Detail setting for a "filmic" look. at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds
Sony PMW-300, PXW-X200, PXW-X180 (back to EX3 & EX1) recording to SxS flash memory.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 5th, 2010, 12:54 PM   #1
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 75
Detail setting for a "filmic" look.

At one point Simon Wyndham commented in the picture profile thread that adjusting the detail setting to -20 with a frequency at +40 was a way to achieve a "filmic" look I have it set to -15 and +40 But I would like to know if this still holds true?

I have looked through the threads and have found only few bits and pieces of info on the detail setting and how it can give my EX1R that "filmic" look I have wanted.

Thanks in advance.
William Graydon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2010, 04:06 PM   #2
Trustee
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,267
William,
There is no one setting which will give you a "filmic" look with a nonfilm camera. People play with the detail settings to avoid artificial looking sharpness which is one aspect of the difference between video and film. Sometimes people go too far and everything looks too soft. Frame rates like 24P, appropriate shutter speeds and different gamma settings have a lot to do with the film look on a video camera. Filters in post can make a huge difference as well.
One of the biggest differences to me is the lack of movement in the grain of a video camera which is why adapters with spinning ground glass and 35mm lenses look more film like to me. Depending on the shoot just using 24P (which I like),turning down the detail (my taste is a little on the high side compared to the no detail crowd but still low) using filmlike gammas can get you closer to a look.
While Simon's settings may get you in the ballpark and you might decide he hit it right on the head it is okay if you use his settings as a starting point for your own exploration. The toughest thing is how do you evaluate what you are getting? What screen size do you use etc.
Daniel Epstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 5th, 2010, 04:57 PM   #3
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 75
Thank you very much Daniel your advice was spot on and that's exactly what I will do use it as a foundation to expirement with different looks.

Thanks again for your advice.
William Graydon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 03:21 AM   #4
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: GLASGOW, UK
Posts: 71
Standard BBC EX1/EX3 setup

Hi there,

You might have found this but the BBC has a 'recommended' setup for the EX1/3 which includes a suggestion for the detail setting.

BBC - R&D - Publications - WHP034 - Addendum 27

Just to be clear when this document talks about 'film' and 'video' it is specifically talking about differences in exposure and dynamic range settings and NOT anything to do with 24p or temporal settings to match film.
It recommends the 'film' setting for shots that WILL be graded and therefore preserves highlights and shadows, and the 'video' setting is for shots that will not be graded and mus t maximise the dynamic range in-camera.

Hope that helps.

Dave
Dave Chalmers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 09:43 AM   #5
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 75
Thanks Dave. That was also very informative and helpful. I had been looking for something like that.
William Graydon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 11:52 AM   #6
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 233
My best luck with a film look is in Adobe Premiere ... they have a great film look effect. By adding just a tiny bit of grain usually does the trick. I'm sure that Final Cut would have that as well.
Brian Barkley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 01:34 PM   #7
Tourist
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Lake George, Colorado, USA
Posts: 3
HD video to 35 mm film transfer

<<One of the biggest differences to me is the lack of movement in the grain of a video camera which is why adapters with spinning ground glass and 35mm lenses look more film like to me. Depending on the shoot just using 24P (which I like),turning down the detail (my taste is a little on the high side compared to the no detail crowd but still low) using filmlike gammas can get you closer to a look.>>

Very usefull information sir, it confirms my feelings and research here too. The "look" is quite subjective I have observed, Younger people are conditioned to see a give "look" diffrently from adults for example.

As a Dr. of psychology I have done experiments in this and can tell you without question this is statistically true. We can't know exactly what we are measureing but we do know we are measureing the same thing each time and there is a statistically signifcant result. I will publish this research in perhaps another year to 16 months when I finish the trials etc.

Lenses also seem to make a signifcant diference in getting a reported more "film look".

The sony HVR Z7U takes cinematic lenses and gets a more film look to many people's eyes, I wonder how it would be percieved if footage from this camera was transfered to 35mm film. Does anybody know or seen this result, and with nay HD camera footage (though the Sony HVR Z7U) is my primary intrest here as it is the control.

Some effects like the shaky camera looks "film" like to some younger people, but to some adults it gives them nausea. Brain wiring is not fully formed in person unitl about age 20. This is determines and arguments the decoding in the visual cortex. Hence, younger people exposed to many different media as they grew up do see things on a screen diffrently than older people.

In fact, though the sample space here is too small to make a conclusion, it appears that the younger people (18 to 21 or 22) do not identify HD video that has been "proceesed" for a more "film look" quite as quickly as do older people. This is because the older people's 'neural nets' were formed in a "film only" enviornment when they were young.

When I see a program of TV, I know at once if it was shot in 16mm, 35mm film or HD video and often even what camera might have been used. But it surprised me at first how a good number of people can not even immediately discriminate film for 'processed video' made to look like film. I mean see it "right away' or immediattely.

Now I have a question: Has anyone seen the result of transfering 24 P, HD video to 35 mm film? What does it look like to you and what is your generational age?

