Thin softer than Thick ?

[ulisses]

Hi,

I connect my DVX100a to a professional monitor using the S-video output and started to test many settings.

Camera set to 24P, V_Cine Gamma, Cine Gamma Matrix, when I set the V Detail to Thick the image definition looks better, and Thin looks softter. Am I crazy ?

Using Thick I see the objects edges with more contrast and a white outline in some objects, if I set to Thin the image looks more natural, but with less definition. My impression ?

Another point here, why people here don't use Mid setting ?

Thanks,
Ulisses

[HorseFilms]

Thick will generally look better on an interlaced monitor. The thin setting is more prone to interlace flicker, but actually has a higher resolution (it's great for stuff that will be viewed on a computer monitor or for film out).

[ulisses]

I was testing in an interlaced professional monitor (component in, blue only, etc) and THIN looks softer than THICK.
MID and THICK looks crisp than THIN, but THIN doesn't show the white edges around objects, so what is the mistery ? How THIN has higher resolution if it looks softer, like applying a blur in everything ?

Thanks again,
Ulisses

[Mike_Donis]

You probably have your detail settings lower in the scene file in which thin is engaged - whereas your detail may be quite high in the scene file in which you're using thick.

The 'detail' settings only add an artificial detail enhancement, not an 'actual' detail enhancement. That mixed with the fact that still, even a professional monitor, - an NTSC one - would likely have "thick" looking better than "thin".

[XCheck]

I suggest shooting THIN because that's the least manipulation the camera does to the picture. Even though it looks softer, you actually get higher resolution than using MID or THICK.

You can always add some THICKness in post - it would be different depending on whic software you are using.

[ulisses]

Mike,
I was changing only the V detail setting using the same scene, but I understand the artifical detail meaning

Jerry,
After recording many and many videos (beta, dv, etc), maybe thick is the detail I used to get, a video thing, an artificial thing, anyway I was looking at a 35mm commercial I did and the image is very detailed, but I understand that an ARRI is more expensive than a DVX :)

Thanks guys,
Ulisses