A Visual explanation of Master Pedestal

The point of the article was to show you that what you do with your levels can negatively affect the quality of your video when sending it to DVD. If it was "retarded" to you then thats great. It makes perfect sense to me, maintain standards and don;t just adjust something because you think it looks good. Rather know hat happens when it goes somewhere else.
 
Walter... i still dont get the whole 7.5 Master Ped comment that started your rant.. for the 4th time can you please explain?

and im not saying who cares.. I dont know where you got that from, Im saying its not as important woring about your master ped settings.. you scared the hell out of alot of people when you posted that comment that was just wrong. I have never met a single person that shoots with a master ped above 7.5, and your telling everyone that they will be rejected if they dont. Its a false statement, that needed to be corrected.

And dont get me started on NTSC standards lol... Nothing like making your Video fit into standards that where set in 1950. If for some reason your broadcaster (walter I would love to know who is rejecting you) has a problem, almost every single NLE has a button you can press to trim your IRE to NTSC broadcast levels.

So.. not who cares.. but dont worry about it. Shoot at 0 IRE, if someone tells you to shoot digital video with an introduced 7.5 ire give them a slap for me. This is a setting for the analogue outputs only.
 
>i still dont get the whole 7.5 Master Ped comment that started your rant.. for the 4th time can you please explain?

Very simply making adjustments to your camera can effect your overall master black level. If it does and you are shooting for broadcast, while it might look good at home, it might be milky on air or crushed.

>I have never met a single person that shoots with a master ped above 7.5, and your telling everyone that they will be rejected if they dont. Its a false statement, that needed to be corrected.

I am saying that the acceptable range of pedestal for broadcast is between 7.5 and 10. Not that you should shoot above it. Just that if you are shooting for broadcast, your final master should be with in that range if you are mastering for 7.5 set up. If you are mastering for digital, then do what you like best. Let me correct that, do what you are asked to do. Many times I am asked for digital masters where they want the setup at 7.5 and not zero.

>If for some reason your broadcaster (walter I would love to know who is rejecting you) has a problem, almost every single NLE has a button you can press to trim your IRE to NTSC broadcast levels.

And that is the point. Make sure your levels look the way you want when it leaves the computer, not inside, because inside, the computer doesn't know what the real world is. If you have an edit system and edit for broadcast, its best to have an external scope and use that for setting levels. In the past some things have been rejected by the Scripts channels, Here TV, and NBC. Now everything we do goes to a QC house and we have no problems.
 
This is wrong in so many ways.. Digibeta, what you all should be giving to your broadcaster is 0 IRE. period. , but perhaps you are still delivering in Beta SP? Maybe if your "broadcaster" is using old equipment then thats fine; just flick the switch on the deck. This topic really doesnt deserve this much discussion.
 
Jarred Land said:
This is wrong in so many ways.. Digibeta, what you all should be giving to your broadcaster is 0 IRE. period. , but perhaps you are still delivering in Beta SP? Maybe if your "broadcaster" is using old equipment then thats fine; just flick the switch on the deck. This topic really doesnt deserve this much discussion.
Click to expand...

WEll I'll end it here then. Some broadcasters require you to use a 7.5 set up with digibeta. That's right, not all broadcasters want digibeta at 0. The world is still very much in the very early stages of a transition so while you might have some idea that the world is all digital, it isn't or if it is, it still must answer to older standards too. As for beta, about 95% of all commercials are required in this format for delivery so it isn't as old as you might like to think.
 
cool all is well, I think we agree.. though which is the point.. if You are going analogue, then keep an eye on your setup, if your staying digital, 0 it is :)
 
Guess I didn't say it clear enough at first, yes always watch your analog outputs as they don't always jive with digital. I use the term broadcast to mostly to mean analog since most of what folks output for broadcast outside of digibeta is usually beta. And its more than just setup, color and whites too need to be watched.
 
Article is awesome and will come in VERY handy for me! Thanks a TON Graeme! You're really a vast resource of great information my friend.
 
Graeme_Nattress said:
Digital video tape doesn't have setup though. Black is at code 16, white at code 235. Talking about IRE on a digital tape format is nonsense, as the IRE is dependent on the digital to analogue converter on the deck, not on the digital data on the tape, which should always be in the 16-235 range. Even if you shoot milky blacks for effect, pure black is still at 16, even if no pure black has been recorded.

I must admit, I find that shooting with an ultra contrast lens is helpful as it will bump some shadow detail up in brightness, and when I crush the video down with my custom gamma curve, everything looks great, and I get a bit more shadow detail than if I'd not shot with the filter.

