BrenMyster
Well-known member
HVX PP would be real nice, there are far more HVX's out there so when ever I'm looking for a 2nd camera more people who have HVX apply for the job.
Ex Picture Profile Thread
- Thread starter BrenMyster
- Start date
astute
Member
What I would love to see is a very "flat" preset.
Something that resembles EOS or the Canon XH-A1 series.
All very light even colors.
A picture profile which is very easy to pull through color correction at a later stage.
Recently I used my EX1 alongside my Canon and the EX1 was so much more saturated (and better) but it rendered my much less sharp and very blant Canon almost useless. Very obvious difference.
Something that resembles EOS or the Canon XH-A1 series.
All very light even colors.
A picture profile which is very easy to pull through color correction at a later stage.
Recently I used my EX1 alongside my Canon and the EX1 was so much more saturated (and better) but it rendered my much less sharp and very blant Canon almost useless. Very obvious difference.
Greg Voevodsky
Active member
Which setting is better for low light, HIGH CONTRAST, sunset with details in the shadows - minimum noise. NO CINE SETTINGS
Is it better to wash out the image like BLACK +20, BLACK CINE -20 and then add the details back in the blacks... OR...
is it better to shoot BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30 which gives nice blacks and still brightens the dark greys?
Am I getting more latitude with the 2nd (BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30) setting than the 1st when it is corrected back down?
(I guess RED's washed out RAW look and then post production has me thinking more about shooting a bit flatter to get more detail in the blacks - am I wrong here? I know this is not RAW... the above settings are a decent test - I will test them soon in Color.)
Is it better to wash out the image like BLACK +20, BLACK CINE -20 and then add the details back in the blacks... OR...
is it better to shoot BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30 which gives nice blacks and still brightens the dark greys?
Am I getting more latitude with the 2nd (BLACK -5, BLACK CINE +30) setting than the 1st when it is corrected back down?
(I guess RED's washed out RAW look and then post production has me thinking more about shooting a bit flatter to get more detail in the blacks - am I wrong here? I know this is not RAW... the above settings are a decent test - I will test them soon in Color.)
basspig
Veteran
I look at this issue this way: you can always crush the blacks in post, but you can't un-crush the blacks once you've done so in the camera.
PCs have gotten so powerful now that realtime color grading is a reality. So go fix it in post--treat it like "raw" format and shoot to capture maximum information, then, at post production, have the freedom to decide what to keep and what to throw away, in terms of tonal range.
PCs have gotten so powerful now that realtime color grading is a reality. So go fix it in post--treat it like "raw" format and shoot to capture maximum information, then, at post production, have the freedom to decide what to keep and what to throw away, in terms of tonal range.
This is my attempt on a new grading-friendly profile:
Color Matrix is set off because it boosts CAs heavily.
Detail is off because it boosts artifacts and looks videoish. (works better in post)
Black Gamma is set to +15 because it brightens up shadows (works much better than in post)
Low Key Sat is set to +3 because it adds color to the brightened shadows (better than in post)
Don't use this profile with gain >0!
regards Dennis
Code:
Profile Name: HDR
Matrix:
Setting: Off
Color Correction: Off
White: Off
Detail: Off
Skin Tone Detail: Off
Gamma:
Level: -8
Select: Cine4
Black: -5
Black Gamma: +15
Low Key SAT: +3Color Matrix is set off because it boosts CAs heavily.
Detail is off because it boosts artifacts and looks videoish. (works better in post)
Black Gamma is set to +15 because it brightens up shadows (works much better than in post)
Low Key Sat is set to +3 because it adds color to the brightened shadows (better than in post)
Don't use this profile with gain >0!
regards Dennis
Michael B. McGee
Well-known member
i tried accessing your EX-1 PP thread today at 10am PST and had no luck. is your server down?
thanks,
mike
thanks,
mike
basspig
Veteran
I would expect that it will look as good as any other full raster HD camera, and maybe a tad better than some. I watched some of my footage on an 80" Stuart screen that was encoded on to a Blu-ray disc and it looked better than what I see in the cinema with 35mm film--it had more detail and was free of that "fuzziness" that always seems to plague movie theater showings. So I think it will transfer to 35mm quite nicely, if the process is done correctly.
Stevet
Veteran
Possibly some in the process, but remember that the EX1 is only been on the shelves for 9 months.
I use a Picture Profile suggested in a Shooting Tips sheet from Sony...
http://www.sony.ca/xdcamex/tips.htm (#2 - left side. SLOW download!)
Except I change the Skin Tone Detail to -20. Sony says -99.
You can see unaltered still images from a shoot with these setting by going to my website...
www.newsvideo.com
... and clicking on the picture of the EX3 on the right-hand side.
Don Smith
NewsVideo.com
http://www.sony.ca/xdcamex/tips.htm (#2 - left side. SLOW download!)
Except I change the Skin Tone Detail to -20. Sony says -99.
You can see unaltered still images from a shoot with these setting by going to my website...
www.newsvideo.com
... and clicking on the picture of the EX3 on the right-hand side.
Don Smith
NewsVideo.com
Poor Truck...
Poor Truck...
