Dynamic Range

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
G

Guest

Guest
Hi,

here are 4 grabs with -2 autoexposure, all other things beeing equal.
Cinelike D, Cinelike V, Cinelike, and High Gamma settings.

As you can see, on a "Dynamic range" basis, "High" gamma setting is a clear winner.
Look at the grass, it is still very green and the luma values are greater than with every other modes (cinelike, cinelike D, and cinelike V)...
Cinelike D is the worst...
The sun peaks at maximum possible luma value for each mode, it is a constant.

I've also tested with subjects in the shadow with a sunny backgroud, and "High" gamma setting was also a very clear winner.

Interesting, no ?




url]

Cinelike D




url]

Cinelike V




url]

Cinelike





url]

High
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Very interesting...now I'll have to go out and test for myself.

Thanks for posting.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Thanks for the tests, Antoine. It might have been better if you'd set the aperture on manual to remove any potential bias from the autoexposure system. Your results pretty much jibe with my own experiences. The High Gamma setting brings up the shadows and the midtones to some extent without affecting the knee.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Disjecta,

be carefull with the iris, experiment, it does not react the same, not at all. But once i got used to this "new" way of shooting filmlook, big rewards !

sorry for the missing grabs, it just doesn't want to display here. I dont know why.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Barry,

that's it ! ,you found the right words.
For a constant (equal) luma peak, you have better lower mid exposure.
...and less contrast means better usable dynamic range.

cheers !

the DVX is so customizable...
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Antoine,

Yeah, that's one thing I love about the DVX too. It's always worth experimenting a bit with the gamma settings instead of sticking to one favorite. The great thing about the High Gamma setting is that it leaves your pedastal (blacks) and highlights alone.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

wow! great find!.. i do have some thoughts on it though

..this pic seems a bit underexposed though throughout most of the image. with proper exposure the gain in the mids and lows is not really nescessary , and the cine gamma would likely do a better job of not washing things out from lack of contrast or oversaturating.

.. i can see the obvious lattitude shift in the images, and i do find it useful info. but, im left asking "which one looks more filmic" and imho it is the cine settings vs the "high" has a more video like appearance. i belive this would be more apparent with proper exposure though. of course that can be corrected in post, but at that point your image is likely to only be very similarily mimicking what the cine settings captured to begin with.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Are they underexposed? Images on the computer tend to look darker than they do on a TV. Try importing the shots into an NLE and putting them out to a TV...

I think next time I'm in a testing mood, I'll shoot a graduated gray chart with the various gammas, at a fixed iris, just to see what it shows.

Also, Adam Wilt did some comparison gamma shots in his review of the 100A, you may find it interesting to look them up on dv.com.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Iamloser,

The filmlook is a whole subject in itself...
The DVX100 is a video camera we "want" to look like film.

All i can say is that i've always preferred the "high" setting, but i did not know "why". Now i know "why". low contrast !

One of the main advantage of film over video is "dynamic range", so it can't hurt to have more of it.

In fact, it will give you at least (if not more) a full more fstop of alattitude.
I can't pan from a shadowed area to a sunny area with cinegamma without over(under)exopose one of the areas, but i actually "can" with the :high" setting. This is great by itself.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Barry,

I dont remember where i saw a exellent review by Adam Wilt, there was a car in a shadowed street (is it correct english ?) against a bright sunny building.

In that situation, the "high" gamma setting would have helped a lot to improve the car's image and color.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

[quote author=Antoine Fabi link=board=news;num=1089225430;start=0#13 date=07/07/04 at 13:40:21]Barry,

I dont remember where i saw a exellent review by Adam Wilt, there was a car in a shadowed street (is it correct english ?) against a bright sunny building.
[/quote]
I don't know what that shot is... the review I'm talking about had a bunch of shots of a desk, computer, desk lamp, etc., one of each of the gamma settings. It's on DV.com, either in the official review or (more likely) in the "sneak peek" review he did.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Antoine, I believe the example you are talking about is in Steve Mullen's ebook...
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Disjecta,

it's a PDF called "Panasonic AG-DVX100 User's Guide by Steve Mullen
january 28, 2003, page 24 and 25. Very instructive.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Disjecta, Barry,

ooops...

you're right !

Adam Wilt grabs show his desk with a computer screen a Mac cube a cup of coffee and a small blue lamp.

He compared the original cinegamma and V and D and normal, but he did not compared the high setting.

thanks
 
Re: Dynamic Range

[quote author=Antoine Fabi link=board=news;num=1089225430;start=15#19 date=07/07/04 at 14:51:06]Disjecta,

it's a PDF called "Panasonic AG-DVX100 User's Guide by Steve Mullen
january 28, 2003, page 24 and 25. Very instructive.[/quote]
Do you have a link to it? I've done a search on the web, but I can only find a dead mindspring link.

EDIT: Oh, I found it. Apparently he's selling it for $35 dollars now. Think it's worth that much?
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Normally I would can this because its using my image hosting to show.. but this is one of those good misuses of the service. Very nice, thanks Antoine. I must say, I still prefer Cinegamma.. although High Gamma gives you a little safety.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

Jarred Land,

I think that if we can find a filter (it seems that Shneider and Tiffen do) that improves the dynamic range, then it would be great.

Cinegamma, in normal situation, look @#*@ good for sure !
Very filmlike...
I've also done some tests yesterday with "low" gamma setting that were midway between "cine" and "high" in terms of dynamic range and filmlook.

I'm going to test the Tiffen maybe today.
I'll let you now if it really improve the dynamic range...I hope...I hope...wouldn't it be great ?
 
Re: Dynamic Range

We used Ultracons before to compress the range.. and they do work well. I have a Formatt one that does as well, and should be testing the Digi-con soon.

A low power isnt as noticable though, we used a combination of Ultracons for exteriors to give us a power of +8.. pretty extreame, but it worked.
 
Re: Dynamic Range

1-excuse my bad english Jarred Land..., but what is a "low power" ?

2-you mean you used 2 ultracon filters at the same time (sounds great idea !) ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top