Just curious what HD100 shooters have their DETAIL level set at for most shots...

I've settled on -6 for most of my dramatic work destined for HDTV or downconversion to DVD. I have gone as high as +4 for "crisp" high contrast action/night shooting.

I'm still undecided on filmout detail setting because I haven't had the opportunity to do my own filmout tests.
(+4 was used on the SWAT Team stuff I shot that was included in Stephen Noe's film out test shown at the Chicago event in February.)

I like to keep it at -7 for HDTV. For DVD production I like it anywhere from -7 to +4 depending on what is being shot but favor -5. For Film transfer I think -9 is best.

Just curious what HD100 shooters have their DETAIL level set at for most shots...

I keep it at MIN, 24fps, for a soft look that is not blurry. It's still very nice and sharp without, IMHO, being enhanced.

--
Paolo

-7 also. I was down at JVC yesterday and the tech kindly showed me some test charts because he was concerned that I had my detail settings to low. Granted off imo seems too soft almost countering the resolution but for me somewhere between -5 and min seems to be best. personally I find little difference between -7 and min except perhaps min is just a little too soft still in some situations. It was intersting listening to the rep who was trying to convince me that I should not go below -4 . the problem for me is that althogh this gives the best reading on a wave form monitor you cannot get away from the fact that this image at this setting looks much more video like. I thinks most of us indies are prepared to sacrifice a little sharpness in the quest for a more filmic image.

Greg

P.S. I also saw the hd 100 played back through a hi-def crt and compared to a hi-def lcd it is worlds apart. I know it has bee n said before on the forum but I think it's interesting when you see it first hand the difference really does strike you perhaps more than you would imagine.

I usually go between -9 to -2 on HDV 720 depending on available light. However, last weekend I tested slow-mo at HDV-SD 480/60p and I noticed the footage lost considerable sharpness. I adjusted the detail from -6 to +2 (shutter 1/100 for extra crispiness) and it gave me a better look. I still haven't tested HDV-SD 576/50p, but I'm suspecting increased sharpness from 480/60p.

JV

I leave it at "MINIMUM". That has the least amount of aliasing without going too soft (as per "OFF"). One can always add more sharpening in post if needed. However, I'm considering trying "OFF" for facial closeups. Might be an effective look.

I leave it at "MINIMUM". That has the least amount of aliasing without going too soft (as per "OFF"). One can always add more sharpening in post if needed. However, I'm considering trying "OFF" for facial closeups. Might be an effective look.


Minimum. I just don't like the digital look of anything more. It's too apparent to my eyes, and minimum gets you very sharp without the various highlight and edge crap that you get by dialing it up.
IMO of course.

BTW, here are some sample images shot at "MINIMUM" detail:

HD100 Sample Images (http://www.neopics.com/gl1-hd100/gy-hd100u.htm)

oooh don't ever look at the tele-shot no. 5!!!

Jacob.

oooh don't ever look at the tele-shot no. 5!!!

Jacob.

Yeah, the last few % of the zoom is best avoided on mine too. I don't think it is that bad though.

this might be a stupid question, but here I go:

what does the Detail Level actually do? Did I understand it right if the level determines how sharp to show details of high contrast? Or does it have anything do to with colors aswell?

its like edge enhancement. Nothin to do with color.

Just curious what HD100 shooters have their DETAIL level set at for most shots...
What was the reason for this question? Have you got back on the HD-100 horse?

I've been experimenting with the HD100, and with all the HD cameras. I was comparing HVX, FX1 and HD100 and looking at the edge enhancement. Seemed like the HVX and FX1 really liked the detail set high, and didn't show much in the way of visible edge enhancement at all, even at maximum, but the JVC's higher settings (from NORMAL to MAX) were very noticeably enhanced; at MAX there's huge white outlines. So I was asking to find what users are finding the usable ranges were; in my comparisons I found that the other cameras at MAX (FX1 at +15, or an HVX at +7) were about equivalent to the JVC at -6. That didn't sound quite right to me, but I figured I'd go to the source and ask you guys.