BrassPig,
That might be the last run for that truck and you got the video of it. I also notice that you used Flash for the video, is there a player for it? When output it on P3.2 using Adobe flash .flv, there is no way to play it. So, I am using QT.
Lester
Poor Truck...
BrassPig,
That might be the last run for that truck and you got the video of it. I also notice that you used Flash for the video, is there a player for it? When output it on P3.2 using Adobe flash .flv, there is no way to play it. So, I am using QT.
Lester
Has anybody tested this ?
There is still a need for Picture Profiles Overview Project !
There is still a need for Picture Profiles Overview Project !
I have been following this thread, as well as the corresponding thread of dvinfo.net/conf on Pictures Profiles for the Sony XDCAM EX1 and EX3.
I still find most discussion on the picture profiles in these threads reasonably useful, but not quite as useful and enlightening as I'd like. Advices and experiences in this thread tend to be based on anecdotal experiences (thanks though to all of you who have shared their work !). A possible exception is Matthieu Ghiekere's and other chaps' "true colour" profiles based on extensive vectorscope testing.
It think the reasons may be the following:
1. Sony's documentation of the picture profiles lacks crucial details and remain mostly evasive (I really wonder why they offer such a product but give us no real pro description of the functions supplied). The diverse hints, tips and tutorials published since on Sony Websites remain rather general.
2. While some few settings are generally understandable (most EX1 and XDCAM users know roughly what a gamma curve is about, and what detail means,... or do we really??), the EX1 community possesses no knowledge of the exact effect of most of these settings.
3. The beneficial or detrimental combined effect of two or more of the PP settings is still, as far as I know, totally unexplored e.g., gamma AND matrix.
What we could do in this thread is to initiate a collective effort to map exhaustively the PP structure, and provide precise answers to two kinds of questions:
1. Which measurable effect has this setting, e.g. detail, gamma, matrix ? Within which measurable ranges is the picture / signal modified? What are the most important threshold values? Are here any trade-offs implied?
2. Taking a collection of well-described standard shooting situations (daylight, night, mixed light etc.) and desired effects, which particular settings will provide a answer?
Any suggestion ?
There is still a need for Picture Profiles Overview Project !
I have been following this thread, as well as the corresponding thread of dvinfo.net/conf on Pictures Profiles for the Sony XDCAM EX1 and EX3.
I still find most discussion on the picture profiles in these threads reasonably useful, but not quite as useful and enlightening as I'd like. Advices and experiences in this thread tend to be based on anecdotal experiences (thanks though to all of you who have shared their work !). A possible exception is Matthieu Ghiekere's and other chaps' "true colour" profiles based on extensive vectorscope testing.
It think the reasons may be the following:
1. Sony's documentation of the picture profiles lacks crucial details and remain mostly evasive (I really wonder why they offer such a product but give us no real pro description of the functions supplied). The diverse hints, tips and tutorials published since on Sony Websites remain rather general.
2. While some few settings are generally understandable (most EX1 and XDCAM users know roughly what a gamma curve is about, and what detail means,... or do we really??), the EX1 community possesses no knowledge of the exact effect of most of these settings.
3. The beneficial or detrimental combined effect of two or more of the PP settings is still, as far as I know, totally unexplored e.g., gamma AND matrix.
What we could do in this thread is to initiate a collective effort to map exhaustively the PP structure, and provide precise answers to two kinds of questions:
1. Which measurable effect has this setting, e.g. detail, gamma, matrix ? Within which measurable ranges is the picture / signal modified? What are the most important threshold values? Are here any trade-offs implied?
2. Taking a collection of well-described standard shooting situations (daylight, night, mixed light etc.) and desired effects, which particular settings will provide a answer?
Any suggestion ?
Last edited:
Michael B. McGee
Well-known member
absolutely. let's see some recipes.
ColorBalance
Active member
" Which measurable effect has this setting, e.g. detail, gamma, matrix ? Within which measurable ranges is the picture / signal modified? What are the most important threshold values? Are here any trade-offs implied?"
In principle, I am for it. However, won't it be better if we collectively bombard Sony? I mean, their engineers have all the info. They just have to dig it up as opposed to some of us spending hours (days) in setups, analysis, and then summarizing the results.
Also, if we do this to Sony once, they (and others) will learn their lesson, and hopefully, will do the right thing from then on. They could even sell these technical details at a nominal price to recover their added cost.
What is the point of producing a professional level camera, and not telling the professionals what to do with it? In fact, giving the specs will be better for Sony as we all will be able to produce better videos and convince others to buy the camera.
Does anyone know whom to contact at Sony?
In principle, I am for it. However, won't it be better if we collectively bombard Sony? I mean, their engineers have all the info. They just have to dig it up as opposed to some of us spending hours (days) in setups, analysis, and then summarizing the results.
Also, if we do this to Sony once, they (and others) will learn their lesson, and hopefully, will do the right thing from then on. They could even sell these technical details at a nominal price to recover their added cost.
What is the point of producing a professional level camera, and not telling the professionals what to do with it? In fact, giving the specs will be better for Sony as we all will be able to produce better videos and convince others to buy the camera.
Does anyone know whom to contact at Sony?
Last edited: