I've read the posts extensively, and one issue that pops up every once and awhile, is the Cine D setting's inability to hold up in post. As I understand it when S cuves are applied it produces banding. I tried this the other day and can't seem to produce this. I haven't tried it with sky, but can some one tell me how to go about doing this so I can see the effect, and maybe find a workaround so I can minimize this. I use Sony Vegas Pro 11 if that helps.
Cine D and Posterization
- Thread starter gbadgley
- Start date
Shooter
Veteran
WTF: You are asking to fix (workaround) something that you have not experienced ...even though you have tried to reproduce it unsuccessfully.
I dont get it!
Are you asking for problems?
I dont get it!
Are you asking for problems?
Obviously it's there. I have not seen it, yet, in anything I have shot so far, but I am still pretty green, and up to this point was not even aware that is is an issue with this gamma. Of all the gammas I prefer the look of Cine D, and would like to use this mostly. But if this gamma is more prone to posterization than the others when being graded then maybe I should be looking at using maybe Cine V and using something like Magic Bullet to reduce the contrastiness of this gamma which I don't like. Trying to find more of a middle ground I suppose. Make sense?
Shooter
Veteran
Doesnt make sense to me.
Why do you say its"obviously there" ...yet you have not seen it or experienced it.
Probably means you are doing something right.
FWIW: We use Cine D and Cine V for 99.5 % of what we shoot ( at default). Never seen any issue ..ever!
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
Why do you say its"obviously there" ...yet you have not seen it or experienced it.
Probably means you are doing something right.
FWIW: We use Cine D and Cine V for 99.5 % of what we shoot ( at default). Never seen any issue ..ever!
Dont believe everything you read on the internet.
hscully
Veteran
This post makes absolutely no sense at all. You want to fix a problem you don't see??!! This has to be some kind of joke. I've been shooting with the AF100 since it came out and I don't have banding problems. Maybe like you, I'm just lucky!
Look Man, post a screen grab if you ever see "it" OK?
Look Man, post a screen grab if you ever see "it" OK?
Interesting takes on this! I read it as 'what would I have to do to reproduce the problem so I can make sure that I avoid it in future, even though I haven't seen it in my footage so far'.
I've never had gout but I'd like to know how to prevent it (although I guess the analogy ends there - I wouldn't want to actually force a gout situation in order to see what it's like!) ;-)
On a less frivolous note, as a complete noob to the AF-101 (coming from ENG cameras) I am keen to learn all the right and wrong ways of working with this camera, to minimise screw-ups in the field. Out of sheer curiosity I just did a search in this forum on 'banding' and it threw up three pages of results. 'Posterization' returned four (and 'posteriSation' a further three). Now, I didn't look through any of the posts to see what the context was, but my point is that to an AF-101 noob like me, on the face of it this suggests there might be a recurring issue worth reading up on. But whose posts do I treat as credible and whose are not to be believed. Is the person with 2000 posts to their name more right than the person with 200 posts, or 20? This forum is a phenomenally valuable resource and there is so much great information - but also a load of misinformation (and more snobbery than I've seen in a while ;-)). It's not always that easy as a novice to be able to differentiate and after reading some of the responses here and in many other threads I'm kinda reluctant to ask questions for fear of being ridiculed or shouted down.
I've never had gout but I'd like to know how to prevent it (although I guess the analogy ends there - I wouldn't want to actually force a gout situation in order to see what it's like!) ;-)
On a less frivolous note, as a complete noob to the AF-101 (coming from ENG cameras) I am keen to learn all the right and wrong ways of working with this camera, to minimise screw-ups in the field. Out of sheer curiosity I just did a search in this forum on 'banding' and it threw up three pages of results. 'Posterization' returned four (and 'posteriSation' a further three). Now, I didn't look through any of the posts to see what the context was, but my point is that to an AF-101 noob like me, on the face of it this suggests there might be a recurring issue worth reading up on. But whose posts do I treat as credible and whose are not to be believed. Is the person with 2000 posts to their name more right than the person with 200 posts, or 20? This forum is a phenomenally valuable resource and there is so much great information - but also a load of misinformation (and more snobbery than I've seen in a while ;-)). It's not always that easy as a novice to be able to differentiate and after reading some of the responses here and in many other threads I'm kinda reluctant to ask questions for fear of being ridiculed or shouted down.
there is a misconception about picture profiles and post.
Pictures profiles are compressing the original shot (we suppose here that original shot is more or less linear) to another curve , usually to give better expostion
in a particular range (dark or bright) or color. This obviously gives another look to the final picture and most people are ok with that.
There is another kind of profiles, not intended to look good, but to allow better correction in post, but both use the same technique.
Both kind are lossy, so it is a kind of trade-off, you get more one one side if you accept to loose a bit on another side.
Since both kind of profiles are using non-linear correction, you cannot correct them in post with the usual tools.
If you apply a brighness/contrast correction of 10% to a picture that has been compressed 10% in white but 40% in blacks, you will certainly have
strange result in the part that has been the more compressed.
The natural way to do would be to flatten the picture by applying a reverse compression and apply correction.
Currently i know only the technicolor picture profile to provide both the compression and decompression, available in cineform firstlight for example.
So remember if you apply a picture profile to look good in the highlight, don't be deceived if in post you cannot get back your crushed blacks or get banding in it, or if your blacks fade to blue if you are changing brightness.
Pictures profiles are compressing the original shot (we suppose here that original shot is more or less linear) to another curve , usually to give better expostion
in a particular range (dark or bright) or color. This obviously gives another look to the final picture and most people are ok with that.
