, that is the first thing I did with the AF100, and THEN I dialed in the AF100 where I wish the 7D was better and got to the settings I like. With the FS100, the same thing is going to happen.

Where I am at a loss is how to set the knee. I've never had that option so I think I am going to need to set up some scenes with tricky highlights and play around with it to see what I am really getting. Given you can control the slope AND the knee point.

speedracerlo
06-12-2011, 04:21 PM
I'm having a bit of trouble with the manual knee setting
If I set it to auto, it seems to clip the highlights too abruptly, but when I set the manual knee point to 105% and slop to -5, the whole highlight area seems to get bigger (but smoother) and at the same time blowing out some of the mids

has anyone found a good neutral setting that seems like a safe zone?

Rick Burnett
06-12-2011, 05:20 PM
I set mine to 95% with a slope of 0 and so far I am REALLY happy with that setting.

speedracerlo
06-12-2011, 06:08 PM
thanks Rick, I'll try that setting

speedracerlo
06-12-2011, 06:28 PM
knee point 95% seems to make highlights get too big, in my unscientific test
I kept it at 95% and set the slope to -5 and it seems to soften the bright highlights, but I don't know if it's preserving the information in those reduced areas

Richard Allen Crook
06-12-2011, 06:48 PM
This provides a great explanation of the knee function (and the rest of the picture profile categories):

http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf

Question...do any of you push the black level up really high? Seems to get the most info in the shadows for post grading, so I tried it maxed at +15, and it feels wrong but seems to work well for grading. Reminds me of the Technicolor cinestyle for canon . What other settings has anyone found that's best for grading?

nyvz
06-12-2011, 08:58 PM
This provides a great explanation of the knee function (and the rest of the picture profile categories):

http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf

Question...do any of you push the black level up really high? Seems to get the most info in the shadows for post grading, so I tried it maxed at +15, and it feels wrong but seems to work well for grading. Reminds me of the Technicolor cinestyle for canon . What other settings has anyone found that's best for grading?

I've been experimenting with picture profiles and my waveform myself, and it seems like the black level of the onboard LCD is a bit too low so things can tend to look a bit higher contrast on the onboard than on my TVlogic 5.6" LCD after calibrating to color bars. Also I definitely like the look of black gamma set to high and +7 and only wish it would go a little higher and that there would also be further gamma adjustments. I do like the look of cranking up the black level to +10 or +15 partly because it gives that nice low contrast, soft look that sometimes comes from a bit of veiling glare. Also after dealing with DSLRS and even still with AVCHD where it is often a big issue for some workflows it is nice to be able to be safe and know blacks won't get clipped in post unless absolutely on purpose.

As for picture profiles in general. As expected, all gamma modes besides cinematone 1/2 have some level of highlight color shifting and unnatural looking highlight gamma and clipping. Even cinematone 1 color matrix seems to have a bit of color shifting in near-clipped highlights, so I've found cinematone 1 gamma with cinematone 2 matrix to be my preferred combination so far. Also the color depth option is definitely an interesting one, I've been experimenting with maxing out RGBCMY color depth all at +7 so far I really like the look, it actually seems to do a lot to keep colors truer through the exposure range, and perhaps even keep saturated colors from clipping early. I would probably use +7 color depth with color level turned down a bit since it really pushes saturation a bit. From what I've seen so far, though +7 color depth with ~-2 color level and cinematone 2 seems to have really natural colors and handles mixed color temperature very well. Next step is I'll have to use proper lighting and point the camera at my color chart and see what the vectorscope says about it

As for knee, it seems like a blessing and a curse. From what I can see, if you want the most natural highlight rolloff, the best option is cinematone 1 with knee basically off (manual, 105%, slope 0). As expected, knee does some crazy stuff since it overrides the gamma curve and introduces a hard angle which will always look pretty unnatural if you have any kind of gradient that covers that luma level. I rolled through lots of knee options while looking at a waveform and some combinations arent totally terrible, but I would definitely be very careful with knee since it has the potential to destroy the upper 30% of your luma range beyond repair. The hard angle of the gamma curve was generally always pretty visible when looking at gradients created by light falling off along a wall, you can decide where it is from 75-105% and it only looks good at 105% since its basically invisible there. On the other hand, it looks like all the gamma curves use superwhite >100%, which I'd always be careful of especially since I know some NLEs like to hard clip illegal white levels. Knee seems to be the only way to limit your white level for any gamma curve, and I've found that when using cinematone 1, setting knee at 75%, +1 gives a relatively subtle effect and squeezes highlights into <100% with white right at 100% without sacrificing any highlight latitude.

I've been shooting with the AF100 a lot as well, and so far the look I'm seeing from the FS100 is generally nicer and I like the picture profile options better. With the AF100 you're stuck with Cine V if you want to minimize hard clipping and highlight color shifting, and even then you really need to turn down saturation to avoid those issues further. The lack of expanded focus on the AF100 really kills me every time I use it, and the wfm/vectorscope is nice but its rather small and not well labeled. It may be an unfair comparison though since the AF100 package I shoot with is not mine and between the lens it has and the lack of expanded focus or external monitor focusing really just comes down to trying to get it on the mediocre built in lcd with evf dtl and hoping really hard that it is fairly sharp, whereas my FS100 kit has my tvlogic monitor which adds a wfm and really nice focus assist options.

speedracerlo
06-12-2011, 09:41 PM
thanks for your valuable input, I'm trying your settings now and it seems to give me that nice low contrast image that I can grade more easily
previously I was using the ITU 709 gamma and the PRO color matrix, but your suggestion seems to give me a better image

rgdfilms
06-12-2011, 11:51 PM
I like the look of, Point 90%, Slope +5

DM_rider
06-13-2011, 09:06 AM
Anyone have any luck with a profile that reduces posterization in the sky? I had a chance to grab a few clips with an fs100 and the posterization was definitely there, ugly.

Rick Burnett
06-13-2011, 09:27 AM
Hmmm, haven't seen any posterization yet in my footage. I shot all day yesterday and looked through it all, but I don't think I had too much sky in any of the shots. I am shooting with cinematone2 at the moment.

speedracerlo
06-13-2011, 03:31 PM
I like the look of, Point 90%, Slope +5

when I use Point 90% and slope +5, the image looks to have higher contrast than the Auto setting
when I use Point 75% and slope +1, the image looks to have less contrast than the Auto setting and preserves some highlights

test it and check it out if you can

Quad][Light/JeremyHowell
06-13-2011, 04:57 PM
Ive been getting great low contrast with amazing information in shadows and highlights using these setting. Allowing for great grades!!

Black Level +15
Gamma Cinematone 1
Black Gamma -range: middle -Level: +7
Knee -mode: manual -manual set: Point 75.0% -Slope: -3
Color Mode Cinematone 2 -Level: 8
Color Level -4

FelixGER
06-13-2011, 05:36 PM
But with a knee point at 75 youīre affecting skintones. I thought this could be ugly.

Quad][Light/JeremyHowell
06-13-2011, 07:39 PM
But with a knee point at 75 youīre affecting skintones. I thought this could be ugly.

I was thinking the same but ive been using it for 2 days now and love the results. Try it out, I would like to hear feedback.

rgdfilms
06-13-2011, 11:46 PM
[Light/JeremyHowell;2362148']Ive been getting great low contrast with amazing information in shadows and highlights using these setting. Allowing for great grades!!

Black Level +15
Gamma Cinematone 1
Black Gamma -range: middle -Level: +7
Knee -mode: manual -manual set: Point 75.0% -Slope: -3
Color Mode Cinematone 2 -Level: 8
Color Level -4

I tried this setting but it looks quite ugly to me. The highlights just blend into the high mid-tones. It looks posterized..

Rick Burnett
06-13-2011, 11:56 PM
I need to setup a static scene with multi colored highlights, skin tones, a wide DR, and some nice shadow detail. (Plus lots of colors) and tune some more. I am very happy with what I am using, but I want to make sure I get the most. :)

Quad][Light/JeremyHowell
06-14-2011, 12:35 AM
I tried this setting but it looks quite ugly to me. The highlights just blend into the high mid-tones. It looks posterized..

I see what your saying with the Highs going into the mids.. Turning the point up some to 90 with slope at +3 is keeping the highlights where they need to be. Besides that so far im liking the milky look im getting from it.

speedracerlo
06-14-2011, 01:04 AM
I tried this setting but it looks quite ugly to me. The highlights just blend into the high mid-tones. It looks posterized..

I tried your setting of Knee Point 90% and +5 slope, but that blows out highlights more than the auto that I get zebras on a light reflected off a wall whereas the auto mode does not
then I tried 90% and -1 slope and it brought it to almost identical settings as the auto mode

if no one is really sure which setting is best, I'll stick with auto for now and trust Sony until someone has a scientific method to figure this out

Postmaster
06-17-2011, 12:02 AM
I received some questions about the profiles I used for my test footage.
Here it goes:


I used mainly two profiles

1.

Black level +5
Gamma:Cinematone 1
Black Gamma: Middle/Level +7
Knee: 105/Slope -5
Colormode Cinematone 1 / Level 8
Everything else set to zero

2. What I call "Experimental Technicolor Profile"

Black level +10
Gama Cinematone1
Black Gamma: Low/ +7
Knee 105/Slope 0
Colormode Cinematone 2, Level 8
Color Level +7
Color Depth R-7/G-7/B-7/C+7/M+7/Y+7
Detail Level-7

Frank

speedracerlo
06-17-2011, 01:22 AM
Thanks for your settings Frank
I was also wondering do you think the onboard LCD is more accurate and closer to what you see on your computer screen or the TVlogic?
I can't seem to distinguish, but it seems the TVlogic shows more dynamic range and I've tried to adjust the TVlogic settings to match the onboard LCD using the color bars, but it's not working so I left everything at 0.

Rick Burnett
06-17-2011, 09:48 AM
I don't think the onboard LCD has a huge dynamic range myself. I can see this when highlights blow. They look different on my smallHD and of course on the computer.

speedracerlo
06-17-2011, 04:17 PM
I tested the Auto Knee setting outdoors with some ND filters today and noticed that my Zebras (set to 100+) were automatically being balanced and zeroed out by the Auto Knee setting
If I use Manual Knee setting outdoors, it's very easy to blow out the sky and highlights, but the Auto setting seems to be doing a great job at toning down the highlights when needed
I could literally open up the aperture all the way on my lens and still not get 100+ zebras because the auto setting was preventing 100+

Rick Burnett
06-17-2011, 05:19 PM
Does the autoknee lock in when you start recording?

speedracerlo
06-17-2011, 05:28 PM
It seems to be totally dynamic and doesn't lock while recording. If I change the gain from low to medium or high, I can see the 100+ zebras disappearing within a second or two, but it's not noticeable on my TVlogic which has no zebras. If you were to keep the camera rather still, there probably would be no auto adjustments while recording, but if you're moving around a lot with the camera, it may be noticeable. The manual knee settings should be adjusted according to each scene every single time because there is no 'universal' manual knee setting that will just work on every kind of environment.
The Auto Knee actually does a great job in terms of adapting easily to different lighting situations.

Rick Burnett
06-17-2011, 05:44 PM
That still scares me. I'd be afraid as the image changed, I'd see changes in something that wouldn't be static else wise. I shoot with my Knee at 95% and 0 at the moment. I did this pointing at a blown out screen. It's possible I just don't worry as much, but I've been happy with it. I know others don't like my knee setting, but I just let my eyes decide. That said, I've only shot at 0dB and used ND so I've not used any other gains yet.

NeedCreative
06-17-2011, 06:49 PM
Have you guys seen Able Cine's refreshed DR test? He has some suggested picture profile settings there as to gamma: http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/06/17/sony-nex-fs100-dynamic-range-test/

speedracerlo
06-17-2011, 08:49 PM
Wow Abel Cine's new update says
"We came up with some impressive results, but decided to do some more tests with the full production version of the camera. The ISO ratings stayed the same but I found that the production version of the camera actually had improved dynamic range overall."

He got 11.5 STOPS from the sensor wtf...

I'm gonna try their settings

David G. Smith
06-17-2011, 09:15 PM
Wow Abel Cine's new update says
"We came up with some impressive results, but decided to do some more tests with the full production version of the camera. The ISO ratings stayed the same but I found that the production version of the camera actually had improved dynamic range overall."

He got 11.5 STOPS from the sensor wtf...

I'm gonna try their settings

Wow is right!

FelixGER
06-18-2011, 05:20 AM
case closed I would say!

CineTone1 (Knee Point 90% / Slope +2) - period.

And they didnīt use black gamma which would give even more shadow detail...

Iīm impressed!

Postmaster
06-18-2011, 06:14 AM
Yeah. looks great here too.

Rick Burnett
06-18-2011, 07:17 AM
After looking at their tests, I am going to switch to cinematone1 as well with their knee settings. It's funny because when I read their first DR test, and then used the camera, I just didn't believe the values. I was getting a lot more DR than I am used to. Nice.

Richard Allen Crook
06-18-2011, 09:11 AM
I've been looking to optimize a picture style that I could use for color grading. As I've been testing various mixes of picture style settings on the FS100, it seems that there really isn't one best way of setting the camera. Adjustment of the knee and black level, for example, is helpful when changing lighting scenarios.

Also after testing the settings for each gamma that Abel Cine recommends, I find some serious issues with the Standard and ITU709 settings. Setting the knee to 80% and a -2 slope flattens the top of the curve way too much for it to be usable. I mean...it certainly "unclips" the highlights, but to the harsh expense of contrast, turning anything within the 80-105 range into a muddy, plasticy mess. I found the best comprimise is 85% and 0 slope when using ITU709. He even says in the video that the settings may not be the best route to go even though the scopes say so.

With my findings and the PDF I posted earlier that explains the knee function....the bottom line is this: the knee is a slippery slope (haha) that I am very careful of using.

As I've been testing post workflow, the grades seem to provide better overall detail throughout the highlights and shadows when I add contrast (in post) to the ITU709 curve. The cinematones drop the shadow detail too far, even with black level set to +15. (Cinematone2 completely crushes the blacks below 15% of the curve). For grading this is not good. Basically what I found works best for grading is to expose for the highlights. The ITU709 is best for this method as the detail is held much further throughout the range of the curve. The cinematone may look better out of the camera...but for grading purposes I am going with ITU709. Also keep in mind I'm using this camera to provide the most cinematic look I can achieve.

Again, my method is to expose to highlights, and here's the picture style I'm sticking to for awhile:

Black Level: +10
Gamma: ITU709
Black Gamma: Middle, +7
Knee: Manual, 85%, 0 slope
Color Mode: Cinematone 1
Color Level: +4
Color Phase: 0
Color Depth: All 0

How does everyone feel about detail? I religously ran away from detail or sharpness settings as a rule in the past...but newer cameras seem to really do a great job of resolving detail better. As for the FS100, I've compared clips with 0 detail to +7 detail on a 50" plasma...intermittently switching between the two and I could BARELY see the difference. I did the same test scaled up 600% to some trees and could barely make out the difference as well. Thoughts?

