FS-100 Picture Profiles

After looking at their tests, I am going to switch to cinematone1 as well with their knee settings. It's funny because when I read their first DR test, and then used the camera, I just didn't believe the values. I was getting a lot more DR than I am used to. Nice.
 
I've been looking to optimize a picture style that I could use for color grading. As I've been testing various mixes of picture style settings on the FS100, it seems that there really isn't one best way of setting the camera. Adjustment of the knee and black level, for example, is helpful when changing lighting scenarios.

Also after testing the settings for each gamma that Abel Cine recommends, I find some serious issues with the Standard and ITU709 settings. Setting the knee to 80% and a -2 slope flattens the top of the curve way too much for it to be usable. I mean...it certainly "unclips" the highlights, but to the harsh expense of contrast, turning anything within the 80-105 range into a muddy, plasticy mess. I found the best comprimise is 85% and 0 slope when using ITU709. He even says in the video that the settings may not be the best route to go even though the scopes say so.

With my findings and the PDF I posted earlier that explains the knee function....the bottom line is this: the knee is a slippery slope (haha) that I am very careful of using.

As I've been testing post workflow, the grades seem to provide better overall detail throughout the highlights and shadows when I add contrast (in post) to the ITU709 curve. The cinematones drop the shadow detail too far, even with black level set to +15. (Cinematone2 completely crushes the blacks below 15% of the curve). For grading this is not good. Basically what I found works best for grading is to expose for the highlights. The ITU709 is best for this method as the detail is held much further throughout the range of the curve. The cinematone may look better out of the camera...but for grading purposes I am going with ITU709. Also keep in mind I'm using this camera to provide the most cinematic look I can achieve.

Again, my method is to expose to highlights, and here's the picture style I'm sticking to for awhile:

Black Level: +10
Gamma: ITU709
Black Gamma: Middle, +7
Knee: Manual, 85%, 0 slope
Color Mode: Cinematone 1
Color Level: +4
Color Phase: 0
Color Depth: All 0

How does everyone feel about detail? I religously ran away from detail or sharpness settings as a rule in the past...but newer cameras seem to really do a great job of resolving detail better. As for the FS100, I've compared clips with 0 detail to +7 detail on a 50" plasma...intermittently switching between the two and I could BARELY see the difference. I did the same test scaled up 600% to some trees and could barely make out the difference as well. Thoughts?
 
I thought zero looked so nice, I left it there. Mainly because of my experience with the AF100 and detail where it accentuated the noise for me. I find the FS100 looks much sharper than my AF100 or 7D at my ideal settings on both of them. What I found more interesting is that Phillip Blooms test with the FS100 doesn't look ANYTHING like the results I am seeing with the FS100 myself. I wonder if there was some preproduction issues in what he had. My image is much sharper. Having both the AF100 and FS100 myself, I can see this as well.

Pertaining to ITU709, I was afraid to shoot with this given with 8-bit codecs I try and get as close to the final grade target in camera as possible. I used Cinematone2 on a shoot last weekend and it looked great. It was a VERY bright day. Maybe when I shoot some indoors material that will change. That said, I am going to try more Cinematone1 as I want to bring back some of the lower blacks that are getting crushed out.

One thing is clear, more testing :)
 
Thanks for that Rick. I'm going to keep that setting handy for shoots that I don't plan to grade much. Im with you on the 8bit limitation and keeping is closer in camera. With the 5d you were able to go waaaaaay flat on custom profiles which broke down like crazy in post. Most ppl including myself used the neutral profile instead. Setting the fs100 to get the flattest look is close to the 5d's neutral profile, not those crazy flat profiles. So I think were safe and in my grading test it seems to work fine.

Yes...more testing is needed! Haha.
 
Totally agreed. I need to sit down with the guy that color grades my footage to talk with him about it further, to see what he liked, didn't like. So far we are just happy with the larger DR compared to the 7D and even the HVX200 we used before. Like all cameras, it takes the DVXUser brain trust AND everyone in the camera operating community to eek out every bit of usefulness in these cameras! Given the 8-bit limitation, I am probably going to experiment with a few different profiles for different conditions to get the most out of it.
 
Aaaah the HVX200. That camera and I had a great run until DsLRs came around. Having owned one previously and seeing it's shortcomings is why I didn't get the AF100 when it came out...had the same soft up-rezzed looking results to me. So happy with this fs100 so far.