There is another kind of profiles, not intended to look good, but to allow better correction in post, but both use the same technique.
Both kind are lossy, so it is a kind of trade-off, you get more one one side if you accept to loose a bit on another side.
Since both kind of profiles are using non-linear correction, you cannot correct them in post with the usual tools.
If you apply a brighness/contrast correction of 10% to a picture that has been compressed 10% in white but 40% in blacks, you will certainly have
strange result in the part that has been the more compressed.
The natural way to do would be to flatten the picture by applying a reverse compression and apply correction.
Currently i know only the technicolor picture profile to provide both the compression and decompression, available in cineform firstlight for example.
So remember if you apply a picture profile to look good in the highlight, don't be deceived if in post you cannot get back your crushed blacks or get banding in it, or if your blacks fade to blue if you are changing brightness.
Last edited:
EndCredits
Well-known member
My sisters friend thought it would be funny to have 'Scurvy' on his doctors certificate for work so he stopped eating fruit n veg. Long story short... Doc said "Strange as it may seem, you have scurvy. You will be off work for 6 months or more" wasn't so funny after that.
Shooter
Veteran
My response to the OP was primarily based on an irritatig phenomena we have seen in this AF100 forum since the camera launched.
A bunch of posts emerged about "issues" that a few people had with the camera.
Noise, Banding, Highlights.Posterisation, Resolution...
The issues were debated ad nauseum ....but what usually emerged, was those experiencing these "issues" were usually...
a: un willing to show evidence
b:in experienced
c: using the camera in photographic conditions that issues would be expected from anyone and any camera.
d: using weird test procedures ( my cat in my kitchen last evening!)
It was these peoples perceptions and ill informed "dumping on"..... that was feeding a myth and misrepresentation of the cameras actual capabilties in proper hands.
eg 'The Great Camera Shoot Out'.
Not saying this camera is perfect at all....l but I seriously believe that you do your own tests ( properly) ....and form your own views and opinions from that experience.
Maybe a totally valid thing to push the camera until you break it in a control test... but dont put it about that there is an actual issue that you are only repeating from the trolls.
A bunch of posts emerged about "issues" that a few people had with the camera.
Noise, Banding, Highlights.Posterisation, Resolution...
The issues were debated ad nauseum ....but what usually emerged, was those experiencing these "issues" were usually...
a: un willing to show evidence
b:in experienced
c: using the camera in photographic conditions that issues would be expected from anyone and any camera.
d: using weird test procedures ( my cat in my kitchen last evening!)
It was these peoples perceptions and ill informed "dumping on"..... that was feeding a myth and misrepresentation of the cameras actual capabilties in proper hands.
eg 'The Great Camera Shoot Out'.
Not saying this camera is perfect at all....l but I seriously believe that you do your own tests ( properly) ....and form your own views and opinions from that experience.
Maybe a totally valid thing to push the camera until you break it in a control test... but dont put it about that there is an actual issue that you are only repeating from the trolls.
In defense of the poor OP whose been rather beaten up in this thread, it's perfectly reasonable for someone, new to professional camcorders, to try to find out how best to set up his wonderful new camcorder before he starts shooting. I watched Barry's DVDs a couple times before I shot with the AF100 (actually, I watched the DVDs before deciding to buy the camcorder). And Barry does mention banding and how to reduce/avoid it. I've never seen banding from the AF100, but about a year ago someone posted a banding example from a Canon C300, also an 8-bit camcorder. Yup, banding can be ugly.
-- Ken
gbadgley, if you look on page 129 of Barry's book, you will see "CINE-D gives you the most room to manipulate your image in post". Of course, he also says that CINE-D has a lot of noise. I will add that , as a general rule-of-thumb, you should avoid doing too much post manipulation on video shot with an 8-bit camera. You throw away data when you do massive manipulation in post. It is better to use the camera settings to get close to what you want. Sure, you'll read about people shooting ARRI Raw, then doing a lot of adjustments in post. But the ARRI Alexa is NOT an 8-bit camera.
-- Ken
gbadgley, if you look on page 129 of Barry's book, you will see "CINE-D gives you the most room to manipulate your image in post". Of course, he also says that CINE-D has a lot of noise. I will add that , as a general rule-of-thumb, you should avoid doing too much post manipulation on video shot with an 8-bit camera. You throw away data when you do massive manipulation in post. It is better to use the camera settings to get close to what you want. Sure, you'll read about people shooting ARRI Raw, then doing a lot of adjustments in post. But the ARRI Alexa is NOT an 8-bit camera.
Problem with using any other gamma but Cine-D is that they all look extremely video-ish. Cine-D is the only"filmic" one IMO.
Since the AF100 doesn't shoot in Cineform or any version of technicolor, we have to choose among the scene file options it provides. There are two reasons it's necessary and desirable to use the kind of "S" shaped gamma curve that's built into the AF100 and most other digital cameras:
1. Unlike both film and the human eye, which respond to light in a logarithmic manner, digital image sensors respond linearly until they abruptly saturate at max illumination. The scene file's gamma curve converts the sensor's linear response into something more logarithmic.
2. The limited dynamic range of both the image sensor and the 8-bit AVCHD codec cannot match the DR of sunlit scenes. To handle the extremes as well as possible, the gamma curve is compressed at either or both ends of its intensity range.
On the AF100, you can select the type of gamma knee you prefer, and use the Master Ped setting to center the middle section of the gamma curve on the exposure range you want to capture. Positive Master Ped settings will lift shadow detail, but will reduce highlight headroom. Negative Master Ped settings will improve the highlights, while crushing shadow details.