Rick Burnett
06-18-2011, 09:45 AM
I thought zero looked so nice, I left it there. Mainly because of my experience with the AF100 and detail where it accentuated the noise for me. I find the FS100 looks much sharper than my AF100 or 7D at my ideal settings on both of them. What I found more interesting is that Phillip Blooms test with the FS100 doesn't look ANYTHING like the results I am seeing with the FS100 myself. I wonder if there was some preproduction issues in what he had. My image is much sharper. Having both the AF100 and FS100 myself, I can see this as well.

Pertaining to ITU709, I was afraid to shoot with this given with 8-bit codecs I try and get as close to the final grade target in camera as possible. I used Cinematone2 on a shoot last weekend and it looked great. It was a VERY bright day. Maybe when I shoot some indoors material that will change. That said, I am going to try more Cinematone1 as I want to bring back some of the lower blacks that are getting crushed out.

One thing is clear, more testing :)

Richard Allen Crook
06-18-2011, 11:04 AM
Thanks for that Rick. I'm going to keep that setting handy for shoots that I don't plan to grade much. Im with you on the 8bit limitation and keeping is closer in camera. With the 5d you were able to go waaaaaay flat on custom profiles which broke down like crazy in post. Most ppl including myself used the neutral profile instead. Setting the fs100 to get the flattest look is close to the 5d's neutral profile, not those crazy flat profiles. So I think were safe and in my grading test it seems to work fine.

Yes...more testing is needed! Haha.

Rick Burnett
06-18-2011, 11:10 AM
Totally agreed. I need to sit down with the guy that color grades my footage to talk with him about it further, to see what he liked, didn't like. So far we are just happy with the larger DR compared to the 7D and even the HVX200 we used before. Like all cameras, it takes the DVXUser brain trust AND everyone in the camera operating community to eek out every bit of usefulness in these cameras! Given the 8-bit limitation, I am probably going to experiment with a few different profiles for different conditions to get the most out of it.

Richard Allen Crook
06-18-2011, 11:32 AM
Aaaah the HVX200. That camera and I had a great run until DsLRs came around. Having owned one previously and seeing it's shortcomings is why I didn't get the AF100 when it came out...had the same soft up-rezzed looking results to me. So happy with this fs100 so far.

If you feel so inclined, try out my settings (posted previously) with your colorist. Expose to the highlights, and see what you think of the results after grading compared to your other settings. Would loveto hear your thoughts! :)

Rick Burnett
06-18-2011, 11:41 AM
I'll definitely try them when I am shooting again, today and tomorrow is all After Effects work. :) Yes, I actually have an AF100 as well. I find the FS100 to be much sharper. I can make the AF100 sharper, but when I do, it adds more noise than I like so I keep the detail down very low. It still looks nice, but now that I have the FS100, comparing the two images, I really like the FS100 sharpness more. What it really helps with is on effects shots where I need to increase the image size further for shaking the image. I feel I can go a LOT farther without the image looking too soft.

Mitch Gross
06-18-2011, 08:00 PM
This is a classic technology cautionary tale. Son brought us a preproduction model for our testing. We did accurate testing or what the device was at the time -- we even had the Sony Product Manager in the room with us. We actually thought the initial results were pretty impressive for the camera, but the Sony rep said he was "asking Japan to try to squeeze out a little bit more exposure range."

Dissolve to a few weeks later, and production models arrive. Andy says, "I wonder if they were able to squeeze anything more out of the camera?" A quick test shows more than 1.5 stops added dynamic range!

We tested a preproduction model and were impressed. We had a few comments and Sony took them under advisement (not to take all the credit -- I'm sure others did as well). The shipping camera is better than the prototype.

This is why manufacturers make prototypes.

Just wait until you see the finished version of S-Log on the F3. Big steps since that first beta test in Vegas. That's how these things go.

NeedCreative
06-19-2011, 07:35 AM
Mitch your tests really helped guide me a bit as I am not an expert in any way on setting up Sony Picture Profiles. I created 3 setups based on standard, CT 1 and CT 2 for indoor/controlled light, outdoor, and outdoor super bright with some modifications based on tweaking. The more I shoot the more tweaking I'll do, but these are useful options.

I wonder if someone can come up with a CineStyle type PP? Is that even possible?

Mitch Gross
06-19-2011, 06:52 PM
Don't thank me, thank Andy. I'm just a cheerleader on this one.

NeedCreative
06-19-2011, 07:47 PM
Don't thank me, thank Andy. I'm just a cheerleader on this one.

Yes right I'm sorry. Well, thanks to the organization then :)

DM_rider
06-22-2011, 11:59 AM
I went straight into a week of shooting after getting my FS100 so I haven't had a ton of time to play around with different profiles. But I had a little down time and came up with this.

Nikon 80-200
Straight from the camera
I'll post settings later
http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac273/horner218/Clip13hickeytest00001401.png
http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac273/horner218/Clip13hickeytest00000315.png

speedracerlo
06-22-2011, 12:01 PM
very nice tonal range, please do post your settings

FelixGER
06-22-2011, 12:11 PM
Yeah, but I donīt like the skin colors. Looks pretty "video". Maybe too much red.
A little WB shift in the picture profile could do the trick. Just to get it a little colder and shift to a little more green.

Also I find the face exposure a little to high. A pitty this camera has no zebras below 70.

FelixGER
06-22-2011, 01:54 PM
I just found this incredibly cool video which compares the Abel Cine Profiles.

http://www.vimeo.com/groups/fs100/videos/25438776 - Download it to watch!!

To my eyes, I cannot understand how cinetone 1 can have the same latitude as the modified ITU or Standard Setting...
You can clearly see the knee impact on "PP off" and "Standard with knee".
In Cinetone 1 I donīt see anymore highlight detail, but a lot of lost info in he dark parts of the image.

Cinetone 1 seems to be no choice for me. What do you think?

morgan_moore
06-22-2011, 02:11 PM
As a potential buyer these hot highlights are concerning me

That test just looks over exposed?

S

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 02:14 PM
To my eyes, I cannot understand how cinetone 1 can have the same latitude as the modified ITU or Standard Setting...

Yes you are absolutely right. It's confirmed in this document (http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf). Page 4 shows ITU709 as the curve with the most information. If you want dynamic range...this is the curve to use. Again...I'm talking dynamic range for post grading...NOT getting the best look right out of the camera. :)

FelixGER
06-22-2011, 02:33 PM
Yeah, but Abel Cine meassured same DR for Cinetone 1, Standard and ITU. Just those PPs which are tested in the video.

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/06/17/sony-nex-fs100-dynamic-range-test/

Also the graded ITU stuff which can be found on vimeo/YT looks better than cine1 based videos.
I think ITU709 is the way to go.

Rick Burnett
06-22-2011, 02:55 PM
Yes you are absolutely right. It's confirmed in this document (http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf). Page 4 shows ITU709 as the curve with the most information. If you want dynamic range...this is the curve to use. Again...I'm talking dynamic range for post grading...NOT getting the best look right out of the camera. :)

I don't think so.

(1) The graph doesn't even show ITU709, look at the legend.

(2) You are looking at the output, that is just showing you how the information is being expanded or compressed into a smaller space. If you look at the input side of the graph, they all have the same input length values. Just because you squeeze down the top and bottom doesn't mean your DR from your input isn't kept, it's just over a smaller range of values in the stored value. Basically, all you are doing is changing how far apart the bars are on the display, but not how many bars. Unless of course your curve completely crushes out the bottom, or blows out the top, which this is not showing.

The scope isn't going to lie. I believe from my eyes that both Cinetone 1, Standard and ITU are able to obtain the same dynamic range. I think Cinetone 2 crushes the blacks too much to the point shadow detail is NOT kept and you do lose DR.

I also think that the FS100 was overexposed in that shot. The FS100, like the AF100, does better exposing for the highlights, which does not look like the case.

morgan_moore
06-22-2011, 03:03 PM
is there another link to that PDF ? that one does not work for me

S

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 03:19 PM
I don't think so.

(1) The graph doesn't even show ITU709, look at the legend.

(2) You are looking at the output, that is just showing you how the information is being expanded or compressed into a smaller space. If you look at the input side of the graph, they all have the same input length values. Just because you squeeze down the top and bottom doesn't mean your DR from your input isn't kept, it's just over a smaller range of values in the stored value. Basically, all you are doing is changing how far apart the bars are on the display, but not how many bars. Unless of course your curve completely crushes out the bottom, or blows out the top, which this is not showing.

The scope isn't going to lie. I believe from my eyes that both Cinetone 1, Standard and ITU are able to obtain the same dynamic range. I think Cinetone 2 crushes the blacks too much to the point shadow detail is NOT kept and you do lose DR.

I also think that the FS100 was overexposed in that shot. The FS100, like the AF100, does better exposing for the highlights, which does not look like the case.

You're right...I was looking at the standard...duh. It just seems the itu709 gives us the most info...but maybe it's because the curve is simply pushed higher...essentially increasing the rgb output? So for grading....which setting is best? Hmmm

Rick Burnett
06-22-2011, 03:27 PM
Haha, well when I originally looked at this document, I was like, what?!? Where is the curve for itu709. I'll admit that you've asked the $10Million dollar question. Not having time to do a lot of testing I shot with Cinetone2 two weeks ago and the editor loved the footage. Now, I am switching to Cinetone1 as I want a tiny bit more DR, but really it comes down to knowing what you want to do with the footage. If I am going to be crushing the blacks anyways, then I'd be more inclined to crush them in camera and not waste data throughput on something I don't need. Given the cameras is 8-bit, I always shoot with the 'as close as I can' in camera mentality.

That is a good question about the output if it uses higher values in the 8-bit range. Given the compression of the dynamic range from the sensor to the 8-bit format, it might not give you more dynamic range, overall, but it just might give you a slight bit more depth in the values of the highlights (since they are not compressed down). This would only really matter if something you are doing will be expanding out the highlights on a curve in my opinion, and never something I do for narrative work. Normally, I might curve the highlights even more.

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 03:38 PM
is there another link to that PDF ? that one does not work for me

S

Sure thing...here's the URL: http://www.sony-asia.com/microsite/professional/hdv/pdf/HVR-Z7_S270Tutorial_e7.pdf

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 03:46 PM
What bothers me is that I feel I have to use a higher fstop for ITU709 and lower fstop for cinematone. That's what's making me think that cinematone is the flattest curve and 709 simply pushes the mid part higher. Hmm I'm going to go check which one grades better so I can sleep tonight....lol

Neex
06-22-2011, 04:17 PM
What bothers me is that I feel I have to use a higher fstop for ITU709 and lower fstop for cinematone. That's what's making me think that cinematone is the flattest curve and 709 simply pushes the mid part higher. Hmm I'm going to go check which one grades better so I can sleep tonight....lol

The way I see it, the camera struggles with highlights, but handles shadows and low-light superbly. Therefore, in post, it's easier to boost the darks than it is to drop the highs. If you're using a higher f-stop with 709, you're protecting your highlights more. Seems like the right way to go to me.

morgan_moore
06-22-2011, 04:17 PM
Sure thing.

Thanks, very interesting

Having had a good read I guess that I will be steering clear of too much knee to save highlights

I think that DR is a trade off with 'contrast/colour fidelity'

As the top ends are flattened the tonal and brigtness variations are reduced, at some point they will come so close together as to not be resolvable in the small color/compression space

result? banding and blocking

can a grade pull back info that is not resolved.. no

Just a guess

S

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 05:51 PM
The way I see it, the camera struggles with highlights, but handles shadows and low-light superbly. Therefore, in post, it's easier to boost the darks than it is to drop the highs. If you're using a higher f-stop with 709, you're protecting your highlights more. Seems like the right way to go to me.

That's what I'm leaning toward.

Re-watching the video, the Standard and ITU709 are exactly the same on the scopes. Cinematone just isn't right to me. Middle grey is at 40% which means the midtones are pushed down stretching the area from grey to white creating high contrast and steep curve, while the shadows and midtones seem to muddy together a bit more because this area of the curve is being squeezed causind less contrast and flatter curve. What I want is a somewhat straight curve, middle black at 50%, and as much highlight and shadow detail as possible.

http://www.crookedpathfilms.com/Sharing/Standard.jpg
http://www.crookedpathfilms.com/Sharing/ITU709.jpg

What I was guessing before was that Standard/ITU709 was pushing the midtones up, in actuality Cinematone is pushing the mids down.

I'm thinking of sticking with the Standard for awhile. Grey is at 50% and it retains a little more highlight info than ITU709. So here's my settings and I'm sticking to it!! (At least until I'm convinced otherwise...which will probably be tomorrow, haha)

Black Level: +8
Gamma: Standard
Black Gamma: Middle, +7
Knee: Manual, 85%, 0 slope
Color Mode: Cinematone 1
Color Level: +4
Color Phase: 0
Color Depth: All 0

Neex
06-22-2011, 06:13 PM
What are people thinking in regards to color mode?

What kind of strengths have people noticed in Cinematone 1 vs 2? Why are you picking 1 over 2?

speedracerlo
06-22-2011, 06:32 PM
my settings are very similar to yours Richard and I have been avoiding cinematone 1 and 2
only thing I don't understand is the Color Level +4? what is the reason for that?

Cinematone 1 seems to be a little warmer and more saturated than Cinematone 2

Richard Allen Crook
06-22-2011, 07:37 PM
my settings are very similar to yours Richard and I have been avoiding cinematone 1 and 2
only thing I don't understand is the Color Level +4? what is the reason for that?

Cinematone 1 seems to be a little warmer and more saturated than Cinematone 2

Great question. I have no idea. Lol

No seriously I did that to match my usual ideal end-result color so I wouldnt have to push it too far in post. My thinking is that in a 4:2:0 color space you should get it close in camera and make minor changes in post if anything. But now that you mention it...I will probably just set it at zero to keep bleeding minimal.

(see told you I would change my mind, haha)

cuervo
06-26-2011, 02:03 PM
I just connected my new Fs100, looking at a 12 step black wedge, on a scope(waveform monitor). It looks like the pedestal settings(when black sits right on RGB16) for Black Level correspond to -15 for STANDARD and ITU709 modes, and -8 for the Cinegamma modes. Raising the Black Level above these values result in muddier and noisier blacks.

Neex
06-26-2011, 02:11 PM
Hey Cuervo, what does RGB16 refer to? Also, by pedestal, do you mean the BLACK LEVEL setting in the picture profile menu? Setting it to -15 doesn't crush the blacks?

speedracerlo
06-26-2011, 02:35 PM
I just connected my new Fs100, looking at a 12 step black wedge, on a scope(histogram). It looks like the pedestal settings(when black sits right on RGB16) for Black Level correspond to -15 for STANDARD and ITU709 modes, and -8 for the Cinegamma modes. Raising the Black Level above these values result in muddier and noisier blacks.

those noisy blacks can be crushed in post to look just like Black -15 or whatever setting you have
it would be harder to recover any lost information in dark shadow areas if you shoot with crushed blacks like that

cuervo
06-26-2011, 04:53 PM
those noisy blacks can be crushed in post to look just like Black -15 or whatever setting you have
it would be harder to recover any lost information in dark shadow areas if you shoot with crushed blacks like that

RGB 16 corresponds to zero IRE, or full black in the NTSC ITU709 color space.
Relative to the comment that one risks crushing the blacks with this setting, I would, in general, agree. However, I would add that the DP has to trade crushing the blacks with noisy and muddy blacks. I would rather mildly crush the blacks, assuming a WFM isn't available for run and gun. In a studio environment, the use of a WFM is pretty critical to nailing the right black level. I am suggesting that these settings I provided, get you pretty close if you don't have a WFM handy. I've seen a lot of suggestions that Black Level should be set above zero. These measurements seem to confirm that that just isn't the right way to go. If one feels uncomfortable with setting black up against the wall, then use a setting between zero and these settings to allow some headroom...or footroom, if you prefer.

Neex
06-26-2011, 10:20 PM
Cuervo, if you had a color grading stage in your workflow, do you still think keeping your blacks low is ideal? Or would you raise them? If so, any thoughts as to where?

cuervo
06-27-2011, 04:29 AM
Cuervo, if you had a color grading stage in your workflow, do you still think keeping your blacks low is ideal? Or would you raise them? If so, any thoughts as to where?

I prefer that the captured image is as close to the final coloring as possible. Of course, this isn't always possible. Once the shadows have been crushed there is no recovering the lost information from the image. Even in a 10 bit color space, raising the black level in post will produce noise. So, capturing with as low a black level as possible, without losing shadow detail is the goal. As I said, in an ideal world, I would always set up my shots with a waveform monitor. Since this isn't practical, knowing the bottom limit and raising the black level is a question of experience with different lighting conditions and the amount of shadow in the scene. I can't stand low contrast, milky looking footage with poorly defined blacks.

In my workflow, I convert all footage to 10 bit when captured to my workstation. Then, I can apply an inverted S-curve to correct the hi's and lo's. The more correction needed, the greater the chance of banding(stairstepping) and noise, not to mention the increased rendering time needed for CC. CC is destructive to compressed 8-bit formats, and, should be avoided whenever possible.

Richard Allen Crook
06-27-2011, 05:55 PM
In my workflow, I convert all footage to 10 bit when captured to my workstation. Then, I can apply an inverted S-curve to correct the hi's and lo's. The more correction needed, the greater the chance of banding(stairstepping) and noise, not to mention the increased rendering time needed for CC. CC is destructive to compressed 8-bit formats, and, should be avoided whenever possible.

Why convert to 10bit? It doesn't add info into the image, just makes the file bigger.

NeedCreative
06-27-2011, 05:58 PM
ProRes (a standard format used in all flavors of Final Cut even the much maligned version) is a 10-but codec partially for this very reason. It gives you more latitude in your color corrections to adjust beyond the original data which is your starting point.

Rick Burnett
06-27-2011, 07:42 PM
Why convert to 10bit? It doesn't add info into the image, just makes the file bigger.

It is not necessary in some apps to convert first to 10-bit on input, but, that depends on the internal representation of the video information. That said, what IS important is that you work in 10-bit and you output in 10-bit if you plan to do anything else with it. 10-bit through an entire process will reduce quantization errors in color correction and other image manipulation. ALWAYS work higher than your target bit depth. This is true for video AND audio. I just find it easier to convert EVERYTHING I do to ProRes 422 and work from there.

NeedCreative
06-27-2011, 07:42 PM
Said much better than I can at this late hour Rick, thank you

Rick Burnett
06-27-2011, 07:45 PM
Haha, no problem. I did a lot of playing around with ProRes 422 and native MTS in Premiere to see if the source mattered. It did not in *that* app. Other apps may not be the same thing. That said, given I go in and out of After Effects A LOT, I do use H.264 coming in, but ALWAYS ProRes 422 coming out.

NeedCreative
06-27-2011, 07:47 PM
Haha, no problem. I did a lot of playing around with ProRes 422 and native MTS in Premiere to see if the source mattered. It did not in *that* app. Other apps may not be the same thing. That said, given I go in and out of After Effects A LOT, I do use H.264 coming in, but ALWAYS ProRes 422 coming out.

I'm contemplating a switch to Premiere after FCPx debacle. At least to play with it. I am hearing many good things! Can it take in ProRes and output as well? Don't want to hijack this thread but curious.

Rick Burnett
06-27-2011, 07:57 PM
Yep, never had a problem either way.

Neex
06-27-2011, 08:33 PM
You will need some form of Final Cut installed to export to ProRes, and you cannot export to ProRes on PC. You can read ProRes files just fine though.

Rick Burnett
06-27-2011, 09:08 PM
You will need some form of Final Cut installed to export to ProRes, and you cannot export to ProRes on PC. You can read ProRes files just fine though.

Yes, I forget this sometimes. I have FCP6 installed AND I am in OSX. The client I am working with now uses a PC and can ingest my ProRes, but edits everything on his end with DNxHD.

What do people on the PC side normally use with Premiere?

speedracerlo
06-27-2011, 11:01 PM
I use Cineform Neoscene 422

Postmaster
06-27-2011, 11:14 PM
Uncompressed avi (mostly BlackMagic codec), DPX or Cineform.

HDnX is also nice but a bit a pain in the a... cause there is a bug in the software.
When you want to export HDnX from a Premiere timeline, the HDnX settings window that pops up is not fully expanded, so you can not
access all the buttons at least on my machine.

Frank

Neex
06-28-2011, 01:43 AM
They fixed that. Download the latest codec off of their site.

nyvz
06-28-2011, 02:26 AM
What do people on the PC side normally use with Premiere?

Nothing, everything plays natively and smoothly in premiere so there is no need for the additional generational loss of compressed intermediate formats or significant additional storage requirements they represent. I always edit natively and use realtime GPU effects and all formats I've tried (XDCAMEX, AVCCAM, AVCHD, R3D) work seamlessly together on the same timeline. Usually I just export deliverables from the timeline, but if I need a final master I may use uncompressed or lagarith lossless or even high bitrate MP4 for less critical stuff.

cuervo
06-28-2011, 05:54 AM
... there is no need for the additional generational loss of compressed intermediate formats or significant additional storage requirements they represent..

I use both Cineform and Avid DNxHD. Cineform offers a non-destructive color correction module that works on their native 10 bit codec, but, it costs $$$. The DNxHD codec is free and also offers a 10bit variant. If you have an NLE capable of a 10bit workflow(not many can do that as of this time) my suggestion is that you give the 10 bit workflow a serious consideration. While 10 bit files are larger, if you do ANY CC or special FX, working in 10 bit makes noticeable improvements in image quality. Media Composer has a 10 bit workflow if you start with 10 bit DNxHD. Whatever NLE you pick, their internal FX have to be written for 10-bit.

Postmaster
06-28-2011, 07:18 AM
Isn't everything you import in Premiere handled in 32bit anyway?

cuervo
06-28-2011, 07:46 AM
The nomenclature is confusing, fersure. "32-bit" refers to 8 bits per channel, including alpha, or 8X4=32. If 10 bit color depth processing were to be referred to the same nomenclature, it would be called 40 bit. Beware advertising soft shoe.

nyvz
06-28-2011, 09:24 AM
The nomenclature is confusing, fersure. "32-bit" refers to 8 bits per channel, including alpha, or 8X4=32. If 10 bit color depth processing were to be referred to the same nomenclature, it would be called 40 bit. Beware advertising soft shoe.

I understand your confusion since that is usually how it works, but actually in this case, Adobe uses 32bits per channel, effectively 96bits per pixel. According to adobe, GPUs are designed to handle 32bit floating point values with the same speed as 8bit ones, and that seems to be the case. The power of GPU acceleration is quite impressive, so it is hard for me to imagine any modern NLE not taking advantage of it by this point.

Whats the point of a lossy conversion to an interpolated 10bit format from 8bit originals when the 8bit originals are going to be decompressed into 32bit uncompressed RGB internally for all operations anyway?

Rick Burnett
06-28-2011, 09:35 AM
Nothing, everything plays natively and smoothly in premiere so there is no need for the additional generational loss of compressed intermediate formats or significant additional storage requirements they represent. I always edit natively and use realtime GPU effects and all formats I've tried (XDCAMEX, AVCCAM, AVCHD, R3D) work seamlessly together on the same timeline. Usually I just export deliverables from the timeline, but if I need a final master I may use uncompressed or lagarith lossless or even high bitrate MP4 for less critical stuff.

I don't mean on bringing in to editing, I mean on exporting to work with other programs once you have edited. I move files between different programs and that is where I use ProRes 422. It seems people use cineform, DNxHD, or uncompressed mostly.

cuervo
06-28-2011, 10:06 AM
I understand your confusion since that is usually how it works, but actually in this case, Adobe uses 32bits per channel, effectively 96bits per pixel. According to adobe, GPUs are designed to handle 32bit floating point values with the same speed as 8bit ones, and that seems to be the case. The power of GPU acceleration is quite impressive, so it is hard for me to imagine any modern NLE not taking advantage of it by this point.

Whats the point of a lossy conversion to an interpolated 10bit format from 8bit originals when the 8bit originals are going to be decompressed into 32bit uncompressed RGB internally for all operations anyway?

Whether GPU acceleration is actually working well is problemmatic....and arguable.

As for my workflow, I edit in Media Composer. It is very convenient for me to convert all my footage into DNxHD before I import into AMC. AMC uses DNxHD as its internal intermediate, so, transcoding ahead of time saves me on resources since I can transcode on a seperate machine rather than my edit station.

I think you may be somewhat confused between the difference between 32 bit floating point mathematical processing and 10 bit color depth. 32 bit FP math simply means the processor can use up to 32 significant digits for mathematical operations on 8 bit data. A color depth of 10 bit implies over a trillion different significant colors, as opposed to millions of colors as you have with 8 bit color depth. So, while floating point math improves color accuracy (by reducing round off error)and helps aliasing, it has no effect on the quantization effects that produce color banding, aka stairstepping. For that, you need true 10 bit color depth capability.

As a side note, I'll express my melancholy that it is no longer sufficient to be just a videographer or photographer in today's digitized reality. One must also be a mathematician and computer wizard to understand the nuances of this digital technology. :)

The REAL reason that 10-bit workflows have not been universally adopted is because there are no consumer 10 bit displays available in the marketplace, as of yet. You can look at any modern 8-bit display monitor and see stairstepping in subtle gradients, like sky, even if the workflow was 10 bit. Right now, 10 bit wokflow is almost an exercise, because 10-bit processing is coming in future releases of all NLE's.

Richard Allen Crook
06-28-2011, 10:08 AM
It is not necessary in some apps to convert first to 10-bit on input, but, that depends on the internal representation of the video information. That said, what IS important is that you work in 10-bit and you output in 10-bit if you plan to do anything else with it. 10-bit through an entire process will reduce quantization errors in color correction and other image manipulation. ALWAYS work higher than your target bit depth. This is true for video AND audio. I just find it easier to convert EVERYTHING I do to ProRes 422 and work from there.

Ah, so in Some apps it helps. In Premiere, which I'm used to, it does not matter. It has 32-bit float therefore if you shot in 8-bit, there is absolutely no reason to convert to 10 bit prior to editing. And I'm not talking about it playing better in the software, I'm talking about converting for quality differences. :)

But that's interesting to know...thanks!!

Rick Burnett
06-28-2011, 10:34 AM
I've not seen any quality difference in Premiere or AE by transcoding to a different format first. I've tested it on multiple projects and feel confident in Premiere handling of the footage.

Postmaster
06-28-2011, 10:51 AM
It is very convenient for me to convert all my footage into DNxHD before I import into AMC. AMC uses DNxHD as its internal intermediate, so, transcoding ahead of time saves me on resources since I can transcode on a seperate machine rather than my edit station.

)


You say it is convenient to convert your footage, instead of just dropping that stuff on the timeline and start working?

And you need a second machine for that?

I donīt get it.

I always thought, the most conviniant way of editing is, to just drop any footage, from any camera, on any drive, at any timeline and just start editing.

Frank

nyvz
06-28-2011, 11:13 AM
You say it is convenient to convert your footage, instead of just dropping that stuff on the timeline and start working?

And you need a second machine for that?

I donīt get it.

I always thought, the most convenient way of editing is, to just drop any footage, from any camera, on any drive, at any timeline and just start editing.

Frank

I thought the same thing, I think many people are so used to ingesting their footage despite all the extra time and space it requires that they cannot get used to the idea that it could actually be faster and better quality to just drop footage into their NLE straight out of the original media folder structure.

cuervo
06-28-2011, 11:24 AM
I thought the same thing, I think many people are so used to ingesting their footage despite all the extra time and space it requires that they cannot get used to the idea that it could actually be faster and better quality to just drop footage into their NLE straight out of the original media folder structure.

You guys are pretty funny ... clearly, you don't know AMC.

speedracerlo
06-28-2011, 12:08 PM
I've used AMC 3.5 w/ adrenaline while I was in school, but it definitely isn't convenient like Premiere Pro as it is now.

On the other hand, this topic has been derailed and I hope people get back to talking about Picture Profiles.

Rick Burnett
06-28-2011, 12:14 PM
Yes, and I have certainly helped that. :) This normally happens because picture profile and grading in post are directly influenced by one another, especially on an 8-bit output camera. Of coure, all the discussion about Premiere and codecs is definitely a tangent.

John Caballero
06-28-2011, 12:42 PM
The thing is that NLEs are now able to handle AVCHD editing natively and fast. Before you had to convert it to something else to be able to work with it. Now is as easy as dropping it in the timeline and going to work on it.

Rick Burnett
06-28-2011, 12:49 PM
The thing is that NLEs are now able to handle AVCHD editing natively and fast. Before you had to convert it to something else to be able to work with it. Now is as easy as dropping it in the timeline and going to work on it.

I can't with FCP7. Sounds like you can't with Media Composer. (have not used it personally). SOME NLE's are able to handle them natively, but not all (yet). I am sure that will change, but people need to remember that not all software works alike.

DM_rider
06-28-2011, 01:56 PM
Any one else run into posterization yet? I knew it was going to happen with this camera, guess we just have to live with it. Frame grabs right out of final cut.

http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac273/horner218/Screenshot2011-06-28at35334PM.png

http://i907.photobucket.com/albums/ac273/horner218/Screenshot2011-06-28at35313PM.png

Postmaster
06-28-2011, 02:13 PM
The curse of the 8bit beast - soon in your local theater.

Frank

John Caballero
06-28-2011, 03:48 PM
I can't with FCP7. Sounds like you can't with Media Composer.

That's correct. As the new versions of NLEs are coming out they are implementing AVCHD natively.

nyvz
06-28-2011, 07:25 PM
Any one else run into posterization yet? I knew it was going to happen with this camera, guess we just have to live with it. Frame grabs right out of final cut.