At the six-way shootout we had determined that the JVC's "off" was truly off, and MIN was showing some visible edge enhancement, so I was trying to find ways to equate them for baseline purposes.

But that got me to thinking: if maximum on the FX1 and HVX equates to -6 on the JVC, then -- what level are JVC shooters using? And what do they like? What looks good to them? Do people use the higher levels and accept it?

Interesting to see that almost everyone here is using between MIN and -6, which equates to the usable ranges on the other cameras too. MIN looks like about -5 on the HVX and +5 on the Sony; you can't go lower than +5 on the Sony without the picture becoming irretrievably blurry (I'd say quite a bit blurrier than the HVX at -7 or the JVC at OFF!) Something weird happens to the Sony below 5, the picture looks actively blurred.

So -- just curiousity, and looking for some confirmation too. Wanted to see what those in the field have found as their workable range. Thanks everyone!

Thanks Barry.

Detail setting is a question that gets asked alot around here, so I think I'll make this a sticky.

Interesting to see that almost everyone here is using between MIN and -6, which equates to the usable ranges on the other cameras too. MIN looks like about -5 on the HVX and +5 on the Sony; you can't go lower than +5 on the Sony without the picture becoming irretrievably blurry (I'd say quite a bit blurrier than the HVX at -7 or the JVC at OFF!) Something weird happens to the Sony below 5, the picture looks actively blurred.


Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail. I agree with this in my findings as well. For instance, if the intended delivery is SD-DVD I think you can safely go into the + ranges to get the image to be more detailed on the smaller screen (without much penalty). However, on a 51" HDTV you'll want the detail lower (I selected -7) because the edge enhancement is more apparent. The bigger the screen the lower detail should be set.

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail. I agree with this in my findings...
I agree too, but I'd rather add it in post with a sharpening filter than shoot with it. It's easy to add later but very difficult, if not impossible, to take out. And if you're targetting smaller screens by scaling down the image (e.g. HDV to SD) then it's not much of a processing hit to add the extra filter.

If you look at Tim Dashwood's resolution charts in the thread about the 13x, youll see that turning the detail from off to min:high:high is a pretty huge difference in my opinion. I think on the min setting it gives you a significantly sharper picture but doesnt look like too much artificial sharpness. But off is just too soft.

I think it was Nate Weaver that intially said that the smaller the screen the more detail the bigger the less detail.

Good point, I hadn't thought of this before.

The only time that I add sharpening to still photos is when I post things on ebay and I am limited to their 400x400 image size. For the lower resolution, sharpening really helps the picture look sharp. If you do the same on a larger image it looks terrible.

Good point, I hadn't thought of this before.

The only time that I add sharpening to still photos is when I post things on ebay and I am limited to their 400x400 image size. For the lower resolution, sharpening really helps the picture look sharp. If you do the same on a larger image it looks terrible.


I didn't see the screening, but if I remember correctly, one of Andrew's regrets regarding the film transfer of his documentary shot on the HD100 was that his settings were pretty much set to default given his last minute use of the camera. Specifically that it may have looked better on the big screen had he dialed the detail down.

I find from my tests that under -6 the image starts to look too soft for me. I would never use "MIN" that's way too soft for me. Above -3 it's starting to look too "video sharp." I adjust according to envorinment, i.e. outdoors on a sunlit day go -6, indoors in a fluorescent lit room I'd probabaly dial it up to -3, tungsten lit interior I'd probabaly go to -4 or -5. The lens iris setting makes a subtle difference in overall sense of sharpness not just DOF.

Ya, I agree those settings in detail are very similar to what I use, but I prefer -4 for outdoor shots.

Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?


Judging from the design of the camera itself, location of controls, & over all functionality, I think JVC is not only targeting those of us shooting for a film-esque look, but also a big target is TV stations around the country. A multiformat, rugged, familiar camera at a great price & that uses tapes that don't cost $80ea. is very attractive to TV stations who are also having to invest $100,000s to outfit their facilities with HD to comply with the upcoming FCC mandated broadcast SD retirement. Imagine: a thousand stations who need as many as 40 new cameras!!!! The enhanced detail will probably be more appreciated by station news crews & in-house production.