Graeme
Click to expand...
:thumbsup:
Hello Graeme !
What would be a ultra contrast lens(by name ) ? or hopefull a filter by name ?brand ? or description of general type .?
Thanks for a reply
Bruce :beer:
 
so if I am shooting on my dvx what is the best thing to set to.... 0 ire or 7.5 ire....

why does a digital camera like the dvx even have the choice between 0 ire and 7.5 ire if digital should just be 0 ire?

This thread is making it sound like if you are digital you should just be shooting at 0 ire...

Which I am fine with...I just want to know which one to set my camera to...I personally prefer my blacks to be really black....

are you guys also saying that we really shouldn't go past 0 ire -6 on the master ped????? for broadcast standards

i was a bit confused please just clarify on this and sorry if I am opening an old wound here....I just would like a recommended setting.....I like shooting at negative 7 on the master ped (does it make a huge difference if it is 0 ire or 7.5 ire)?
 
This thread is making it sound like if you are digital you should just be shooting at 0 ire...
Click to expand...
Correct. Always set to the SETUP menu setting to zero. 7.5 is not implemented the way you'd want, and is (basically) only useful if you're not using the DVX to record the image. If you're using the DVX as a live camera head and feeding its s-video output over to a BetaSP deck, then 7.5 might be the way to go. But if you're recording on the DVX's tape, or through firewire, never ever set the setup menu setting to 7.5.

I personally prefer my blacks to be really black....
Click to expand...
Then you definitely don't want to set to 7.5! That washes out the blacks.

are you guys also saying that we really shouldn't go past 0 ire -6 on the master ped?????
Click to expand...
Setting the master ped lower than about -6 will start to crush the shadows to all black, without retaining detail. The range from 0 to -6 changes the look without necessarily sacrificing detail, but -7 to -15 definitely sacrifice detail. You can go lower if you want, if you like the high-contrast reversal-film look, but -6 is about the lowest you'd want to go if you wanted to retain full dynamic range.

I like shooting at negative 7 on the master ped (does it make a huge difference if it is 0 ire or 7.5 ire)?
Click to expand...
-7 master pedis fine, but always always always leave the SETUP menu set to zero, not 7.5 (unless you know exactly what you're doing and have a very good reason to change to 7.5!)
 
Barry,

thanks so much for not only answering my questions, but for doing it in a way that is super clear!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I don't know how long my camera has been on 7.5 for...lol...but I switched it to 0%

I definetly like the blacks black...might just stay at 0 ire and -7 on the master ped

really like the chart that Jarred made too showing the black detail differences very cool!

your guys articles lately on the hvx 200 and the dvx 100b have been superb as well

thanks so much,

Ronster
 
Difference between raising Master Ped and a low contrast filter?

Difference between raising Master Ped and a low contrast filter?

Jarred, thanks for a beautifully done, informative article.

Barry, recently you wrote, "Setting the master ped lower than about -6 will start to crush the shadows to all black, without retaining detail. The range from 0 to -6 changes the look without necessarily sacrificing detail, but -7 to -15 definitely sacrifice detail. You can go lower if you want, if you like the high-contrast reversal-film look, but -6 is about the lowest you'd want to go if you wanted to retain full dynamic range."

Looking over Jarred's images in his article, the (Setup 0) Master Ped -3 and 0 shots appear to give a few stops more shadow detail than the Master Ped. -6 "standard setting" image.

I can see that above 0, things start to get so washed out in the blacks that it looks like information might be lost.

Below this, however, assuming that one's planning to go in and tweak the curves in post to put the blacks back where they should be, it looks like raising the master Pedestal a few notches would extend the exposure latitude of the DVX, which could be a huge help with windows in a shot, or shooting outdoors with direct sun in the game.

Is this right?

If so, what's the difference between using using -3 or above and using a Digicon or other contrast reducing filter, other than saving money and lens cleaner?

(I've done res. tests on the Digicon on a DVX, and it does an excellent job of preserving 24p fine line detail. On the resolution test chart, the change is virtually indestinguishable.)

Or how about using both raised Ped and a Digicon -- would this be the best way to signfiicantly extend the DVX's range beyond the 7 stop wall to something that could handle very 9 or 10 stop contrast-range scenes?
 
Haven't used the digicon, but I've used the ultracon and it appears to just introduce a contolled flare into the image, washing out the blacks. I'd expect that a contrast-reducing filter in concert with a raised master pedestal would result in a substantially "milky"-looking picture, but I haven't tried that combination.