Posterization doesnt seem too significant on those grabs, and it seems to me more likely some of the less usual tones in the gradients may be due to a particular gamma or knee.

Postmaster
06-29-2011, 02:46 AM
Just add some grain.

cuervo
06-29-2011, 05:01 AM
Unless you've graded, or otherwise performed color correction or special FX(like a transition) you won't see any stairstepping(posterization, quantization, whatever)
8-bit captures straight out of the camera are beautiful, as these examples show. But, as soon as you apply a CC or FX, things turn bad fast.
If you want more proof, just look at the histogram when you start pushing the colors around. Any combing you see happening in the histogram is clear evidence that 8-bit data can't handle much adjustment.

David G. Smith
07-01-2011, 10:22 PM
Anybody ran into increased grain when raising the black level and adjusting the black gamma? I found it to be a problem on a couple of custom PPs. I have also noted increased posterization when adjusting the color depth. Anybody else?

Postmaster
07-02-2011, 12:36 AM
I have all color depths 3 clicks on the low side - looks much better now.
Avoiding single channel color clipping is crucial, especially on a AVCHD codec.

Frank

David G. Smith
07-02-2011, 12:57 AM
I have all color depths 3 clicks on the low side - looks much better now.
Avoiding single channel color clipping is crucial, especially on a AVCHD codec.

Frank

Frank, where are your settings now? I have gone through a lot of PP recommendations, including the two you posted a while back in this thread. Using both of those recommendations increased the noise I was seeing and with the one you called "Experimental Technicolor" really increasing it a lot. Also, the "Experimental Technicolor" settings made red objects look very bad, shifting to an orange look, and increasing banding.

I am dialing in a more personal preference but have gotten a little gun shy about the black level, the black gamma and color depth.

Postmaster
07-02-2011, 02:47 AM
Yeah, I didnīt really understand what some of the settings really do.
After days and days of test shooting and tweaking , it boils down to 4 PPs I mostly use now


1. For outdoor shooting and CC in post
BLACK LEVEL +3
GAMMA: Cinematone1
BLACK GAMMA: High/+7
KNEE: 90%/+2
COLOR MODE: Cinematone2/8
COLOR LEVEL: -3
COLOR PHASE -1
COLOR DEPTH: everything at -3

2. For indoor shooting and CC in post
BLACK LEVEL: +5
GAMMA: ITU709
BLACK GAMMA: High/+2
KNEE: 80%/-2
COLOR MODE: PRO/8
COLOR LEVEL: -2
COLOR PHASE -1
COLOR DEPTH: everything at -2

3. RED Look (well, sort of) - very flat, beware of noise.
BLACK LEVEL: +12
GAMMA: ITU709
BLACK GAMMA: middle/+7
KNEE: 80%/-2
COLOR MODE: PRO/8
COLOR LEVEL: -3
COLOR PHASE -2
COLOR DEPTH: everything at -4

For shooting almost "out of the box" without the absolute need to CC in post, I use PP5,
Lower the Color Level to -3 and raise the black level to +2. Knee= Auto/90% which works surprisingly good.

I`m testing the detail settings in the moment, mainly to reduce judder and remove that too harsh look a bit.

Meanwhile you can leave Detail in auto and set it to -5

Not exactly happy yet with all those PPs - but I keep digging into it.
I wish there would be something like the CineD profile on my HVX - which worked for everything (at least for me).

Letīs see what AbelCine comes up with.

best, Frank

Kraut69
07-02-2011, 06:58 AM
Thanks, Frank.

In your modification of PP5, "Knee= Auto/80%", I only see being able to set it at Auto/90%, unless I don't understand things.

Postmaster
07-02-2011, 10:06 AM
Sorry, that was a typo - I changed it.

Let me know how those settings work for you guys.

Frank

Kraut69
07-02-2011, 12:25 PM
Thanks for addressing "out-of-the-box" profiles. I know the best way is to color correct in post for best picture, but there are a lot of times when you are recording things to be played back almost immediately, right from the camera to TV with no post processing at all, or for maybe something like a same-day edit, and so there is a need for "out-of-the-box" profiles to fill those needs.

MattDavis
07-02-2011, 12:38 PM
Not exactly happy yet with all those PPs - but I keep digging into it.

Hey Frank - Dig We Must, and huge amounts of thanks and virtual beer for sharing!

Have spent the best part of the afternoon (sunny, scuddy clouds) in the back garden trying out your suggestions (along with others).

First off, major kudos about reducing the overall chroma intensity to prevent chroma clipping. I saw this happen in test footage this morning from my own PP I was working on. Good call.

Secondly, exposing for highlights, and having profiles do the 'darks' management. Definitely. CineGammas on the EX1R were very good with the histogram, but seeing a different pattern on the FS100 - histogram's little grey bar is a real danger zone.

Thirdly, AbelCine's profile settings may show lots of dynamic range, but the blacks look very dark to someone used to working with CineGamma 4. Perhaps that's why I feel very at home with your 'Red' settings. CineTone2 seems to be too much 'baked in' DSLR look, and continuing that theme, I've switched from CineTone1 to Rec709 too.

However, I'm sort of up for raising the chroma levels a little bit, as when I compensate in FCP7 with either the 2 way (simple) or Colorista (more involved), there seems to be an oddness that some chroma gets pulled up a lot, other chroma only gets a little - which one would expect from a limited dynamic range of chrominance being pulled up to fill.

I'll play with the difference between knocking back the overall colour from 8 to 7 or 6 versus the pulling down of individual colours.

Just feeling that we may be overcompensating or overprotecting against chrominance blow-out at this level.

But to all in the thread posting profiles - many thanks! I may not have played with Rec709 and bashed it around, had it not been for this thread!

Postmaster
07-02-2011, 05:31 PM
Here is a little clip I made, to test my new picture profiles.

The wobbling artifacts you see sometimes, are from the image stabilization.
I shot everything handheld, since it doesnīt look too good, when you show up with a crane and slider on a bone yard.
But after all, this was for the PPs not a Steadycam class.

Frank

The clip should be up soon, I have to go to bed now, Itīs 2:30 iin the night.


http://vimeo.com/25915411

David G. Smith
07-02-2011, 07:20 PM
I like that Frank, looks good. Which PPs did you use for that? I tried out the PPs you posted above and really like them. I just got some quick shots but am going to experiment with them some more. Thanks.

Postmaster
07-03-2011, 02:25 AM
I used the outdoor and the "Red" and the "out of the box" PPs., mostly 80% the outdoor though.


I had some accidental epiphany yesterday, while playing with some settings on the bone yard.

I need to do some further testing, but watch this space and prepare for the "Bonyard-Epiphany" PP. 36203

Frank

David G. Smith
07-03-2011, 02:28 AM
Will do.

Rick Burnett
07-04-2011, 12:48 PM
Frank,

GREAT colors there. I love how much detail we get on the FS100. You said image stabilization was causing the jello, is this a post process you are using? OR IS in the lens? Just trying to understand where that is coming from, as I've not seen anything like that yet even hand held.

I am going to have to play with your color profiles on the outdoor stuff as I REALLY like what you are getting. The only thing that scares me about going to a RED type palette is we only have 8-bit to work with, and it seems to make more sense on the RED to shoot so flat, but with these cameras, try to nail as close as you can in camera just to eliminate as much banding as possible in post with the grade.

Rick

Postmaster
07-04-2011, 12:57 PM
I stabilized the footage in post, since it was shaky as helll. The original footage shows no jello at all. The RED setting, is just something I played with, cause I wanted something to shoot during the blue hour.

Rick Burnett
07-04-2011, 01:06 PM
AHH okay. Interesting. The only stabilization in post I have used is the track motion in AE, which the results were not stellar, but not jello. I fear people are going to think that is the camera! Haha.

Nevertheless, I just love the colors. I think I am going to notch down the colors a bit as well. I did this on the AF100 for the same reason, and I think the FS100 too has saturation to spare!!!!

David G. Smith
07-04-2011, 03:03 PM
I shoot some tests outdoors with your PPs Frank. I really like them. They are a very nice starting point to dial them in for my personal preferences. I was very surprised how good the "Out of the box" setting is, but find that the "Outdoor, CC in post" setting gives me much more room to play. That one is my fav. I am going to move indoors this week and start testing PPs for that. Thanks again.

Postmaster
07-04-2011, 03:18 PM
Glad you guys can use them.

Frank

stevedocmaker
07-06-2011, 12:55 PM
I've come up with some settings I'm very happy with, at least for bright sun. I've attached some frame grabs (let's see who can come up with the best joke about the disembodied heads in the background). I exposed this with the highlight on the soccer ball just starting to clip. It's interesting to note that blacks were not clipped at this setting, even with extreme contrast in the lighting.

363753637636377

Black level: -2
Gamma: Cinetone 1
Black Gamma: high, level: +7
Knee: Manual, slope: 0
Color mode: Cinetone 2, level: 1
Color Level: -4
Color depth: +5 for all

I started with the settings posted by nyvz and modified them to my own taste. I think he's really on to something with cranking up the color depth. I might even go down to -5 on the color level.

I compared shots with the color depths at 0 and cranked all the way, compensating downward with the color level, vs. color depths at 0. Cranking up the color depths seems to hold detail better in the saturated areas. and seems to give a smoother rolloff in the highlights. The only caveat appears to be that it for some reason it seems to crush the blacks a bit more, and personally I want to avoid this as I'm of the mind that I can always crush the blacks in post if I want. This is why I have scaled back slightly from the color depths all maxed out.

One other note: I'm seeing a slight red shift in the yellow gas can. I'm not sure if I can adjust this with the color depth settings without throwing the other colors out of whack. I'll play around with it and see.

I'd like to add that my intent is to find a profile that gives me the most flexibility in post. I know there are some who feel that 8-bit images can't be graded, but in my experience as long as your exposure is on and color is somewhere in the middle of the range you're after then grading works well.

FelixGER
07-09-2011, 05:58 PM
Got the camera today and did a lot of testing the whole day.
Now let me enlighten you with my prefered PP:

Black Level: +1
Gamma: Standard
Black Gamma: Middle +2
Knee: Pont 85%, Slope -2
Colormode: Cinematone 2
Color Level: -4
Color Phase: -1
Color Depth: R-3, G-2, M-1
WB Shift: LB-CC; LB -1, CC -1
Detail: +1

The camera with default settings exagerates a little with reds and greens.

I also tried Cinetone 1 a lot but I see no benefit from it.

EDIT: Latest testing suggests tht those settings I posted need to be optimized a lot. Going minus on color depth is no good idea!

stevedocmaker
07-09-2011, 09:42 PM
I like your color settings. I still prefer the Cinetone 1 gamma curve (knee 105-0) for highlight retention, but your standard settings help with shadow detail. I've modified my color settings to get rid of the red and green issues as follows:

Color level: -5
Color Phase: -1
Color depth: R +3, G +4, B +6, C +6, M +5, Y +6
WB Shift: LB -1, CC -1

Postmaster
07-10-2011, 12:20 AM
Got the camera today

Ha! Wurde ja auch Zeit - wilkommen im Club Felix.

Frank

David G. Smith
07-10-2011, 12:51 AM
Ha! Wurde ja auch Zeit - wilkommen im Club Felix.

Frank

Yeah.... What he said!!

Of course, I am fluent in "Google Translate"!!!

FelixGER
07-10-2011, 04:43 AM
I like your color settings. I still prefer the Cinetone 1 gamma curve (knee 105-0) for highlight retention, but your standard settings help with shadow detail. I've modified my color settings to get rid of the red and green issues as follows:
Color depth: R +3, G +4, B +6, C +6, M +5, Y +6


Yep, I also tested the color depth setting further the whole night using green, red and blue pillows^^
Color Depth is a weird setting. When going + on red, noise reduces on this particular color, while going the other way adds huge amounts of noise and makes the color brighter. Color depth seems to be almost the same like black gamma, just for colors (red gamma, green gamma etc.)

So going minus seems no good idea. -2 on red feels like doubling the noise for red.

jeics
07-10-2011, 08:19 PM
Hey Frank what about the ĻBonyard-EpiphanyĻ?

FelixGER
07-11-2011, 04:35 AM
I canīt decide between Cinetone 1 or 2 colormode (not gamma).
1 seems warmer, while 2 is a little more contrasty and adds a little magenta. Both are looking good.

gilzoo
07-12-2011, 03:23 PM
There's no way to load picture profiles from a card is there? Like on an F3 or Ex3?

nyvz
07-12-2011, 04:20 PM
I canīt decide between Cinetone 1 or 2 colormode (not gamma).
1 seems warmer, while 2 is a little more contrasty and adds a little magenta. Both are looking good.

Look at highlights in any gamma mode with cinematone 2 color and then with any other color mode. Cinematone2 reduces highlight color shifting far more than any other color mode. I'd always go with cinematone 2.

stevedocmaker
07-14-2011, 11:08 AM
Yep, I also tested the color depth setting further the whole night using green, red and blue pillows^^
Color Depth is a weird setting. When going + on red, noise reduces on this particular color, while going the other way adds huge amounts of noise and makes the color brighter. Color depth seems to be almost the same like black gamma, just for colors (red gamma, green gamma etc.)

So going minus seems no good idea. -2 on red feels like doubling the noise for red.

I completely agree that color depth is a weird setting! I tried my earlier settings on a shot with person (R+3, G+4, B+6, C+6, M+5, Y+6), and was surprised at what it did to the skin tones. These values for some reason really accentuate the unevenness of a person's skin (every freckle and blemish is exaggerated) - which could be an interesting look in certain situations. Lowering the values seems to do the opposite (smooth out skin tones) and also seems to increase noise, but I have to say I'm not seeing the drastic increase that you mention. In the end for general purposes, I'm liking R-2, G-1, B0, C0, M-1, Y0. I think this is a nice balance of slightly removing the red cast and smoothing out skin tones at the expense of a touch more noise.

I agree with nyvz that Cinetone2 handles highlight colors better. IMHO this helps maximize the DR of the sensor.

I have also been doing more testing with Standard gamma, knee 85 slope -2, vs. Cinetone1 gamma, knee 105 slope 0. In most cases I can get an identical image from both of these with minor grading (levels, luma curve). But I feel the Cinetone1 gamma does yield slightly better highlight detail and retention. So in most cases I'll stick with this setting.

I have to add that I'm loving having this much control over the image quality. It is really amazing for a camera in this price range.

David G. Smith
07-14-2011, 02:10 PM
Anyone one experimented with the PPs for available light shooting at night? I am shooting a band live in a small bar this weekend and am open to suggestions. I don't get to see the joint until tomorrow, but from the pictures I have seen of the place looks like the band stand walls are painted black and they like to use lots of red light on the bands. What I want to get a handle on is setting the black levels to maintain shadow detail. I have only done a little bit of night time shooting with available lights, but have not really done much PP comparisons (My project for tonight). Any suggestions for a starting point? Any suggestions on taming red lighting? I hate that sh*t!! Funking with the color depth, for me so far, has really given me some horrible looking reds. Out of the box reds don't impress me on this camera either, and I have not found a setting that really makes it any better. (In all fairness to the FS100, I have never liked reds in dang near anything I have ever shot on video... remember what NTSC stand for...."Never Twice The Same Color"....)