FCC is not mandating an end to standard def. They are mandating an end to analog broadcasting. It is possible to broadcast SD over ATSC, and it is an option for many stations to simply slap an analog to digital converter on the signal chain just before the transmitter to remain legal. Well, they still have to buy a new transmitter, but they don't have to retool the whole station for HD.

I agree with all the gurus on -7 and min.
i ran a test and find that only these are acceptable.

min is a bit soft on edges, i used virtualdub to sharpen it at 30 or 40
the overall is much more beter on SD TV. not yet know to HDTV, i have no $$ to buy.

but aliasing is also a problem and some artifacts will enhanc along with it.

to me the edge enhancement is max at -7, anything beyond that is too much.

if i have a HD TV and possibly or35mm blow up i will let u know more

but likely put it at between min and - 7 is best as a range

personally i will put -7 or even -5 for SD broadcasting.

and for film and 35mm i will use min.

when i need to sharpen can get a much apealing on SD.

time is issue if u r running on slow pc

JY

FCC is not mandating an end to standard def. They are mandating an end to analog broadcasting. It is possible to broadcast SD over ATSC, and it is an option for many stations to simply slap an analog to digital converter on the signal chain just before the transmitter to remain legal. Well, they still have to buy a new transmitter, but they don't have to retool the whole station for HD.

I wasn't entirely clear. Analog broadcast is going away. Many stations have used a little bit of their digital bandwidth to "tuck" an SD signal into their ATSC transmission.

I also didn't put in the background, anecdotal as it may be, basis for my statement. Many stations, at least in top 60 markets, if they are wanting to be "power players" in their markets are going to switch over to full HD local broadcast. At least that's what the chief engineer at the station where I work tells me. Our station is going to be full HD by 2008 I think...I can't remember exactly...that's if all the budgeted stuff happens.

Anyway, back to the point. IMO a broadcast station would prefer settings on the JVC camera to be everything that the "cinema" people hate and there's probably an opportunity for JVC to sell a lot more cameras intended to create broadcast content than cinema content. That's what I was trying to say.

Yeah, JVC have picked a strange range for the detail setting. Maybe in the country it was designed they prefer the edge enhanced look?

Yes, I think that's partly the point. I have spoken to many DoPs using HD kit (from the HD100 all the way up to CineAlta) here in the UK for both cinema and broadcast. The concensus is that the first thing people do when they get the gear from the rental house is turn the detail setting right down. It would appear that an enhanced detail setting is more to the taste of the Japanese market where these cameras come from. Thoughts?

The lifespan and workflow is important to consider before using in-camera effects. Personally, it makes sense to me to preserve every ounce of information if you are recording on tape as opposed to SDI out. It doesn't matter what the effect is, if you are using any effect it means you are recording less information on the tape. Most people wouldn't consider edge enhancement an effect, but think of it this way: if you record with detail at OFF, you can add it in post. If you record with edge enhancement at MIN, you CAN'T remove it after-the-fact. If you record at OFF and you find that you ALWAYS add it back in during post, then, what the heck, record at -7 to MIN and save yourself the rendering time.

If you are transferring to film, I'd recommend OFF. Film, after all, has no edge enhancement. This is, however, educated guesswork on my part since I won't see any of my footage on film for another month or so.

AFA as comments about adding detail in post...
1. its a render hit
2. you ARE throwing away information during recording at MIN or OFF. you can't add detail back in that wasn't recorded, all you can do is sharpen edges that already exist, not the same thing. another way of looking at, you have a VHS tape.... so you dub it to BetaSP. Do you now have a BetaSP quality image ? no, all you have is a VHS image on your beta tape. Same thing, you can't add resolution back into an image if it didn't originally exist. all you can do it try to enhance edges of what was originally there.
3. Its much easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it because sharpening also boosts noise in the signal and of course can produce several different types of artifacts. I post you there are a number of ways of taking the edge off, as well as regraining the footage to keep it consistant with other material.Its much easier to degrade the footage, than to try to add what isn't there.