If you feel so inclined, try out my settings (posted previously) with your colorist. Expose to the highlights, and see what you think of the results after grading compared to your other settings. Would loveto hear your thoughts! :)
 
I'll definitely try them when I am shooting again, today and tomorrow is all After Effects work. :) Yes, I actually have an AF100 as well. I find the FS100 to be much sharper. I can make the AF100 sharper, but when I do, it adds more noise than I like so I keep the detail down very low. It still looks nice, but now that I have the FS100, comparing the two images, I really like the FS100 sharpness more. What it really helps with is on effects shots where I need to increase the image size further for shaking the image. I feel I can go a LOT farther without the image looking too soft.
 
This is a classic technology cautionary tale. Son brought us a preproduction model for our testing. We did accurate testing or what the device was at the time -- we even had the Sony Product Manager in the room with us. We actually thought the initial results were pretty impressive for the camera, but the Sony rep said he was "asking Japan to try to squeeze out a little bit more exposure range."

Dissolve to a few weeks later, and production models arrive. Andy says, "I wonder if they were able to squeeze anything more out of the camera?" A quick test shows more than 1.5 stops added dynamic range!

We tested a preproduction model and were impressed. We had a few comments and Sony took them under advisement (not to take all the credit -- I'm sure others did as well). The shipping camera is better than the prototype.

This is why manufacturers make prototypes.

Just wait until you see the finished version of S-Log on the F3. Big steps since that first beta test in Vegas. That's how these things go.
 
Mitch your tests really helped guide me a bit as I am not an expert in any way on setting up Sony Picture Profiles. I created 3 setups based on standard, CT 1 and CT 2 for indoor/controlled light, outdoor, and outdoor super bright with some modifications based on tweaking. The more I shoot the more tweaking I'll do, but these are useful options.

I wonder if someone can come up with a CineStyle type PP? Is that even possible?
 
I went straight into a week of shooting after getting my FS100 so I haven't had a ton of time to play around with different profiles. But I had a little down time and came up with this.

Nikon 80-200
Straight from the camera
I'll post settings later
Clip13hickeytest00001401.png

Clip13hickeytest00000315.png
 
Yeah, but I don´t like the skin colors. Looks pretty "video". Maybe too much red.
A little WB shift in the picture profile could do the trick. Just to get it a little colder and shift to a little more green.

Also I find the face exposure a little to high. A pitty this camera has no zebras below 70.
 
I just found this incredibly cool video which compares the Abel Cine Profiles.

http://www.vimeo.com/groups/fs100/videos/25438776 - Download it to watch!!

To my eyes, I cannot understand how cinetone 1 can have the same latitude as the modified ITU or Standard Setting...
You can clearly see the knee impact on "PP off" and "Standard with knee".
In Cinetone 1 I don´t see anymore highlight detail, but a lot of lost info in he dark parts of the image.

Cinetone 1 seems to be no choice for me. What do you think?
 
To my eyes, I cannot understand how cinetone 1 can have the same latitude as the modified ITU or Standard Setting...
Click to expand...

Yes you are absolutely right. It's confirmed in this document . Page 4 shows ITU709 as the curve with the most information. If you want dynamic range...this is the curve to use. Again...I'm talking dynamic range for post grading...NOT getting the best look right out of the camera. :)
 
Texas Jones said:
Yes you are absolutely right. It's confirmed in this document . Page 4 shows ITU709 as the curve with the most information. If you want dynamic range...this is the curve to use. Again...I'm talking dynamic range for post grading...NOT getting the best look right out of the camera. :)
Click to expand...

I don't think so.

(1) The graph doesn't even show ITU709, look at the legend.

(2) You are looking at the output, that is just showing you how the information is being expanded or compressed into a smaller space. If you look at the input side of the graph, they all have the same input length values. Just because you squeeze down the top and bottom doesn't mean your DR from your input isn't kept, it's just over a smaller range of values in the stored value. Basically, all you are doing is changing how far apart the bars are on the display, but not how many bars. Unless of course your curve completely crushes out the bottom, or blows out the top, which this is not showing.

The scope isn't going to lie. I believe from my eyes that both Cinetone 1, Standard and ITU are able to obtain the same dynamic range. I think Cinetone 2 crushes the blacks too much to the point shadow detail is NOT kept and you do lose DR.

I also think that the FS100 was overexposed in that shot. The FS100, like the AF100, does better exposing for the highlights, which does not look like the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top