Mark Crabtree
07-15-2011, 08:43 PM
NTSC: National Television Society Commitee. Officially.Unofficially: Never Twice the Same Color.

FelixGER
07-16-2011, 04:37 AM
Cinematone 2 Colormode is great for reds!

David G. Smith
07-16-2011, 12:40 PM
Cinematone 2 Colormode is great for reds!

Thanks, I will try that.

Mark Crabtree
07-16-2011, 09:47 PM
Let's talk about these profiles. Outside or inside matters not. Whatmatters is how much dynamic range is in your scene. With extreme DR the camera needs to squash a lot of stops into AVCHD's 8 bit bucket. I see the best results in high DR scenes, such as back lit or side lit by the sun on a sunny day, with FS100 set to Cinetone 1 gamma, Black level +10, Black gamma high +7, Cinetone 2 color, Knee 75 Slope +3, Color level -5, Color depth +5 on all colors. These settings keep an extreme amount of DR as long as I don't over expose the highlights. It seems hard to not over expose with this camera though because of years of conditioning by the fear of getting a dark noisey picture. The FS100, however, has a very low noise sensor and you can shoot a full stop under exposed and still recover a lovely amount of noise free shadow detail. I have seen zero banding from these settings. Of course it requires a lot of grading in post. That's why I convert to CineForm so I'm grading with a much larger 10 bit file. CineForm interpolates the difference in values between 8 and 10 bits as you change the values in First Light. It's almost like grading an original 10 bit file. Before shooting, it is important to get in the menu and set the camera's lcd to BRIGHT. At the default LOW setting, it is impossible not to over expose because the lcd is so dark you bring up the exposere way too much.

Mark Crabtree
07-16-2011, 09:59 PM
As the DR in the scene becomes less and less I will compress the knee less and less. I've set my5 preset profiles to gradually range from my above settings augmented by changing only Knee 100 Slope -3, Black -10, Black gamma high 0. So as the scene becomes less contrasty, I make it more contrasty. When the scene is very contrasy I make it less contrasty. I just cycle through the 5 profiles 'till I see the most appropriate look.

profnoxin
07-18-2011, 12:59 AM
Frank - I've been very pleased with a combination of your PP settings and the Abel Cine black gamma/slope settings, but the one thing that I'm still seeing a lot of is color skewing in the highlights. I knew that this was something I'd be getting with the camera, but I was wondering if you or anyone else has found any improvements on this when tweaking the color level settings.

Cheers, and thanks again for the hard work you put in straight out of the gate.

MichaelGrugal
07-18-2011, 09:38 AM
What PP would you recommend as a good contrasty image, no color correction needed, and vibrant in color but not clipping? For indoors and outdoors.

dsleep
07-21-2011, 01:26 AM
this thread has been a great help, lots of great starting points for tweaking.

Someone asked earlier and didn't get a reply, so I will ask again, what about low light/night settings?
What PP settings are recommended to try to minimize noise in shadows/dark areas?

Postmaster
07-21-2011, 01:52 AM
The nose is super low on the FS100 anyway and if you see some, itīs only luminance noise that looks more like film grain.
This is the first video camera, where I have no desire for noise reduction in post.
So donīt sweat it. But if you want to get rid of noise, avoid high black gamma settings and negative color depth.

Frank

nyvz
07-21-2011, 07:17 AM
Frank - I've been very pleased with a combination of your PP settings and the Abel Cine black gamma/slope settings, but the one thing that I'm still seeing a lot of is color skewing in the highlights. I knew that this was something I'd be getting with the camera, but I was wondering if you or anyone else has found any improvements on this when tweaking the color level settings.

Cheers, and thanks again for the hard work you put in straight out of the gate.

The setting that I have found that minimizes color shifting in highlights is by using cinematone1 gamma and cinematone2 color mode. I have been very impressed with this setting so far especially compared to the AF100 which seems to have worse color shifting in highlights in pretty much all gamma/matrix modes.

The only thing with this camera (also I keep seeing this on the F3) that I have not figured out is how to make bright bright saturated reds and probably other colors not look weird when they clip hard to white. This is only something I see when looking straight at red lights or bright objects lit only with bright primary red lights. I have to test this further. It may be related to the way the FS100 and F3 without S-log implemented their gamma modes to clip the top 3 stops of highlight latitude off the sensor. So far it hasnt been a big problem, and I shot with heavy primary red filtration on a light for a music video last weekend. The issue only showed up in one shot with a shiny object and the specular reflections of the red light occasionally looked weird when they went from bright red to white.

FelixGER
07-22-2011, 07:05 AM
After endless tests my conclusion is that the cinetone 1 gamma with cinetone 2 color is the only adequate way to get a look close to film.
I refused to use cinegamma 1 because of the apparent drop in brightness. Iīm getting the same great skin tones from both gammas but something in standard gamma always looked videoish. I was never satisfied with the whole color rendition.

Example: When shooting in standard gamma using a moderate flat setting (not RedLogFilm style!) Iīm raising the contrast in post and desaturate the colors a little to get right skin tones, other colors like green and especially red are still oversaturated a lot! I didnīt understand this until I switched to cinegamma 1. The skin tones are identical to standard gamma but all the other colors are less saturated. Red looks like it should.

So hereīs my final PP for narrative work:

Black Level: +4
Gamma: Cinematone 1
Black Gamma: High ; +6
Knee: 90; +1
Colormode: Cinematone 2
Color Level: -6
Color Phase: -1
Color Depth: Red -2
WB Shift: LB-CC ; LB -2
Detail: 0 (Didnīt test this, yet)

With this setting, I use a very very soft S-curve to raise the contrast a little and 3 way Color-Correction. No essentail need for secondary CC.

Edit: Wrong Knee value. I meant +1, not +2. +1 doesnīt cost you DR, it just doesnīt record so much superwhites.
Edit2: Altered Black Level

stevedocmaker
07-22-2011, 08:42 AM
After endless tests my conclusion is that the cinetone 1 gamma with cinetone 2 color is the only adequate way to get a look close to film.
I refused to use cinegamma 1 because of the apparent drop in brightness. Iīm getting the same great skin tones from both gammas but something in standard gamma always looked videoish. I was never satisfied with the whole color rendition.

Example: When shooting in standard gamma using a moderate flat setting (not RedLogFilm style!) Iīm raising the contrast in post and desaturate the colors a little to get right skin tones, other colors like green and especially red are still oversaturated a lot! I didnīt understand this until I switched to cinegamma 1. The skin tones are identical to standard gamma but all the other colors are less saturated. Red looks like it should.

So hereīs my final PP for narrative work:

Black Level: +6
Gamma: Cinematone 1
Black Gamma: High ; +6
Knee: 90; +2
Colormode: Cinematone 2
Color Level: -6
Color Phase: -1
Color Depth: Red -2
WB Shift: LB-CC ; LB -2
Detail: 0 (Didnīt test this, yet)

With this setting, I use a very very soft S-curve to raise the contrast a little and 3 way Color-Correction. No essentail need for secondary CC.

Why the +6 Black Level? As far as I can tell, this basically raises the floor of your blacks, this value seems extreme to me.

FelixGER
07-22-2011, 09:25 AM
Two reasons:

1. I donīt like ultra deep blacks. I like it a little milky. Just a bit.

2.When I apply an s-curve on a clip, I want to raise contrast in the midtones without crushing the blacks or blowing the whites. But the ends of the curve are unfortunately affected too (Maybe Iīm doing it wrong). When using Black Level 0 any S-curve throws out a some bits of information in the highlights and shadows. To keep informations in the shadows I use Black Level +6.

stevedocmaker
07-22-2011, 02:53 PM
I understand about your taste in blacks. But it seems to me you can always raise the floor with no loss in data using levels. As for the s-curve, perhaps it depends on what platform you grade on. I've been using a value of +2 and am happy with the results after grading in PP CS5.5. One thing I noticed when I tried a higher value (ie. +6), after levels were applied to bring the floor down, I could see stepped gaps in the histogram, which seems like a bad thing to me.

I suppose one could encounter some lighting scenario whereby raising the floor (with a high black level) gets you more DR, but I have not found that yet. Everything I've tried suggests that the black level control has nothing to do with the DR of the capture, just the processing of the data (which may be true for everything in the Picture Styles, for all I can tell).

David G. Smith
07-22-2011, 02:59 PM
Two reasons:

1. I donīt like ultra deep blacks. I like it a little milky. Just a bit.

2.When I apply an s-curve on a clip, I want to raise contrast in the midtones without crushing the blacks or blowing the whites. But the ends of the curve are unfortunately affected too (Maybe Iīm doing it wrong). When using Black Level 0 any S-curve throws out a some bits of information in the highlights and shadows. To keep informations in the shadows I use Black Level +6.

What app are you grading in?

FelixGER
07-22-2011, 03:28 PM
Sony Vegas. I know, itīs not the first choice, but I mainly do documentary work for a living so I want a fast NLE. Vegasī render speeds compared to Premiere CS5 are like comparing Warp drive with impulse power...^^

I already retested it. I lowered it to +4. Works too. Thanks for the input! :)

matteo1
07-22-2011, 06:35 PM
Just a little curious about Detail. Has anybody played with it yet? Any thoughts beyond leaving it at zero?

David G. Smith
07-22-2011, 06:53 PM
Just a little curious about Detail. Has anybody played with it yet? Any thoughts beyond leaving it at zero?

I haven't... and I am gun shy about it to be honest, after having played with similar settings with a HD-DSLR, with results I was not too pleased with. However, the more that I use the FS100, the less importance preconceived notions, developed using other cameras, are. So I do want to play with detail. Just ain't gotten to it yet.

FelixGER
07-24-2011, 06:31 PM
I did some testing with the PP I posted on how far you can go, before you run into trouble with the 8-bit avchd.
Itīs pretty amazing! Here I have a short high contrast scene, where I pulled back a lot of detail in the sky and at the same time introduced heavy contrast. No banding issues!

http://www.steinhardtverlag.de/Felix/vergleich.mp4
First few seconds = Original MTS (Nothing is clipping), then graded version. Only contrast, no colors

Mitch Gross
07-25-2011, 12:12 PM
Andy's new scene files are up!

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/07/25/fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/

MattDavis
07-25-2011, 12:39 PM
I pulled back a lot of detail in the sky

I wonder if this is the analogue of an EX1's CineGamma 4? Hooray! Excellent - dialling it in now!

FWIW, I'm glad Germany also has that 'living inside of a tupperware sandwichbox' cloud pattern, Cine4 was the one setting that handled it with grace on the EX1. Over here in the UK, we get an awful lot of that. With CG4, a bit of MBL grad and a light vignette, it can look almost interesting without burying your subject in a black hole.

FelixGER
07-25-2011, 01:20 PM
Andy's new scene files are up!

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/07/25/fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/

In every setting green and blue is dialed almost completely down. Iīll test this right away.

And he uses Cinegamma 2??? Hmmm. Be right back^^

Postmaster
07-25-2011, 03:06 PM
All black levels on the negative side?

I got it cranked up to 6 in almost every PP, so I can control my highlights without loosing too much in the shadows.

Hmmm....^^

bkmvincent
07-25-2011, 04:43 PM
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I can't find it anywhere: Is there a way to change the names of the picture profiles? Can't figure it out...

Rick Burnett
07-25-2011, 05:32 PM
I don't see a way myself.

Neex
07-25-2011, 05:51 PM
And seems to be using a lot of cinegamma 2, but in his previous range test, it seemed like the same curve as cinegamma 1 but with crushed blacks. If those profiles are intended at all for grading, it doesn't seem to make sense to use cinegamma 2.

FelixGER
07-25-2011, 07:34 PM
I got it cranked up to 6 in almost every PP, so I can control my highlights without loosing too much in the shadows.


Exactly! I have to bring the brightest part down from 245 to 235 and I do that with the negative gain function in Vegas which affects the whole curve.

Postmaster
07-25-2011, 09:18 PM
I don't think those profiles are intended for grading. The Techniclor to some degree maybe, but not with negative black levels or I missed something.

Frank

Scot Olson
07-25-2011, 11:25 PM
I have only had the FS100 for a couple of days so my experience with FS100 PPs is limited. In testing today with a chart and waveform monitor I would initially concur with Andy's numbers and run blacks at -3. Even if you cap the lens you are not crushing the Blacks at -3. If you raise them you are wasting the limited 8 bit color space that is available to record into. A flat image as in a Technicolor profile might look like the blacks are raised on a monitor but that look should be due to a flat gamma curve and not raising blacks.

jenningsp
07-26-2011, 03:57 AM
i agree with scot about wasting the 8-bits. ideally you'd want your pure black (capped lens) sitting just above 0IRE and pure white sitting at what ever the super white limit is. and then have a nice normal looking picture with a nice smooth roll off to white. so not super contrasty and not super flat and washed out either with hard clipping whites.


at least that's what i've found over the years gives you the best idea of your exposure on set and the best results in post.


we just got the fs100's in stock here in melbourne today. i'm gonna go check them out this week

matteo1
08-02-2011, 08:49 PM
Any more thoughts on where the blacks should end up?

speedracerlo
08-02-2011, 10:07 PM
because of this contradiction, I changed my black levels to 0
can't go wrong with that

Postmaster
08-03-2011, 01:44 AM
I agree with scot about wasting the 8-bits. ideally you'd want your pure black (capped lens) sitting just above 0IRE and pure white sitting at what ever the super white limit is. and then have a nice normal looking picture with a nice smooth roll off to white. so not super contrasty and not super flat and washed out either with hard clipping whites.


at least that's what i've found over the years gives you the best idea of your exposure on set and the best results in post.



First of all, I would really appreciate it, when you would just use the normal font and color. Black letters on dark gray may be somewhat stylish, but hard to read.

Regarding the Abel PPs.

If you are in a controlled environment, yes - they would probably work just fine - if not, we have a problem Huston.

If you have to adjust your highlights to bring them down to a useful level, with the negative black settings, you will crush your shadows to a state, where you are not able, to recover detail in post .
So if you have to you use something like +6 on your blacks, to compress them back in the 8 bit room.

Frank

jeics
08-03-2011, 02:22 PM
Frank, what about your Epiphany (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/epiphany)?

Postmaster
08-04-2011, 12:55 AM
Wasn't an epiphany after all, more a mirage.
Sorry folks, but it just didnīt work in the end.

Frank

DOSMedia
08-04-2011, 12:16 PM
because of this contradiction, I changed my black levels to 0
can't go wrong with that

DITTO! haha.

I was shooting with them at +6 as well and really did not mind the look, but I changed them to 0 after reading the last several pages of this. Seems to be the safe way to go.

Now I need to find some time to go test this out and compare.


The one thing I really did miss about shooting on DSLRs was the ability to really control your image on camera like this. I loved being able to lock in a great look with the HVX for minimal CC.