If you ever have to shoot in 4:3 SD mode, you will find that a detail level below -3 or -4 makes for a very mushy image. especially if you need to m ix into other broadcast cameras, or even the VX100 series. For 4:3 shooting, you want to bring the detail level up, maybe even around 0 otherwise you'll get an image thats too soft to be acceptable.

Steve O

AFA as comments about adding detail in post...
2. you ARE throwing away information during recording at MIN or OFF. you can't add detail back in that wasn't recorded...

3. Its much easier to soften an image in post than sharpen it...
I have to disagree with you on both of these points.

On the first one, the "DETAIL" setting is nothing more than edge enhancement. It has no effect on the real detail recorded -- the only real detail is what you see at "OFF", everything else is artificially enhanced from there up.

Secondly, having worked for many years in photo retouching and image manipulation, I've never been able to properly remove edge enhancement from an image to the same point as if it wasn't there in the first place, but I've ALWAYS been able to put the enhancement in if I needed it.

But to be fair, we'd all certainly be interested in seeing some of your examples if you can prove me wrong.

Ok, the detail circut isn't just effecting the outline of of an object, its every part of that object, including noise - for better or worse. If you turn the detail down too far, you can't recover fine detail that would of came out had the detail level been higher. typical examples are hair, grass, branches. You can't enhance was didn't go to tape in the first place.

AFA shooting 4:3, please take your camera and shoot some SD 4:3 with a couple of detail levels, then compare to a D600 or even old 537. If you don't bring the detail level up when shooting 4:3 you will get mush, especially compared to those cameras.

one way of removing edge enhancement is to run a find edges filter on the image, then use that as a matte source for a blur. that way you blur the edges without changing the rest of the image, then regrain. Even the process of an apply mode blur + regrain will remove any "over sharpness". I'm not talking about cranking the detail level so high that you get really distinct edging artifacts like an old 400A. with a detail level of -2 to 0 in 4:3, you'lll its comparable to -6 or so in HD mode

Steve Oakley

I'm just wondering - Has JVC or anyone else posted a white paper or something similar on this matter yet?

It's been months now since this important issue has come up. I have read many people opinions on what exactly the detail setting actually do (thanks!), but it all still seems like conjecture.

I too think the min setting is a little soft, but have read that for any sort of film transfer to keep the detail setting at none or min.

I'm so confussed...

john

evilgeniusentertainment.com

I'm just wondering - Has JVC or anyone else posted a white paper or something similar on this matter yet?

It's been months now since this important issue has come up. I have read many people opinions on what exactly the detail setting actually do (thanks!), but it all still seems like conjecture.

I too think the min setting is a little soft, but have read that for any sort of film transfer to keep the detail setting at none or min.

I'm so confussed...

john

evilgeniusentertainment.com


Like anything else, it's a matter of taste and style. There is no "right" or "wrong". It's about trial and error. If you're going to do a cine out then test the setings first to see.

Personally direct to HD LCD monitors or where ever, I simply find the detail above Min., unrealistic and certainly not "film like". Min I think gets the full res without any digital artifacts (especially in highlights).

Again, my opinion which is all any creeative decision is, but I'd never imagine a need to shot above min and we've tested wuite a bit.

I keep it at min for HD, but move it to just below Normal for SD (otherwise it is a bit soft). But the added detail in HD does nothing more than add aliasing and edge enhancement to me.

One example of how electronic edge enhancement ruined some art recently: Just today I was in a coffee house. I saw some B&W prints on the wall so I took a closer look. Once I got close to them they looked cheap because I saw a lot of edge enhancement and little black & white lines. It totally gave away the photos as electronic either in capture or in manipulation and left the works very unpleasant to my eyes. Like I said, suddenly they looked cheap – like someone had taken their point and shoot digital camera and taken some photos with the sharpness nice and high. Perhaps that’s the look they were going for. Either way, it didn’t speak kindly to the real world they represented and ultimately left something BETWEEN me and the world they were showing.

But once again, that's just my opinion.

