Agreed.
Thanks for the post, I'm glad to hear someone getting good results. Thanks for also sharing your scene settings, hopefully they will assist others to get results that they are happier with.
Agreed, the DVX200 does much better than the 1/3" cameras in dark scenarios.
Thanks for saying so.
That's entirely possible -- I mean, it's a complex camera, and you have to know color and gamma and how the functions work. There are folks who could do it instinctively, and there's folks who couldn't do it at all. And furthermore, there's the question of what you consider acceptable -- what one person thinks is fantastic, another may think is unacceptable. There's no way for me to know and work with such a statement; I'm a logic-driven guy who goes by the scientific method wherever possible, so ... that's why I say, if you show me a controlled environment where one is acceptable and the other isn't, and explain what it is that you're seeing that you consider unacceptable, I might be able to work with that. So far the only thing I've seen side by side was greytail's test, but in that the exposure was seriously overexposed on the skin and the vimeo results didn't match the stills, so there wasn't concrete data to work from.
Composition, lighting, exposure, and then scene files, in that order. The scene file is the least important aspect. It is definitely an aspect, as you can greatly saturate or desaturate the color, you can totally change the tonal rendering, etc., so it's an important thing, but it's nowhere near as important as the other elements.
None of us do. But -- Panasonic's been selling cameras the same way for decades. They make it, they sell it, users use it, users develop their own looks for it. That's how it's always been. And the frustration has always been felt by early adopters. It's new, there's no guidance, there's nobody to turn to for help because you're all in it on your own, etc. Maybe my forthcoming book will help, maybe not, we'll see; I'd like to think it will. But with time, folks will develop and adapt and figure out what they like. That's always been how it's worked, we've seen this with every new camera introduction. But I well understand that you're up against a ticking clock and if you're not getting the results you like, maybe you can't afford to wait.
I understand your point -- but I was responding to someone else who did use the word "fear"...
Which cameras were those?
Okay, but -- an argument can be made that the DVX200 does that. I mean, if "good color" means accurate color that matches the engineering specifications around which Rec.709 was developed, then I've already supplied a scene file that is supposed to deliver absolutely 100% proper color accuracy (assuming, of course, that exposure is right). Have you tried that scene file? What did you find missing from it?
And I'll do what I can to assist. I just need to know exactly what the specific complaints are. Not singling you out, just saying ... okay, it's like this. My wife will come in and say "Can you go buy some rice?" That's an extremely frustrating question -- what am I supposed to do? Brown rice? Wild rice? Cooked rice? Raw rice? White rice? How much, a grain? Two grains? An ounce? A pound? A 50-pound drum? Brand name? Generic? How do you work with a question like that? Whereas if she had come in and said "Can you go get me a 1-lb bag of Uncle Ben's Wild Rice", I'd say "sure" and go get it.
Ah. Okay, well, this is easily addressed. You can lower the master pedestal to put some richness in the blacks, or you can use the black gamma in negative values to deepen the blacks.
Again, totally solvable. Boost the chroma level to raise overall color saturation. Swap among the different color matrices to find the one that's closest to the look you want. Then, you can use the chroma phase control to adjust the colors a little, or go directly to the Color Correction menu and adjust the phase of the yellow, yellow-yellow-red, and yellow-red-red colors, as the skin tones generally fall in those vectors. Adjust the phase to the negative to make them more yellow, and adjust them to the positive to make them redder.
I don't have the camera in front of me, I can't say exactly what to do. But I'd say put the default scene file in SCENE 1, and then copy the exact same settings into SCENE 2. Then, adjust SCENE 2 by doing the above things I mentioned, or just start with using FILMLIKE 1 or FILMLIKE 2 gamma or CINELIKE-V, boost the chroma level to +20, put the matrix on CINELIKE, drop the master pedestal to -10, and then compare by swapping between SCENE1 and SCENE2 to see how the image is changing. See if it's at least headed in the right direction. Now, keep in mind, these aren't recommended settings, this is just spitballing off the top of my head to at least see if it's getting more like what you might like.
Can you post your settings that delivered good skin tones? And then, after doing so, experiment by lowering the BLACK GAMMA. Just really go for it -- set it on 2, and set the BLACK GAMMA LEVEL to -8. If that's not getting enough contrast, consider dropping the master pedestal, but be aware that that may move your skin tones so you may not want to move the master ped very much.
That could indeed help quite a bit. Try to get the exact same composition, framing, and a consistent exposure -- if you have an 18% gray card, expose it at the same IRE level on both cameras; if not, use a white card and try to expose the white to the same IRE level. Then maybe we can try to make some progress in turning the DVX image into more of what the D800 is delivering, if that's the type of image you're looking for.
:grin::laugh:
