FS-100 Picture Profiles

FelixGER said:
I pulled back a lot of detail in the sky
Click to expand...

I wonder if this is the analogue of an EX1's CineGamma 4? Hooray! Excellent - dialling it in now!

FWIW, I'm glad Germany also has that 'living inside of a tupperware sandwichbox' cloud pattern, Cine4 was the one setting that handled it with grace on the EX1. Over here in the UK, we get an awful lot of that. With CG4, a bit of MBL grad and a light vignette, it can look almost interesting without burying your subject in a black hole.
 
All black levels on the negative side?

I got it cranked up to 6 in almost every PP, so I can control my highlights without loosing too much in the shadows.

Hmmm....^^
 
Maybe this is a stupid question, but I can't find it anywhere: Is there a way to change the names of the picture profiles? Can't figure it out...
 
And seems to be using a lot of cinegamma 2, but in his previous range test, it seemed like the same curve as cinegamma 1 but with crushed blacks. If those profiles are intended at all for grading, it doesn't seem to make sense to use cinegamma 2.
 
Postmaster said:
I got it cranked up to 6 in almost every PP, so I can control my highlights without loosing too much in the shadows.
Click to expand...

Exactly! I have to bring the brightest part down from 245 to 235 and I do that with the negative gain function in Vegas which affects the whole curve.
 
I don't think those profiles are intended for grading. The Techniclor to some degree maybe, but not with negative black levels or I missed something.

Frank
 
I have only had the FS100 for a couple of days so my experience with FS100 PPs is limited. In testing today with a chart and waveform monitor I would initially concur with Andy's numbers and run blacks at -3. Even if you cap the lens you are not crushing the Blacks at -3. If you raise them you are wasting the limited 8 bit color space that is available to record into. A flat image as in a Technicolor profile might look like the blacks are raised on a monitor but that look should be due to a flat gamma curve and not raising blacks.
 
i agree with scot about wasting the 8-bits. ideally you'd want your pure black (capped lens) sitting just above 0IRE and pure white sitting at what ever the super white limit is. and then have a nice normal looking picture with a nice smooth roll off to white. so not super contrasty and not super flat and washed out either with hard clipping whites.


at least that's what i've found over the years gives you the best idea of your exposure on set and the best results in post.


we just got the fs100's in stock here in melbourne today. i'm gonna go check them out this week




 
jenningsp said:
I agree with scot about wasting the 8-bits. ideally you'd want your pure black (capped lens) sitting just above 0IRE and pure white sitting at what ever the super white limit is. and then have a nice normal looking picture with a nice smooth roll off to white. so not super contrasty and not super flat and washed out either with hard clipping whites.


at least that's what i've found over the years gives you the best idea of your exposure on set and the best results in post.
Click to expand...

First of all, I would really appreciate it, when you would just use the normal font and color. Black letters on dark gray may be somewhat stylish, but hard to read.

Regarding the Abel PPs.

If you are in a controlled environment, yes - they would probably work just fine - if not, we have a problem Huston.

If you have to adjust your highlights to bring them down to a useful level, with the negative black settings, you will crush your shadows to a state, where you are not able, to recover detail in post .
So if you have to you use something like +6 on your blacks, to compress them back in the 8 bit room.

Frank
 
Wasn't an epiphany after all, more a mirage.
Sorry folks, but it just didn´t work in the end.

Frank
 
speedracerlo said:
because of this contradiction, I changed my black levels to 0
can't go wrong with that
Click to expand...

DITTO! haha.

I was shooting with them at +6 as well and really did not mind the look, but I changed them to 0 after reading the last several pages of this. Seems to be the safe way to go.

Now I need to find some time to go test this out and compare.


The one thing I really did miss about shooting on DSLRs was the ability to really control your image on camera like this. I loved being able to lock in a great look with the HVX for minimal CC.
 
I've been testing with Standard and Cinegamma1 pretty extensively, and I've been able to match scenes shot with either setting to the other setting in post, using the luma curve (CS5.5), with really minimal curve adjustments (in other words, the differences are not as great as they appear to the eye). However, the Standard setting yields a brighter image, so I've been stopping down with this setting to match the exposure with Cinegamma1 in my tests. It's interesting though, that the shape of the adjustment curve is not quite what I expected from seeing the Able Cine tests. Yes the Cinegamma1 adds more apparent contrast (black crushing), but it seems to try to keep the upper-middle values a bit lighter in relation to the upper-lights and near-blacks.

My conclusion is that in either very dark lighting, or very high contrast lighting where I want shadow detail, I'll use the Standard curve, but in most other lighting situations I'll use the Cinegamma1 curve.

I have to say I am very pleased at the amount of control this camera provides to the user regarding the look of the image.
 
For having only a few curves, they did a great job at Sony.

The cinegamma 1 and 2 profiles are very nice pre-graded sort of options.

I agree, at night, You'd want to use a flatter curve, and then during the day or in a flat light situation, use those cinegammas and enjoy the contrast!!


I wish there was a superflat or log type curve in there, to explore once the recorders are in play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top