When you call someone in for a full, 3-camera shoot with all the bells and whistles, grips andf gaffers and the like and your subject is George Spiro Dibie, you better have confidence that your lead cameraman knows what he's doing. For 2nd Unit this week we had to use an all non-pro crew because that's the basis for 2nd Unit and so I turned to Paolo Ciccone, telling him who his subject was. If anyone ever doubted Paolo's settings, you can put them to rest becasue even George was astounded at what his setting had the JVC doing. The blacks were incredibly separated and not crushed in the least while he toned-down the stark-white walls that served as the backdrop. So for those of you who are experienceing latitude issues, baby, it ain't the camera!!! Please e-mail Paolo and ask him what settings he used and how he tweaked them to get better results for your own efforts. And even if you don't come back, you have to see the Dibie expose on www.2nd-Unit.tv one time and this isn't a shameless ploy. Yopu really need to see what Paolo can do with a camera.

When you call someone in for a full, 3-camera shoot with all the bells and whistles, grips andf gaffers and the like and your subject is George Spiro Dibie, you better have confidence that your lead cameraman knows what he's doing. For 2nd Unit this week we had to use an all non-pro crew because that's the basis for 2nd Unit and so I turned to Paolo Ciccone, telling him who his subject was. If anyone ever doubted Paolo's settings, you can put them to rest becasue even George was astounded at what his setting had the JVC doing. The blacks were incredibly separated and not crushed in the least while he toned-down the stark-white walls that served as the backdrop. So for those of you who are experienceing latitude issues, baby, it ain't the camera!!! Please e-mail Paolo and ask him what settings he used and how he tweaked them to get better results for your own efforts. And even if you don't come back, you have to see the Dibie expose on www.2nd-Unit.tv one time and this isn't a shameless ploy. Yopu really need to see what Paolo can do with a camera.


Hey, really nice of you to be doing that Jonathan. I downloaded the clip and loved George's energy and attitude. Is that you doing the intro and wrap? Can I suggest a lower third identifying you?

http://www.fotgfilms.com/jvc.html

I'm shooting 24p around 1/48th and 1/60th of a second, but it's looking like video to me on small patterned subjects like...

1. Chain link fencing (zooming in and out of) looking like interlaced video.

2. Bleachers from across the soccer field looking like interlaced video.

3. Maybe toning down some of my highlights because the highlights are maybe being edged enhanced?

So will changing my Detail setting from Normal to Min or OFF eliminate my issues with the above 3 issues?

FCC is not mandating an end to standard def. They are mandating an end to analog broadcasting. It is possible to broadcast SD over ATSC, and it is an option for many stations to simply slap an analog to digital converter on the signal chain just before the transmitter to remain legal. Well, they still have to buy a new transmitter, but they don't have to retool the whole station for HD.

it's the digital transmitter that I think is the nail in numerous local TV station's coffins. KFTY in california no longer broadcasts over the air. Cable, DirecTV and Dish only. Other rebroadcasters are saying they have to pay as much as $100,000 per channel to go to digital, so they are going off the air this year or next. Sell the airwaves to other industries. weird times. Major cities will be unaffected of course, small rural areas might be without local TV unless they get DirecTV or Dish or cable.

I use Min and Off. A couple times even Off was sharper than I wanted so I had to soften in post. I also shoot with low shutter speeds to make motion blur look closer to what I see. So my taste is for natural looking footage without that nasty digital edge on everything, and long motion blur.
Jon

definitely need to sharpen up in 4:3 SD, especially when matching other SD only cams, especially with the standard glass which resolving power is starting to grate on me. And I'm not entering into that whole argument as it does a ok job for something thrown in for $500 on the 251.
But looking at that post where someone showed the different levels of detail with a wire basket and a wrought iron chair on the grass, I would seriously wonder whether the detail is pure edge enhancement, as the no detail shot only showed a blur when it came to wire mesh from what I recall.
I know that you use min or off for film out or large screen, can someone show what this is like I would have thought the bigger the screen, the more it shows up soft edges etc and you loose the whole Hi Definition detail thing? I mean really thats what Hi Def is about isn't it, resolving more information and seeing more detail?