AC90: AC90 and picture quality/sharpness

[LanceOregon]

I would do what Lance is saying and also change the gamma to cine v. I think you can push the detail to +2 and detail coring to -5 if you're shooting something well lit.

You are correct that one could easily go further in adjusting these numbers. Even +3 Detail Level looks OK to me on my AC130. My earlier suggestion was meant to be more of a point to start at. After all, a lot of this is simply personal preference.

On the AC130/160 the Cine gammas can increase noise levels. But I've yet to see any really noticeable noise in AC90 footage. So maybe there is no such drawback with the AC90.

 

[dkamisat]

Yes, you will be hard pressed to see noise in the AC90 footage no matter what you do unless of course you really bump up the gain. It's really a shock coming from the DVX and HMC which are noise machines.

 

[Enerjex]

It's worth mentioning that I've found using drs in low light will create a fair bit of noise in shadows, which is to be expected.

 

[NanaK]

Do you have Barrys book on the camera? This will help you greatly know what you are trying to adjust for what you want.

The AC90 came with a postcard for the AC90 book, which I mailed off. I came home to find one of those UPS notification affixed to my door and it said it was from Fiercely Independent Films, so that must of been it. Apparently, it required a signature, so I should have it soon.

 

[NanaK]

It looks like the Sony was set to a higher contrast and edge enhancement setting giving the impression of more sharpness. I would do what Lance is saying and also change the gamma to cine v. I think you can push the detail to +2 and detail coring to -5 if you're shooting something well lit. Agree with rzr that Barry's book is a must.

I also think that your expectations were too high regarding the sharpness. People rave about the sharpness because it gives 1,000 plus lines of resolution for under $2,000 while giving you pro features. High end consumer models can also do the same.

Also, "run and gun" doesn't mean running around and swinging the camera wildly. It means a shooting scenario where you don't have control over the situation.

Without having the HDR-SR11 in my possession, all I can say is that it was set to full auto without using any of the "snow", "twilight", "candle", etc. modes. Just pure auto. What Enerjex said about the HDR-SR11 automatically sharpening and doing things you normally would do in post versus the AC90 giving you the best possible picture without any automatic "coloring" of the video makes a lot of sense.

I will play with the AC90's scenes this weekend and see what happens. One question. If I have the AC90 connected to a panel via HDMI that does 2560x1600 native, is that not a good way to look for changes in the settings ( scaling )? Should I use a panel that natively does 1920x1080?

You are correct about the "run and gun" statement. The last event I shot, the camera wasn't swung around that wildly! Subjects would come close, move away, turn, jump from side to side, the lighting would shift, etc. Looking back, that comparison video was more of a " It's finally here, let's run around and see what it can do! " kind of moment. And I get why Tom said it's not a really good video to use to determine sharpness. I wouldn't expect the spinning around to be amazingly sharp, but the close ups of the trees and just walking should be. I'm still digesting Tom's points about the compressed comparison video, but one thing I liked was how the leaves on the ground looked much better on the AC90.

The AC90 did really well in low light and once I did some work in Pr on the videos, it looked even better. I do think my expectations were too high, but after reading what has been said, this is looking more like a different problem. I just don't know my camera yet.

 

[dkamisat]

Have you tried viewing it at a 1:1 ratio, meaning that it will take up 1920x1080 inside the 2560x1600 frame? That would give you the most accurate image.

Good luck with the tests!

 

[NanaK]

Have you tried viewing it at a 1:1 ratio, meaning that it will take up 1920x1080 inside the 2560x1600 frame? That would give you the most accurate image.

Good luck with the tests!

I would connect the AC90 directly to one of my panels via HDMI. I have one that's 1920x1080 native and one that is 2560x1600 native. I suppose I should use the 1920x1080 panel for these kind of tests so things aren't scaled, but the 2560x1600 panel has better definition/colors. I'm not sure if I could achieve 1:1 on the 2560x1600 panel since it would be going directly from the AC90 to the panel over HDMI; the panel would automatically scale the image.

 

[fastfinger]

The AC90 came with a postcard for the AC90 book, which I mailed off. I came home to find one of those UPS notification affixed to my door and it said it was from Fiercely Independent Films, so that must of been it. Apparently, it required a signature, so I should have it soon.

Oh great a sig.. should of had it sent to my work address. Figured regular mail. I hope they drop it w no sig, UPS can't get past the front door of my building

 

[fastfinger]

Tom: I think that NanaK can probably get sharpness to his liking by simply tweaking his scene file settings a little, and adding the ND filter when outdoors.