I see no real value to raising the master ped above 0, as far as retaining more info -- it just appears to "gray" the picture while not introducing any new info. In my testing I found that you could go as far as -6 while still discerning detail in the darkest chips on a chip chart, whereas -7 and below resulted in actual crushed levels and loss of detail.

Certainly feel free to experiment with the digicon and master ped (that's one thing that's great about testing video -- it's free and the results are immediate, unlike film!), but I don't know how much you're going to like the final picture. You may be able to capture an extended range, maybe not, but in either case the resulting picture is likely to look very milky and 'blah'...
 
Barry_Green said:
Haven't used the digicon, but I've used the ultracon and it appears to just introduce a contolled flare into the image, washing out the blacks. I'd expect that a contrast-reducing filter in concert with a raised master pedestal would result in a substantially "milky"-looking picture, but I haven't tried that combination....
Click to expand...

I guess my question wasn't presented very clearly... Barry, you wrote in your DVX book that the DVX has about 7 stops of latitude, and higher-range 2/3 inch chip SD cameras can better that by several stops.

Here's my logic: I'm assuming that, no matter the camera, the latitude still has to "fit" within the digital 16 to 255 range. So even with a $40,000 or more, higher latitude camera, if one is comparing raw footage, that camera still has to stuff all that latitude between digital full black and full white -- which also of course means less contrast. Or, as you say, a milkier-looking pix.

I'm trying to get more latitude with my DVX when in high contrast situations, and wondering why raising setup a bit -- keeping it below 0 in any case -- wouldn't be just the ticket.

Please remember that in any case, I'm assuming that one would tweak the results in post, adjusting the gamma curve to get a non-washed out look.

Pragmatically speaking, what I'm looking for is a way to not blow out the highlights in a high-contrast scene, (say outside a window) and still be able to see detail everywhere else (say inside the room). Then, in post, I'd compress the highly exposed areas, like outside the window, to alow me to re-introduce contrast inside the room.

Much like film allows enough exposure in what would be blown-out areas so that the shot can be usable. In film, those hot areas have little detail -- In effect, very little gamma curve devoted to them -- but enough so the eye accepts it as not blown out.

(My goal here is to be able to still shoot useful footage in situations where I don't have time to scrim or ND the windows, or, outdoors, fly a silk.)

Barry_Green said:
I see no real value to raising the master ped above 0, as far as retaining more info -- it just appears to "gray" the picture while not introducing any new info. In my testing I found that you could go as far as -6 while still discerning detail in the darkest chips on a chip chart, whereas -7 and below resulted in actual crushed levels and loss of detail...

...but in either case the resulting picture is likely to look very milky and 'blah'...
Click to expand...

Again, I'm assuming I'd work the gamma curves in post to take out the milk. And limit the MP to 0 or below, so I'm not losing anything...

But I'm thinking that having MP set between -6 and 0 should be a basic technique for dealing with high contrast material -- where the scene contains more than 7 stops of latitude -- and then "fixing the milk in post" to bring back the snap in areas of the scene that the editor cares about.

What say ye? Am I missing something?

Thanks!
 
Well, yeah, that works if you're talking about raising from -15 up to about -6. In my experience, after you hit -6, any further raising will not be introducing new detail, just changing the level of black to a higher gray.

You can't make the chips see more than they can see; all you can do is change the processing to preserve as much of it as possible. -15 throws away a lot, in exchange for giving a snappier/punchier reversal-film look. +15 doesn't give you any more info than you have at zero, it just makes it "grayer". So the key is to get as deep of contrast as you can, while still preserving all the detail. I think that sweet spot is around -6, you may find you prefer the look at around -3.
 
Barry_Green said:
Well, yeah, that works if you're talking about raising from -15 up to about -6. In my experience, after you hit -6, any further raising will not be introducing new detail, just changing the level of black to a higher gray.

You can't make the chips see more than they can see; all you can do is change the processing to preserve as much of it as possible. -15 throws away a lot, in exchange for giving a snappier/punchier reversal-film look. +15 doesn't give you any more info than you have at zero, it just makes it "grayer". So the key is to get as deep of contrast as you can, while still preserving all the detail. I think that sweet spot is around -6, you may find you prefer the look at around -3.
Click to expand...

What you say makes sense. Fair enough. And thanks.

My thoughts on this came from the images in Jarred's article. That is, in his images, at least on my LCD monitor, there's noticibly more shadow detail evident in the MP -3 and MP 0 (at setup 0) shots.

In other wordsl, it's Jarred's fault!

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top