Gary W
08-05-2011, 01:45 AM
So, have we come to a list of final pp settings that most of us agree on now?

Postmaster
08-05-2011, 04:08 AM
Nah, it depends too much on taste and workflow.

Frank

stevedocmaker
08-05-2011, 06:53 AM
I've been testing with Standard and Cinegamma1 pretty extensively, and I've been able to match scenes shot with either setting to the other setting in post, using the luma curve (CS5.5), with really minimal curve adjustments (in other words, the differences are not as great as they appear to the eye). However, the Standard setting yields a brighter image, so I've been stopping down with this setting to match the exposure with Cinegamma1 in my tests. It's interesting though, that the shape of the adjustment curve is not quite what I expected from seeing the Able Cine tests. Yes the Cinegamma1 adds more apparent contrast (black crushing), but it seems to try to keep the upper-middle values a bit lighter in relation to the upper-lights and near-blacks.

My conclusion is that in either very dark lighting, or very high contrast lighting where I want shadow detail, I'll use the Standard curve, but in most other lighting situations I'll use the Cinegamma1 curve.

I have to say I am very pleased at the amount of control this camera provides to the user regarding the look of the image.

Matthew Bennett
08-05-2011, 07:54 AM
For having only a few curves, they did a great job at Sony.

The cinegamma 1 and 2 profiles are very nice pre-graded sort of options.

I agree, at night, You'd want to use a flatter curve, and then during the day or in a flat light situation, use those cinegammas and enjoy the contrast!!


I wish there was a superflat or log type curve in there, to explore once the recorders are in play.

Dermot
08-05-2011, 08:32 AM
with the tools i use for gradeing there's a choice that most edit systems don't offer, i can chose to work in;
444 and no gamma correction
444 with a number of input LUT's (REC709, REDlog, ARRI, PrintDensity clamped and unclamped, on and on)
422 with REC709 as the input LUT... this is what most edit systems offer & usualy the only thing on offer

But bringing in my FS100 footage into a 444 project with no input LUT resualts in a super-flat image to start from

I can get to about the same place by using a reverse LUT (LIN to LOG) inside a 422 project, to undo the REC709 input LUT that's a part of the REC709 standard

You might want to test that .. the footage is a ton flatter than you think if you can only get to it without the REC709 LUT applied

Oh and the "Technicolor look" from AbleCine is my clear fav when used with the corosponding LUT to unfold it, but you have to be in linear first or you will be applying both a 709 LUT and then on top of it a Technicolor LUT.. that's pretty useless

The noticable thing with the AbleCine "Tech Look" is how the skys shifted from cyan on all the other "looks", to a sweet fluffy blue...

I do run the saturation up a bit from where they put it, that's becuase i find it even more difficult to pull clean secondaries off de-saturated footage, it's already hard enough with such compressed footage, so why add even more grief to the process?

I do understand the concept of not clipping a colour channel - but de-sat'n to such an extent just brings in it's own issues

My starting point is the AbleCine TechLook with sat up a bit

d/

cuervo
08-05-2011, 10:36 AM
with the tools i use for gradeing there's a choice that most edit systems don't offer, i can chose to work in;


But bringing in my FS100 footage into a 444 project with no input LUT resualts in a super-flat image to start from

I can get to about the same place by using a reverse LUT (LIN to LOG) inside a 422 project, to undo the REC709 input LUT that's a part of the REC709 standard

You might want to test that .. the footage is a ton flatter than you think if you can only get to it without the REC709 LUT applied

Oh and the "Technicolor look" from AbleCine is my clear fav when used with the corosponding LUT to unfold it, but you have to be in linear first or you will be applying both a 709 LUT and then on top of it a Technicolor LUT.. that's pretty useless


d/
Holy moley! Thanx for this. I had tried the Technicolor LUT in After Effects on the AbelCine profile and was getting a ton of hi contrast results. Setting the footage to linear light solved that problem. I like the results. And, as you observed, a tad bit of additional saturation is needed. I also run a higher black gamma setting than abelcine recommended. It really does help protecting those shadows when grading the overall image.

jay_switzerland
08-06-2011, 01:54 PM
If you have to adjust your highlights to bring them down to a useful level, with the negative black settings, you will crush your shadows to a state, where you are not able, to recover detail in post .


To my surprise, this is not true. Have a look: http://vimeo.com/27381096

You can recover all shadow details even with black level -15.

Regards,
Janos.

DM_rider
08-06-2011, 03:32 PM
To my surprise, this is not true. Have a look: http://vimeo.com/27381096

You can recover all shadow details even with black level -15.

Regards,
Janos.

Along with the introduction of lots of noise.

jay_switzerland
08-06-2011, 03:44 PM
As you can see in the video, signal-to-noise ratio is the same, regardless of black level setting. It doesn't matter if we have black level @ +15 or -15, the shadow information stays the same.

So black level -15 is the way to go. (at least with standard-gamma which I was testing above).

Neex
08-07-2011, 09:43 AM
Along with the introduction of lots of noise. Well, yeah. That's the point.

jay_switzerland
08-07-2011, 09:53 AM
Well, yeah. That's the point.

Not exactly. Noise is the same, except that you are just wasting 8bit-space if you have your blacks above 0 IRE.

Postmaster
08-07-2011, 12:06 PM
Just want to share that grab from a production we wrapped today.
Shot with AbelCine "Varicam" PP
Glass: Rokinor/Samyang 85mm/1,4

38010

Gotta love that camera.

Frank

Gary W
08-11-2011, 06:33 PM
with the tools i use for gradeing there's a choice that most edit systems don't offer, i can chose to work in;
444 and no gamma correction
444 with a number of input LUT's (REC709, REDlog, ARRI, PrintDensity clamped and unclamped, on and on)
422 with REC709 as the input LUT... this is what most edit systems offer & usualy the only thing on offer

But bringing in my FS100 footage into a 444 project with no input LUT resualts in a super-flat image to start from

I can get to about the same place by using a reverse LUT (LIN to LOG) inside a 422 project, to undo the REC709 input LUT that's a part of the REC709 standard

You might want to test that .. the footage is a ton flatter than you think if you can only get to it without the REC709 LUT applied

Oh and the "Technicolor look" from AbleCine is my clear fav when used with the corosponding LUT to unfold it, but you have to be in linear first or you will be applying both a 709 LUT and then on top of it a Technicolor LUT.. that's pretty useless

The noticable thing with the AbleCine "Tech Look" is how the skys shifted from cyan on all the other "looks", to a sweet fluffy blue...

I do run the saturation up a bit from where they put it, that's becuase i find it even more difficult to pull clean secondaries off de-saturated footage, it's already hard enough with such compressed footage, so why add even more grief to the process?

I do understand the concept of not clipping a colour channel - but de-sat'n to such an extent just brings in it's own issues

My starting point is the AbleCine TechLook with sat up a bit

d/

So what is your setting for saturation?

LiamR
08-15-2011, 10:57 PM
Got my fs100 today, and so far I am liking the look of this picture profile:


http://www.vimeo.com/27756821

That would be AbelCine Cinetone1.

Postmaster
08-17-2011, 06:24 AM
F
If you have to adjust your highlights to bring them down to a useful level, with the negative black settings, you will crush your shadows to a state, where you are not able, to recover detail in post .
So if you have to you use something like +6 on your blacks, to compress them back in the 8 bit room.

Frank

Okay, I take everything back and stand corrected. Forget what I said.

After some more extensive testing and endless waveform gazing, here is my (hopefully last) PP receipt:

I ended up using two different PPs most of the time now.

One has the knee set all the way up to blow highlights if I want, and one has the knee to 75%


GlenColor1 highlights protected:

Black Level: variable
Gamma: CinemaTone2
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 75% / Slope = 0
Color Mode: Type = CinemaTone2 / Level =8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = +1 / Manual Set = Off

GlenColor2 highlights blowout allowed.

Black Level: variable
Gamma: CinemaTone2
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 102.5% / Slope = -1
Color Mode: Type = CinemaTone2 / Level =8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = +1 / Manual Set = Off

What I do is:

1. Dialing in my DOF for the scene.
2. Correct the highlights with an variable ND
3. bring the black levels to zero via the "Black Level" PP setting.

Number 3 is a bit awkward and time consuming, but the only way, to use as much of the 8 bit room as possible.
Believe me, itīs worth the fiddling in the menu. (for fast jobs or run&gun, I use one of the other presets, depending on if they go trough post or not.)

My further workflow goes like this:

Convert everything to Cineform (Film)
Drop them all in Premiere and start editing.
When Iīm happy with the edit, I open first light and do the
primary CC in FirstLight - set "Linear" on in and output - maybe also apply a look (LUT) there.
If something special is needed, I also use Magic Bullet or Mojo in Premiere on top of everything.

Iīm also experimenting with an extremely flat look - that can use the s-log LUT,
but Iīm not there yet, and I`m not sure if that ever really works or even make sense.

Frank

Dermot
08-17-2011, 08:48 AM
So what is your setting for saturation?

Hey Gary, i had to get into the office as that's where the camera lives...

I have it set at -3

d

Gary W
08-17-2011, 08:56 AM
Great, Thanks

stevedocmaker
08-17-2011, 10:01 AM
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5

Frank

Interesting color depth settings. What are you trying to accomplish with these values?

Postmaster
08-17-2011, 10:21 AM
Overall I tried to get in the neighborhood of the Canon 5D MKII Technicolor Picture Style, but with some more color.
Charts, vectorscope/waveform monitor, tweaking, trial and error and a free weekend :cheesy:

Frank

Elton
08-17-2011, 10:29 AM
That's awesome Postmaster. I appreciate all the interesting recipes.

Mark Crabtree
08-17-2011, 11:11 AM
I use Knee at 75 with +3 slope. O slope clips the highlights too quickly for me.I also use black level at high range set to +15. I understand the logic of filling the 8 bit bucket, but lifting blacks using range high lifts more than just blacks, it lifts the entire shadow range almost to the mids. There is a great advantage to this in post grading because it's very easy to use LIFT in CineForm to move the darkest blacks down to zero while leaving a tremendous amount of noiseless shadow detail. Also, since AVCHD puts most of it's detail in mids and highs, with low detail in darks, it seems to make the most sense to give the codec as few blacks as possible and replacing them in post.

Postmaster
08-17-2011, 03:11 PM
That's awesome Postmaster. I appreciate all the interesting recipes.

Glad you guys like it.

Frank

gianx80
08-18-2011, 05:57 AM
3. bring the black levels to zero via the "Black Level" PP setting.


I'm a newbie, so could you please explain to me what does the quoted sentence exactly mean?

LiamR
08-18-2011, 06:53 AM
I'm a newbie, so could you please explain to me what does the quoted sentence exactly mean?

Go into the picture profile on the camera (located on the left hand side interface through the button, appropriately titled "picture profile")
Go into which ever Picture Profile you are using, 1,2,3,4, etc... then find you way to 'Black Level' and bring it back down to the setting 0.

cuervo
08-18-2011, 07:44 AM
Go into the picture profile on the camera (located on the left hand side interface through the button, appropriately titled "picture profile")
Go into which ever Picture Profile you are using, 1,2,3,4, etc... then find you way to 'Black Level' and bring it back down to the setting 0.

well, not exactly. this is as good a starting point as any. i think what frank means is that for every scene, you have to look at the black levels and adjust them so as to not crush the shadows. unfortunately, the LCD displays on these prosumer cams really aren't good enough to make an adjustment to your shadow details. If you're in the studio, a quality WFM is the best way to adjust the black levels. If you're in the field, run and gun, setting a value is based on experience. That's why a good videographer gets paid the big $$$$....right?:shocked:

Postmaster
08-18-2011, 08:14 AM
Right, thatīs why the word "variable" black levels shows up on my presets. Adjust per scene.

And yeah, my camera monitor has an WFM on board - without that you can only guess.
On the other hand, I found that 0 to -3 is where I mostly end up - just to give you an idea.

Frank

gianx80
08-18-2011, 09:30 AM
Go into the picture profile on the camera (located on the left hand side interface through the button, appropriately titled "picture profile")
Go into which ever Picture Profile you are using, 1,2,3,4, etc... then find you way to 'Black Level' and bring it back down to the setting 0.

but he wrote

Black Level: variable

so or it's variable or it's zero ... I don't understand

cuervo
08-18-2011, 09:31 AM
Setting the black level is a little problemattic without a WFM. Setting Knee and Slope is a little more convenient. If you set the zebra to 100% and the exposure to show zebra on the hi-lites, then one can go to the PP of choice, then adjust the knee and slope to make the zebra in the hi-lites just disappear. Watching the monitor, you can tell, pretty easily when the hi-lites get blown out.

Postmaster
08-18-2011, 10:43 AM
but he wrote

Black Level: variable

so or it's variable or it's zero ... I don't understand

Okay, I try to make it a bit clearer.

With "back to zero" I mend the zero line on the WFM.
That can be - depending on your scene +2 or -6 ore anything else in the Black Level setting

hope that helps,

Frank

morgan_moore
08-18-2011, 12:26 PM
Im still struggling with highlight rolloff

Here we see an image with a a fairly extreme dynamic range, also the beauty dish is a really nasty test item because of its tonal roll off

Ideally I would be exposing near the card and letting the highlghts blow

I cant get rid of the stepping in the roll to white at the top end, yet if I stop down to protect my highlights I dont think the card is recoverable in post - certainly not by any tech I have Access too

Any comments?

Best effort - out of camera



38634

With mids pushed and tops desaturated..

38635

And ungraded frame with the highlights retained uncorrectable IMO..

38636

morgan_moore
08-18-2011, 02:50 PM
I cant really conclude anything !


http://vimeo.com/27878451

Dermot
08-18-2011, 02:56 PM
Can you bring in the files in Linear, not 709?

there's so much more to play with if you don't kneecap it at the start

d

morgan_moore
08-18-2011, 03:06 PM
eh?

Postmaster
08-18-2011, 04:04 PM
Morgan, do you have a WFM?

Correct me if Iīm wrong, but from what I can see, after Viemeo did his "magic" - you highlights ar way over any healthy level.

Frank

Dermot
08-18-2011, 04:12 PM
In the system i use for gradeing/finishing i have to chose an input LUT, normaly for 709, it's 709.. but if i chose Linear, or REDlog, or Alexa800, or anyone of a huge pile of LUT's in have in a folder for input then the media does not have 2.2 gamma curve added..

this makes major diffrence in what you can see and work with from any camera.. i don't know FCP or PP, but i understand you can chose linear in PP, and i think you are hosed in both FCP & MC.. not sure about Vegas, i have not played with the licence i got with the camera..

If you can interpret the media in linear then, and really only then can you see what's really in the shadows, noise or detail or some of both...

Useing linear or 709 really depends upon your target deliverables to some extent, but i still am gradeing in Linear today, a combo of Red & Alexa, using Arri LUT's for the Alexa, and PD985 for the RED, output for this is for digitalcinema so i'm working in P3...

many choices beyond 709, even if your target is 709.

d

morgan_moore
08-18-2011, 10:16 PM
Morgan, do you have a WFM?