NanaK: If you have not yet experimented with these settings, try changing your current settings to Detail Level: +1 , V Detail Level: +1, and Detail Coring to -2 And then also add the ND filter that Tom recommended or perhaps a polarizing filter as another alternative, when you are shooting outdoors.

See if making those changes don't give you a sharpness look that you will then like.

It looks like the Sony was set to a higher contrast and edge enhancement setting giving the impression of more sharpness. I would do what Lance is saying and also change the gamma to cine v. I think you can push the detail to +2 and detail coring to -5 if you're shooting something well lit. Agree with rzr that Barry's book is a must.

I also think that your expectations were too high regarding the sharpness. People rave about the sharpness because it gives 1,000 plus lines of resolution for under $2,000 while giving you pro features. High end consumer models can also do the same.

Also, "run and gun" doesn't mean running around and swinging the camera wildly. It means a shooting scenario where you don't have control over the situation.

I tried settings suggestions w -5 coring cine v, and like the results except shadows pretty bad. I guess adjusting the detail coring up would help. I had the Matrix set to norm2. Minor color adjustment on a couple clips that were a bit yellow, I had white balance set to auto. Only on the first two clips did I use an additional ND filter. I have a 4x but need a 2x I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiB8ZC9-jrU

edit: examing the shadows the original files look good except maybe detail could be improved. The rendered MP4 is pretty poor in dark areas. I have the average bps set to 14 in Vegas 12 making a 100meg file. rendered 1080p 60fps. I guess no matter what I do when youtube converts it quality will drop

 

[NanaK]

Oh great a sig.. should of had it sent to my work address. Figured regular mail. I hope they drop it w no sig, UPS can't get past the front door of my building

I know what you mean. Now I have to go to the UPS sort facility. I thought you could leave the notice on the door with your sig and the UPSman would leave it, but he had written "VOID" across the signature line :/

 

[NanaK]

I tried settings suggestions w -5 coring cine v, and like the results except shadows pretty bad. I guess adjusting the detail coring up would help. I had the Matrix set to norm2. Minor color adjustment on a couple clips that were a bit yellow, I had white balance set to auto. Only on the first two clips did I use an additional ND filter. I have a 4x but need a 2x I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiB8ZC9-jrU

edit: examing the shadows the original files look good except maybe detail could be improved. The rendered MP4 is pretty poor in dark areas. I have the average bps set to 14 in Vegas 12 making a 100meg file. rendered 1080p 60fps. I guess no matter what I do when youtube converts it quality will drop

That's impressive! With the AC90 book and taking the time to get the settings dialed in, I think I'll be OK. The only other thing I can say besides "wow" to your video is that the trees when panning look a little blurry, but that wasn't the focal point ( if I'm understanding things correctly ) Did you do any post color work or sharpening?

I've noticed that YT will butcher video, too. You've probably already seen this, but I hadn't - http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722171 What I've been doing is pushing the bitrate all the way right in Pr and using the maximum for rendering settings. I've sent things to YT that are 300MB to 1GB and while they look good, don't look as good as your video.

 

[steve4505]

I tried settings suggestions w -5 coring cine v, and like the results except shadows pretty bad. I guess adjusting the detail coring up would help. I had the Matrix set to norm2. Minor color adjustment on a couple clips that were a bit yellow, I had white balance set to auto. Only on the first two clips did I use an additional ND filter. I have a 4x but need a 2x I think.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiB8ZC9-jrU

edit: examing the shadows the original files look good except maybe detail could be improved. The rendered MP4 is pretty poor in dark areas. I have the average bps set to 14 in Vegas 12 making a 100meg file. rendered 1080p 60fps. I guess no matter what I do when youtube converts it quality will drop

That looked really good. You happy with the AC-AG90 so far?

 

[fastfinger]

That's impressive! With the AC90 book and taking the time to get the settings dialed in, I think I'll be OK. The only other thing I can say besides "wow" to your video is that the trees when panning look a little blurry, but that wasn't the focal point ( if I'm understanding things correctly ) Did you do any post color work or sharpening?

I've noticed that YT will butcher video, too. You've probably already seen this, but I hadn't - http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=1722171 What I've been doing is pushing the bitrate all the way right in Pr and using the maximum for rendering settings. I've sent things to YT that are 300MB to 1GB and while they look good, don't look as good as your video.

No post work other than a minor adjustment on a couple clips that looked a bit yellow. The results are from the settings posted here. Regarding the trees, I have the shutter set to 180 to blur the background when panning. I'm going to try to boost the bit rate up & see it it helps