Does the result appear more like it was shot orginally on film, and perhaps 16 mm film? If you can answer please post it here but also could you email your reply to me Dr Quinn at peytonq1@gmail.com

By the way, I am healthy 60 nowand on my "bucket list" is to shoot a feature film. I have actually worked on two major Hollywierd productions. I even wrote part of the script for Road House with the ,late Pat Swazey. My life has been not the ordinary one, and I did not desire an ordinanry one either. I have few regrets really, just a few things I wnat to get done before I 'chek out'.

I will shot my feature with HD video aquistition. Again, what do you good people think of the about the Sony HVR Z7U? then transfering it to 35mm ? ( I know the cost of transfer is high but that's still less expensive than shooting in film) Thak you all! Peace be with you all and thnak you for your replies.

Peyton
Peyton Quinn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 02:18 PM   #8
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 115
Thought for the day:

If HD video had been invented before 24fps film, would there be so much obsession in trying to achieve a 'film look'? Why do some prefer to see jerky movement and grain? Is this the visual equivalent to those who swear that the sound quality of a vinyl disc is better than that of the cd, even though both will have been recorded and mastered digitally, do we just like visual and aural noise or does its presence add to the illusion?
Geoff Addis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 04:14 PM   #9
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Overland Park, KS
Posts: 233
Geoff asks a good question, and the answer is "it is just a matter of opinion".

I think it's what the public has become use to. When shooting a dramatic theatrical production with actors, the "video look" might be compared to a "soap opera look" on TV.

That's all any of this "stuff" is . . only opinion. Lighting, camerawork, etc. is a matter of opinion. If you've seen "Up In The Air", the lighting and camerawork, and even the directing, is not at all flashy ... actually somewhot mundane, but that's the effect they wanted in telling their story.
Brian Barkley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 04:59 PM   #10
Major Player
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 272
I blogged about this back in '08: B-Scene Films: Cinema is lies told at 24fps

I got an insane amount of hate for that blog post too...
__________________
B-Scene Films
Shaughan Flynn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 6th, 2010, 10:56 PM   #11
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina
Posts: 73
By the way, I think 24p looks much more real than 60p.

Just move your head around as if you were a camera, without really focusing on anything: can you perceive the "stuttering", the lack of smoothness? Maybe this is a very silly comparison, but it makes quite a lot of sense to me.

It is very appreciable with moving objects... go outside and see a bird pass by. OK.

Now watch it again, but move your head while always keeping the bird on the exact same place of your "frame". Can you perceive how the bird stays very clear and the rest is blurred out, just as like if you were following something while in 24p mode? You can't get that look with 60p...

Maybe 24p is a tad too few. Maybe 30p is better, I don't know. But I do know 60p looks awfully unreal to me when compared to 24p.

Just my personal thoughts...
Ivan Gomez Villafane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2010, 03:59 AM   #12
Trustee
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Malvern UK
Posts: 1,931
Quote:
and NOT anything to do with 24p or temporal settings to match film
This isn't strictly true, since Alan's detail settings for cameras are designed to replicate as close as the camera allows the way that film handles the different detail frequencies. Incorrect detail settings are one reason why people notice judder more with video than they do with film.
Simon Wyndham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2010, 06:04 AM   #13
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham View Post
Incorrect detail settings are one reason why people notice judder more with video than they do with film.
I second that; with the moving subject in perfect focus, but those high frequency details behind being soft enough, and those dark areas further crushed into black/softened with positive crispening - I can follow the subject with even relatively fast pans, and still get virtually judder-free picture.
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2010, 09:25 AM   #14
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Miami, FL
Posts: 75
So Simon my question is would those detail settings that alan provided give me a more "film" look overall.

Detail -5
Frequency +30
Crispening -45

Piotr when you say positive crispening do you actually mean setting your crispening to a positive value?

I am simply trying to find some of the better settings out there in order to see which one works best for my taste.

Btw I am using Bill Ravens TC2 file with CG1, CG3, and CG4

Thank you for all the input thus far.
William Graydon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old February 7th, 2010, 09:52 AM   #15
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Poland
Posts: 4,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by William Graydon View Post
Piotr when you say positive crispening do you actually mean setting your crispening to a positive value?
Exactly - this makes noise in dark areas less pronounced. Of course, along with details of those areas - there is no free lunch:)

For low-light situations, when all details I care for are those well lit, I send all the others (i.e. those in dark areas) into dark hell by crunching blacks (Cine1, or even Std1), and set crispening to +30.

Then I can also sharpen the bright detals by setting knee aperture level to positive values (like +30). You can also increase their color saturation...

Here is a good reading on this:
Sony | Micro Site - XDCAM EX
__________________
Sony PXW-FS7 | DaVinci Resolve Studio; Magix Vegas Pro; i7-5960X CPU; 64 GB RAM; 2x GTX 1080 8GB GPU; Decklink 4K Extreme 12G; 4x 3TB WD Black in RAID 0; 1TB M.2 NVMe cache drive
Piotr Wozniacki is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Sony XAVC / XDCAM / NXCAM / AVCHD / HDV / DV Camera Systems > Sony XDCAM EX Pro Handhelds

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network