Correct me if Iīm wrong, but from what I can see, after Viemeo did his "magic" - you highlights ar way over any healthy level.

Frank

Im constructing a test - what happens if your highlights are way over a healthy level?

I see that one is going to have (small quantities) of unhealthy highlights in many images hopefully in a much smaller % of the image in reality

(unless you are shooting with a truck of HMI for every exterior)

Be that sun reflections on shiny objects, a blown window in an INT

If a camera does not roll to white smoothly it makes a massive difference to 'real world' DR if you have to protect every highlight, every reflection, every practical source in frame

In these tests im only interested in the roll off

BTW I have tried some other tests and am likeing your PP as there seem to be a few less flouro colours than mine at the top end

----

Dermot - seems like Im not able to access the same level of post that you are Im on FCP

S

morgan_moore
08-18-2011, 10:29 PM
This is an example image (shot on my 5d)

It is a realistic situation - a RnG job, we see a practical in the image an also a blown window

There is some but minimal 'Gack' or 'Plastic' around the practical and the window

I had to let them go to blown or the job would have completely changed in nature ie requiring a big lighting rig, ND of the window or something

As it was I used no light, reflection or anything, so was able to be in and out of that location in 2 mins

Im just not getting that roll off with my FS yet..

38673

Postmaster
08-19-2011, 01:04 AM
Ahhh, okay, now Iīm seeing what you are looking for.

morgan_moore
08-19-2011, 01:35 AM
Indeed - IMO for the camera to really perform - utilise fully the great low light (and availability of fast glass) you need to be able to control incedental highlights

or you are just back to evrything taking half a day to shoot any locaton - I could do that with my EX1/Letus in 2008

S

squig
08-19-2011, 02:22 AM
Im still struggling with highlight rolloff



What do you think of the highlights compared to the 5D/7D? I thought the 7D looked pretty good compared to the F3 in the Zacuto highlight test.

morgan_moore
08-19-2011, 02:29 AM
Currently In this aspect and this aspect alone, I think the canons are better

although looking at the image above maybe they are not that good either (see the flouro light)

S

gianx80
08-19-2011, 04:58 AM
Okay, I try to make it a bit clearer.

With "back to zero" I mend the zero line on the WFM.
That can be - depending on your scene +2 or -6 ore anything else in the Black Level setting

hope that helps,

Frank

Thanks, I missed some posts. It's all clear now :)

NeedCreative
08-19-2011, 05:50 AM
Currently In this aspect and this aspect alone, I think the canons are better

although looking at the image above maybe they are not that good either (see the flouro light)

S

I wholeheartedly agree. In that aspect alone. I find the highlights on the FS100 just aren't as nice. But that's controllable...

nyvz
08-19-2011, 06:41 AM
I absolutely disagree. I've shot extensively with the 5D/7D and in my experience with the picture style options available in camera, you are always stuck balancing highlight handling with contrast, where with -4 contrast you have hard clippy highlights but good latitude and with 0 contrast you have a better highlight rolloff but less latitude and too much contrast for most situations. And both contrast settings still handle highlights worse than the FS100 with a carefully set picture profile. For this reason I had to build my own picture style gamma curve for the 7D in PSE, which is a great option to have, but that has plenty of its own limitations.

I've had the FS100 for 2 months now and have shot with it quite a bit and I've found with the right picture profile settings, I've never seen a prosumer camera with such great looking highlights with the small exception of blown highly saturated primary color highlights (F3 and FS100 both have this issue).

At the moment I use cinematone1 gamma, 75% +1 knee, and cinematone2 matrix. This knee setting also helps limit highlights to 100ire to avoid various post workflows clipping superwhites (had a lot of issues with this on 7D/AF100).

morgan_moore
08-19-2011, 08:49 AM
I.. also helps limit highlights to 100ire to avoid various post workflows clipping superwhites

I have been mulling this and wondering if it is one of the 'problems'

---

As for the roll off I was more referring to the 5d being better - less so the 7d (now sold)

It seems almost to be proportional to chip size - in my years as a still tog it was always a problem with APS stills cams, not really beaten until the D3 which, changed my whole approach to lighting, before the D3 it was protect protect protect,

I amy have to go back to that for this gen of motion cams

S

stevedocmaker
08-22-2011, 10:31 AM
Currently In this aspect and this aspect alone, I think the canons are better

although looking at the image above maybe they are not that good either (see the flouro light)

S

I've been shooting with the FS100 for two or three months, and if you limit the discussion to highlight rolloff where the highlights get clipped, I find this to be true (FS100 vs 5D), but barely. I carry both cameras and I almost always shoot with the FS100 first, and even when I've thought I might have problems with rolloff in a scene, I've been able to correct it adequately in post as long as I keep the exposure as low as possible.

I almost always use gamma-cinematone1, knee 105%, slope 0, color mode cinematone2. Using standard gamma (knee 85%, slope -2) and stopping down might get you a hair more latitude. If you can carry a WFM and use Frank's black-level technique, you should be able to get a workable image far more times than not, as good as the 5D at least. And the 5D has so many other limitations it hardly seems mentioning in the same breath (Canon glass aside).

This is arguably the most challenging issue for any digital camera to deal with, and if you look at the Zacuto test you have to spend at least five times as much on a rig (f3 with s-log) before you see real improvement over either the FS100 or the Canons.

MattDavis
10-08-2011, 09:05 AM
Like many of us here, I've shot enough test charts and stared at enough WFMs and histograms to contemplate burying my head in soft peat for a couple of years for some sort of rest and respite.

But if anything sticks in the mind, it has to be that Cinematone is absolutely NOT CineGamma, and Knee should be taken round the back of the barn and shot.

I'll now relent and understand why the F3 is more than twice the price of the FS100; the little gap between 100% and 109% was where the magic happens with the EX1. The FS100, even with a well adjusted knee and using the histogram to pull down the blacks, still leans to plasticity (thanks Sam) in highlights of the Z7 variety and clips reds before anything else. Not as bad as the AF101, but as time goes on, I'm sure the knee only affects brightness and doesn't tell the colour what's going on.

Sigh. It's like coming to terms with the Z1 image with Black Stretch. It's as good as it's going to get, so deal with it and work with it. Don't bother trying to be clever with 100-109, don't try to be clever with black gamma, just plant your blacks an inch above the ground. It's just like Frank has been telling us all this time.

So maybe, after all, the FS100 is not the sort of camera that likes to shoot 'flat'. (Okay, cue chorus of 'told you so!')

Has anyone done the opposite - put positive slope on Knee over, say, 90% - and exposed religiously for peak white on 109% on zebras? It does seem like dancing with the devil, but negative knee vs good ol' CineGamma (EX1 stylee) isn't quite getting there for me.

Richard Allen Crook
10-08-2011, 09:15 AM
Like many of us here, I've shot enough test charts and stared at enough WFMs and histograms to contemplate burying my head in soft peat for a couple of years for some sort of rest and respite.But if anything sticks in the mind, it has to be that Cinematone is absolutely NOT CineGamma, and Knee should be taken round the back of the barn and shot.I'll now relent and understand why the F3 is more than twice the price of the FS100; the little gap between 100% and 109% was where the magic happens with the EX1. The FS100, even with a well adjusted knee and using the histogram to pull down the blacks, still leans to plasticity (thanks Sam) in highlights of the Z7 variety and clips reds before anything else. Not as bad as the AF101, but as time goes on, I'm sure the knee only affects brightness and doesn't tell the colour what's going on.Sigh. It's like coming to terms with the Z1 image with Black Stretch. It's as good as it's going to get, so deal with it and work with it. Don't bother trying to be clever with 100-109, don't try to be clever with black gamma, just plant your blacks an inch above the ground. It's just like Frank has been telling us all this time.So maybe, after all, the FS100 is not the sort of camera that likes to shoot 'flat'. (Okay, cue chorus of 'told you so!') Matt, what setting do you believe gets us the best result? I happen to like Standard vs cinematone, seems to get more info into the picture.

MattDavis
10-08-2011, 11:13 AM
I happen to like Standard vs cinematone, seems to get more info into the picture.

The crushing, awful truth: if you turn PP off, it's really not going to destroy your picture. Not like the EX1, which really only came 'on song' with CineGammas IMHO. Even the detail settings aren't quite so critical - EX1 could rip its own picture apart with bad detail settings, and blotch out skies with bad knee and Std Gammas...

Well, like I said, I hoped to shoot fairly flat, compressing highlights and picking up shadow levels - a bit like an EX1. This isn't working out as well as I expected, because when I shoot with a flat profile and correct in post, and compare it with a more 'finished' profile, I'm not sure if I'm getting any more on the FS100 (whereas you would get more if you used, say, Technicolor on a 5D, and you get -IMHO - nicer pictures on the EX1 using the CineGammas, even if you need to nudge down the midtones.

So... I'm concurring with Postmaster: CinemaTone2 with a smidgen (teeny weeny bit) of Knee, expose for highlights using Zebras, adjust your black levels using the histogram (I don't have a monitor with a WFM).

http://frankglencairn.wordpress.com/2011/08/17/new-glencolor-picture-profiles-for-the-sony-fs100/

CinemaTone 2 can be dangerous if just slapped in - too contrasty, burying black detail down below the foundations, yes it does a broad tonal range, but they're bunched in the blacks and the whites, no beefy midtone separation. So you need the knee and the black level - and perhaps black gamma, and you need to adjust blacks like you'd adjust any other exposure control. CinemaTone 1 is like CT2 but dialled back a bit; thought I'd be on CT1, but leaning back into CT2 now.

After initial good results, I continued to play with ITU709 with Black Gamma and all sorts of knee settings, and whilst 'nice' most of the time it could bite back with colour levels - red channel clipping, mostly. Horrible. Definitely into AF101 territory.

As my experimentation goes on, Picture Profiles seem to be more personal preference in the edit suite, rather than major technical production decision. The FS100 is more Z7-school than EX1-school. Darn. I wanted an EX1 with Canon 7D glass. That isn't actually what the FS100 is, and I think the answer is "$15k" aka F3. But having said that, the FS100 is still delivering very sellable pictures...

Richard Allen Crook
10-08-2011, 03:38 PM
Good info Matt, thanks. I guess those settings seem to be keeping with the ideology that getting it pretty close in camera in an 8bit range, especially with regards to contrast, is the way to go, only applying minor grading in post...right? Everything inside of me screams that cinematone 2 drops the mid tones waaaaay to low and further separates them from the highlights....which is very very hard to correct in post, rather than sticking with standard and creating the look in post. I'm really surprised folks are using cinematone2 for grading. My scopes show everything toward the black range including skin tones, and the extreme slope toward the highlights. I thought we all wanted a relatively neutral profile that standard offers?

MattDavis
10-08-2011, 04:06 PM
I may be proved wrong, but my rough tests with an Xrite Colorchecker seem to show that the ITU709 and Standard profiles seem to have slightly less dynamic range. That's with charts. With images, they look absolutely fine - in a Z7 sort of way (losing a little detail in clouds, shadows fill in quickly). Doesn't have that 'luminosity. With the CineGamas, you can see the broader spread of tones leaping out sideways on the histogram. Aha, I thought, surely that's LOWER dynamic range - like you say, wa-ay too extreme. Then, as the hours rolled by, flipping between shots, scrabbling through notes, it's almost, maybe, the same dynamic range pinned over different contrast settings. Sigh. Arguing for astroturf, against astroturf, then suddenly the brain IS astroturf (c.f. Larry Miller (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPyfqAKf6o))...

In the Z1 days, we were warned off CinemaTone, and the rule was to engage black stretch at the expense of a little noise. The EX1 came from a different design team than the Z series, and I think a lot of work went into the 'Standard' settings so it wouldn't need much tweaking for 'straight out of the box' work.

But it's the relatively noise free blacks and a high black gamma that make the CinemaTone things get interesting again. You can boost the blacks quite a bit and not get into trouble.

After all, I just want that lovely expensive S-log look of exquisitely controlled highlights, luminous skin tones, no AF100 yellow rings around dabs of tippex on people's foreheads... I don't mind jumping through a few hoops of fire to get it.

Richard Allen Crook
10-09-2011, 01:53 PM
Did you just post a picture profile video on Vimeo, Matt? If that's yours, kudos...very well done. (http://vimeo.com/30252203) But alas I am even more confused. it says cinema tone is more contrasted than standard or itu709...which would mean effectively that there is less dynamic range? I'm hearing you say: "cinematone adds more contrast" and then "standard has less dynamic range.". Isn't that contradictory? Sorry to be such and idiot on this, haha. And I'm not arguing, just trying to understand. :)

Postmaster
10-09-2011, 02:27 PM
Yeah, good job Matt.

Frank

Richard Allen Crook
10-09-2011, 04:41 PM
Okay did some testing: tried both Standard and Cinematone 1 imported into Premiere Cs5 and color graded. Here's what I came up with.

Standard DOES appear to give you more latitude while shooting. I see much detail in shadows and the highlights are good. When I switch to Cinematone, the midtones and shadows are pushed down toward the blacks. It gives, clearly, a more authentic representation of what you see in the naked eye. I recorded both version in different lighting scenarios and the pulled them into premiere for grading.

Here's what I found out. Even though Standard LOOKS like it's bringing more detail in the picture, it's actually just pushing the midtones up, and crushing blacks more than Cinematone does. There is also some serious noise in the midtones perhaps due to pushing the midtones higher. So when you think you're getting more info in the standard setting...you're actually getting the accurate info in the Cinematone setting and the standard is simply pushing the midtones up.

Of course this is just what I've gained from my experiments today, but I think I see what Matt is getting at. The standard seems to make a much brighter picture...adding the most information but it's a little deceiving when just looking in the monitors. Pulling the clips into an editor and color grading the stuff will show you which profile is better for grading and which is not.

Searcher
10-09-2011, 09:00 PM
adjust your black levels using the histogram (I don't have a monitor with a WFM).

And in an earlier post you said:


don't try to be clever with black gamma, just plant your blacks an inch above the ground.

If you could take a minute to explain this process I would salute you. At the moment I'm using my FS100 without an external monitor to try and see whether an external monitor is necessary. So I only have the histogram to help me with the black levels. Obviously every shot is different and so as for using the histogram when you say "plant your blacks an inch above the ground" do you mean that given a typical shot with a wide latitude you need to bring up the black levels on the histogram to a certain level? I hope my question makes sense. Maybe there is no answer and it's just a matter of experience.

Also I think I read you say somewhere else that you don't have false colour or waveform. Is that because you prefer histograms or?

Thanks

MattDavis
10-10-2011, 12:22 AM
Hi Searcher - I use the histogram in the viewfinder, which is a bit of an approximation, but I don't like clipped blacks any more than I like clipped whites, so if using CineTones 1 & 2, I do the equivalent of Black Stretch by upping the black level so I'm comfortable there's no more detail that I want 'hiding' off the left hand edge of the histogram. Similar, I think, to FelixGER's method.

Bringing these shots into FCX, which I must relent and admit to prefering for scopes over FCP7 and PPro, I can see there's a little bit of detail left over, so hence this idea of raising the blacks too far, then nudging them back with an eye on the histogram. To me, it feels like I'm 'planting' the blacks.

As I've been working with Histograms with the EX1, and now FCX, I seem to be happier with them - and one thing Histograms do better (for me, YMMV) than WFMs, is articulate well the difference between 109% and 100% white.

MattDavis
10-10-2011, 12:24 AM
By the way, those videos will be disappearing on Tuesday or thereabouts, as they'll hopefully be moving to their new official home. Sorry about that - I uploaded them over the weekend using the Vimeo updater, but in the lateness of the hour I neglected to switch the Vimeo visibility to OFF. But I truly appreciate the peer review!

UPDATE: Have switched them off for now. Will post back when they're installed at their new home.

MattDavis
10-10-2011, 12:53 AM
Here's what I found out. Even though Standard LOOKS like it's bringing more detail in the picture, it's actually just pushing the midtones up, and crushing blacks more than Cinematone does. There is also some serious noise in the midtones perhaps due to pushing the midtones higher. So when you think you're getting more info in the standard setting...you're actually getting the accurate info in the Cinematone setting and the standard is simply pushing the midtones up.

Dude, you nailed it.

This is why I was so confused over Andy Shipsides's original findings and resultant profiles. By shooting charts, it follows that CinemaTones do pack in additional information once you bend the top and bottom bits back in again. ITU709 and Standard are really good, but my take is that this was like the best the Z7 could do, and I wanted the CineGamma look.

Quite frankly, so long as you don't blow highlights OR CHROMA (my new bete noir), and keep your shadow detail in check, the picture will be okay. Are my clients going to pay the difference between a well behaved FS100 and an F3? No. If I were making my magnum opus, I might beg borrow or cadge an F3, but a camera in the hand is worth two (or more) from the rental shop.

I really tried ITU709 as that made a 'FLAT LOOKING' picture, but I don't know if it contained more info than the CT1/2 tricks, AND it was the profile (with ITU709 colour profile) that clipped reds in the 'Duck' interview, which I re-created with the oranges. The whole point of buying the FS100 was that it wouldn't do what the AF101 does - clip reds on talking head interviews in tricky lighting situations (about 30% of my work).

Four gammas, five colour modes, approximately four black level and three knee situations in each, that's 240 scenarios to film and check on scopes, then 57,600 comparisons to judge both qualitatively and quantitatively, to categorically state which is best. "ITU709 looks good at first take, but is likely to burst your red channel unless you desaturate" would be as far as I'd go at the moment.

BTW, should have suffixed that Larry Miller skit by adding "there are five levels of pixel peeping - six if you hang out on DVinfo.net".

Searcher
10-10-2011, 03:44 PM
Hi Searcher...

Thanks for the detailed response Matt. Much appreciated!

Chris Johnston
11-11-2011, 09:04 AM
Okay, I take everything back and stand corrected. Forget what I said.
One has the knee set all the way up to blow highlights if I want, and one has the knee to 75%
GlenColor1 highlights protected:

Black Level: variable
Gamma: CinemaTone2
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 75% / Slope = 0
Color Mode: Type = CinemaTone2 / Level =8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = +1 / Manual Set = Off

GlenColor2 highlights blowout allowed.

Black Level: variable
Gamma: CinemaTone2
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 102.5% / Slope = -1
Color Mode: Type = CinemaTone2 / Level =8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = +1 / Manual Set = Off

What I do is:
1. Dialing in my DOF for the scene.
2. Correct the highlights with an variable ND
3. bring the black levels to zero via the "Black Level" PP setting.
.

Frank

Somewhat of a Newbie here....
Got a couple cams a few weeks ago. I've been doing a few TV shows in studio with kit glass and no PPs yet. (just getting used to the cams as time allows.)
The image is great straight out of the cam for what I've been doing. (controlled/adjustable studio lighting) (or maybe I'm just amazed at how much better it is than the 150....)

But.... I didn't buy all the nikon glass and stuff to just shoot "as is" so it time to start experimenting.

I guess since Frank has done so much research/testing I should start with these settings. (or maybe just stick with these)

Here's the part where I sound really dumb.
Looked briefly at the manual and it says the first 2 PPs are just copies of the settings when the PP are set to off. (i.e. no changes from off to PP1 or PP2)
My question....How do I impliment Franks profile changes?
Do you just change the settings in PP1 to match Franks? or do you import a PP like with a DSLR off a disk?

Sorry for the stupid question, I've just never messed with PPs much before. (never on this cam)

AtticusLake
11-11-2011, 10:30 AM
Sadly the PPs can only be set up on camera. There's no import/export, and you can't name them.

The settings listed in the manual (i.e. the first 2 PPs are just copies of the default settings) are just the defaults; you can set all 6 PPs to whatever you want.

Chris Johnston
11-11-2011, 11:16 AM
So, If I change the defaults in PP1 and 2 to franks settings, I should be good? I'm hesitatnt with changing PP3-6 because without checking, I wouldn't know which settings are different from the defaults.
Also is there a "revert to factory specs" type button in the menus? (don't recall seeing one but the cams are at work right now.)

AtticusLake
11-11-2011, 11:41 AM
Yup, go for it! I have Frank's in 1&2 (actually, I'm experimenting with making GlenColor2 use the same WB as GlenColor1), and some from Abel Cine on 3-5, and 6 just for messing around with. According to the manual (page 43; I don't have my camera handy either), there is a reset in each PP to get back to default; but really, I don't think the builtin profiles are worth worrying about too much... ;-) But if you like, just make a note of all the settings in a spreadsheet first.

FS100 manual:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/attachments/sony-avchd-nex-fs100/23204d1307902259-sony-nex-fs100-manual-nex-fs100manual.pdf

AbelCine's profiles:

http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/07/25/fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/

(http://blog.abelcine.com/2011/07/25/fs100-scene-files-from-abelcine/)

LiamR
11-11-2011, 03:25 PM
I'm so new to this PP thing that it's doing my head in. Hopefully someone can help me out...

I know when I do studio shoots / corporate stuff / short films which PP I use, and I am happy with that, but for outside sport shooting, I am just in over my head, I know this camera is not the ideal choice a sports shooter would pick, but I have.

I have been using:

GlenColor2
Black Level: (basic) -2, (controlled = variable)
Gamma: CinemaTone2
Black Gamma: Range = High / Level = +7
Knee: Point = 102.5% / Slope = -1
Color Mode: Type = CinemaTone2 / Level =8
Color Level: 0
Color Phase: +1
Color Depth: R=-2, G=-6, B=-7, C=0, M=+2, Y=+5
WB Shift = All 0
Detail = Level = -7 / Manual Set = on
V/H Ballance +2
BW Ballance Type3
Limit 7
Chrispening 0
Highlight Detail 0/blockquote>

For outside shooting, here is my latest video using this profile.


http://vimeo.com/31718199

*All ungraded

And for me, that just doesn't look good enough, my GH2 does a better job.
I thought maybe it could be the lenses, but I was using the FD lenses on the GH2 aswell.
I really have no idea what I need to tweak with the PP to get what I want, I have read the Z7 manual on the PP and I'm still very unaware at what to do (I will give it another read).

I have tried other PP's, like the VariCam one from AbelCine, and that just looked horrible.

The look I want is 'vibrant' and that video I posted up there ^ look's really flat to me. I know with some color correction I could get it looking a lot better, but I want to try and get it as close as I can in camera.

I tried making my own PP and that was a disaster. I will definitely read up on them more and try again, but for now, can anybody help me?

AtticusLake
11-11-2011, 05:09 PM
I'm so new to this PP thing that it's doing my head in.

I'm totally with you there... ;-) Right now I only have a vague idea of what most of the controls are about. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can pitch in and help us out here, but meantime, here's what I've figured out....

As I understand it (FG, please correct me if I'm wrong!), GlenColor2 is designed to be pretty flat, so it can capture a wide dynamic range -- i.e. get more shadow detail on a sunny day without blowing the highlights. It sounds like you're not too concerned with the shadows -- and given your subject, this makes tons of sense. Did you try GlenColor1? It has more of a vibrant look to me when used outdoors.

Also note that Frank recommends setting the black level depending on your conditions, so we may not be using it to best effect.

An issue I have with GlenColor2 is it looks a bit magenta to me -- grass/tree colours suffer from this in particular, at least on the little test clips I shot. I've adjusted by setting the "CC" part of white balance to -5, same as in GlenColor1. Since I guess you want the greenery to really contrast off the red dirt, this may be relevant to you.

Tomorrow I'll test it out, if we get any sunshine.... I'll also try playing with the color depth settings instead of white balance, as it seems odd to have the color depth push things towards magenta then pull it back again with white balance. However I may be totally mis-understanding this... :-/

Good luck!

David G. Smith
11-11-2011, 05:34 PM
I am real shy about playing around much with Color Depth. I have run across the magenta issue, but mostly I end up with my reds going to a nasty orange and start getting some banding. Those settings are a real mystery to me actually.

LiamR
11-11-2011, 06:05 PM
I'm totally with you there... ;-) Right now I only have a vague idea of what most of the controls are about. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can pitch in and help us out here, but meantime, here's what I've figured out....

As I understand it (FG, please correct me if I'm wrong!), GlenColor2 is designed to be pretty flat, so it can capture a wide dynamic range -- i.e. get more shadow detail on a sunny day without blowing the highlights. It sounds like you're not too concerned with the shadows -- and given your subject, this makes tons of sense. Did you try GlenColor1? It has more of a vibrant look to me when used outdoors.

Also note that Frank recommends setting the black level depending on your conditions, so we may not be using it to best effect.

An issue I have with GlenColor2 is it looks a bit magenta to me -- grass/tree colours suffer from this in particular, at least on the little test clips I shot. I've adjusted by setting the "CC" part of white balance to -5, same as in GlenColor1. Since I guess you want the greenery to really contrast off the red dirt, this may be relevant to you.

Tomorrow I'll test it out, if we get any sunshine.... I'll also try playing with the color depth settings instead of white balance, as it seems odd to have the color depth push things towards magenta then pull it back again with white balance. However I may be totally mis-understanding this... :-/

Good luck!

Thanks for the reply mate, im glad that I am not the only one. I will try that with GlenColour1, although I have used that a little bit and it seemed to be REALLY green?
I will definitely try that with the Black Level aswell and see if that helps out my situation!

I will also play around with GlenColour1 a lot more and see if I can get that to look any better for myself.

Cheers, Liam

kyle.presley
11-12-2011, 12:23 PM
I am loving the footage I am seeing from the FS100, and plan to buy one coupled with the Atomos Ninja very soon. However, the FS100 seems to lack a certain "richness" to the image that can be seen when compared to something like the F3. The FS100 has been tested and shown to have 11.5 stops of dynamic range, but the images still lack a certain "something" that I can't quite put my finger on. Any thoughts, aside from what has already been discussed? I am reading the posts that have appeared late in this thread, and they explain a lot. I just wonder what is going on in a general sense.

MattDavis
11-12-2011, 12:43 PM
I think it comes down to the 'CineTone' rather than true 'CineGamma' as found in the EX1/3 and F3. The highlight handling isn't quite there, and whilst it's very good, it's not in the same league as the F3 and its ilk. The CineTones re-distribute a range of tones over an image, and you can cheat a little by pumping up the bottom end and knocking the top end down a bit with gentle knee, but that's not 'CineGamma' by any stretch of the imagination.

The purist in me wants CineGamma, nay - wants S-Log, or the Canon pseudo-log quite frankly. Sublime highlight handling, excellent distribution of tone throughout the dynamic range, awesome images.

But unfortunately my clients (low to mid level corporate, high end event coverage) just do not want to see or pay for the difference, and that's a big deciding factor.

You can dump a certain amount of richness back into the FS100 picture with Magic Bullet Looks or similar (according to the law of 'find what you like, then reduce it by 50%') and get 90% of the way there. The FS100, like the AF101, can bite back with 'wind everything to 11' approaches to Picture Profiles, and perhaps slightly under perform WITHOUT using Picture Profiles. So you have to do some work: test, test, test. As Frank demonstrates, you need to be flexible with your black levels, and as many have found, you need to calm your overall chroma levels to avoid the dreaded 'channel clipping' in red. You may even have to (egad, hangs head in shame) carry some powder to tame the temples of your interviewees.

At some point, you need to ask yourself (and answer truthfully) is your camera choice driven by a business plan or your ego? Be totally happy if you answer with the latter, but understand that it comes at a cost that may not make it possible. The F3 is the better camera if you're pixel peeping. It's a better camera full-stop. It bloody well better be, considering the price difference.

Hopefully I'll be able to post a link to a movie which will help on all this soon.

kyle.presley
11-12-2011, 01:04 PM
Thanks Matt.

Postmaster
11-12-2011, 02:45 PM
I am real shy about playing around much with Color Depth. I have run across the magenta issue, but mostly I end up with my reds going to a nasty orange and start getting some banding. Those settings are a real mystery to me actually.

Yeah, I have to admit, that I also run into some weird color problems lately that I donīt fully understand yet.

I made my profiles with the help of calibrated charts, vectorsocpe, waveform andwhatnot.
So in theory, especially the color depth settings should be as good as possible.
Andy form AbelCine came to similar settings in color depth, so I guess Iīm not totally wrong here.

And here comes the strange part: Sometimes they work, sometimes not.
I just shot an interview, controlled light, kinos and a LED light, studio, nice on the waveform, about a stop under, everything should be fine.
If I looked at the material on the NLE, the guy had a nasty pink patch on the cheek, with an unusual sharp border.


I never came across something like that. Looked like it was painted on him.
I canīt remeber, that I saw that on my monitor (TVLogic) when I was shooting (so it may be a codec issue, but I donīt rally think so)
I used my GlenColor1 in situations like this and it was always fine.
Checked the settings, noting wrong. I donīt get it.

The first clue I got is the spectrum of different lights. I checked all my material from the FS100, and never saw a problem with full/continuous spectrum light, like tungsten or sun/daylight. It seems to be more a problem under certain florescent and LED light.

I have too look even deeper into that.

Until I (hopefully) come up with something, I would suggest to set all color depth to zero, if you use my profiles.

Frank

LiamR
11-12-2011, 11:56 PM
Hey Frank, is your GlenColour1 supposed to have this green tinge?


http://vimeo.com/32026924

It goes:
AbelCine CinemaTone1
AbelCine JR45CINE - VariCam
GlenColour2
GlenColour1

Cheers, Liam

Postmaster
11-13-2011, 01:29 AM
GC1 is (mainly) for indoor use.
Since Iīm a skintone nut, I found the normal settings to magenta for my taste, so yeah, the greenish is intended to get the magenta out.

But when it comes to skintobnes, there is no right or wrong - itīs a mater of taste.
You can always set the WB-shift to zero, to et rid of the greenisch.

Frank

LiamR
11-13-2011, 01:49 AM
Ah I was wondering how to get rid of it! Thanks