I liked the overall look of the REALITY preset but to my eyes, it had a little bit of a red bias and was a touch oversaturated. Also, I wanted a bit more contrast and sharpness.

Everyone has their own idea of what "real" looks like. The end results satisfied mine. That's the cool thing about the A1.

This is the first video that I've shot with the A1 where I didn't feel the need to do any color grading in post. And for those special occasions where you need the colors to "pop" a slight boost to saturation in post is all that's needed.

Hey Marcel,

Thanks for the modded preset. I'll be sure to give it a test this weekend and check it out. Myself, I like the REALITY preset, but find it has a bit of a bias towards yellow, not red. I haven't done any indoor shooting with it however, and have only shot with it in sunny outdoors.

Is it possible that when one sees a little bias to red and another sees a litle bias to yellow that we are talking about WB issues? With the Wb switches set to preset and K I can easily change my footage from reddish to blueish by changing the K value. So I second Gerts question: should WB be made based on the K value of the lighting and/or time and conditions of the day once (before changing presets) or every time after changing to a different preset. And is changing the K value more reliable than WB via a white card / grey card / white paper / white subject?

Personally, I change the preset, then do the white balance. Unless I'm experimenting with new settings, I normally stick to the same preset all day, but change the white balance at each new location - sometime for each shot - as the sun gets higher then lower in the sky and the cloud cover changes.

Instinct tells me that the two things should be independant, that the white balance setting should depend on the colour temperature of the light entering the lens, and so be calibrated before any image tweak parameters are processed, but I really don't know whether this is true. If I think of it, I'll do some experiments at the weekend. (OT: I'm hoping to shoot 60007 Sir Nigel Gresley on the East Coast Main Line on Saturday then 6233 Duchess of Sutherland and 60019 Bittern on the LSW main line on Sunday - let's hope the weather's kind!)

I'm sure that is a factor. I white balance immediately after changing presets or turning on the camera and for outdoors typically use the same K value. I guess the point is that if I switch from say PANNLOOK2 to REALITY and follow the same white ballance routine on the same day...within minutes of each other, the resulting footage using REALITY, at least to me, has a red bias. I certainly don't want to have to artificially adjust the K value to compensate for a color bias on a given preset. Too much to remember.

As I said earlier, the REALSHP preset, for me at least, fixed that and added a touch more contrast and sharpness. It's all about perception and personal preference.

After several emails with Canon about the white balance question they finaly managed to read the whole email.

I asked them the same question I did here on the forum: Should I do a white balance and then use the custom preset, or the other way around?

The answer of Canon:
First set the camera to default (switch off any preset) and then do a manual white balance or use the right (K)elvin value. Then switch on presets and choose the one you want to use.

Canon's answer is very interesting.

It would be nice to run some tests doing it:

1. The way Canon suggested (first turning off the active custom preset, then performing white balance, then selecting and activating the desired custom preset), versus

2. First selecting and activating the desired custom preset and then performing white balancing.

I think some controlled tests using both methods would be in order.

I have always used Option 2 and have been happy with the results.

I also use method two. Perhaps it's more important to pick a method and stick with it as determining which is better is probably more subjective than objective.

The reason why I asked Canon is:

The Canon XH-A1 has several ways to set the white balance. Canon has made the two settings on the camera (outside: 5600 Kelvin and inside with light: 3200 Kelvin) which are both exactly the way they should be. They used external equipment to make every camera like this. You could say: they tuned every camera on those two settings (it would be interesting to test that. Set both cameras to neutral and look at the picture they produce. Providing every setting is the same).

With the third method the camera can be set to a certain (K)elvin setting. That's because sunlight changes over the day. In the early hours the light is a bit blue, during the afternoon (depending on the weather) the color temperature goes up from 4000 to 5600 of even higher 7000+ Kelvin) and in the evening when the sun goes down the light changes to red, yellow, 'gold' colors.

In all three settings (sun, lamp and Kelvin) red, green and blue are changed in the same proportion. But, when using the manual white balance, the camera will try to set those three colors (red, green and blue) apart from each other so they will produce a nice white color of the object in front of the camera.

But.....how do you know if it is really white? It may be a bit yellow, or green, or blue...almost invisible to our eyes. (Go to a hardware store and look how many different sorts of white paint there are) The camera will try to correct that to a nice 'white' surface, meaning it will change all three colors (red, green and blue) leaving the fixed proportion between those three. That could mean in the new picture there is a lot more red, blue or green to get the right white and that means it will also change every change you wanted to have with the preset. For instant: Your CP has a RED +3 and after the manual white balance the camera corrected the camera RED with -3, the whole effect of the CP is gone.

So...what to do?

Set the camera to 5600 or 3200, or just use the Kelvin setting to produce the right white balance. Don't use the manual setting...(yet).
After that, use the custom presets to change the settings of the camera. After all, that's exactly what they are meant for.

And....let's assume you like the CP of Kees: REALITY and you want to make video recordings between sunrise and sunset...that would mean you have to use several versions of the custom preset. Just because the light outside changes from blue to red in the evening.
Of course this will not mean you have to correct the camera to a white balance where white is white again. For instance: a white surface in the evening sun will have a yellow, orange, gold color. If you correct that too much every other color should become pale and the whole picture is not like it should be.

So, I think I would produce three different CP's of REALITY. One for 3200K, one for 5600 and one for 7000 Kelvin. Each with their own little changes so the picture will be like YOU want it to be....and that is exactly the meaning of CP's.....you make a few and use them during the day so you don't have to go in to the menu to change all settings which takes a freaking long time to do.

1. Set white balance
2. Set CP (after choosing or making the right one)
3. Use camera

and not the other way around...

(The whole story came up after reading a very interesting article written by Nigel Cooper).

That's all well and good but I think we are fogetting that the ultimate goal is to produce the look that you want...by whatever means you like. My personal feeling is that it's good to have foundational knowledge about how things work...it's a good failsafe should all else fail. That being said, at least for me, following a strict set of steps because you feel you "Have to", interupts the creative process. If you produce an image that is pleasing to the viewer, no one is going to jump up and say "Wait, it may look good, but it can't be good because he set his CP prior to white-balancing..."

I do think the information that Gert provided is valuable...especially if you just got the camera and have no idea where to begin. And for many, that will be the way they always do it. It's also helpful in understanding why some things happen. But just like a golf swing, one swing does not fits all. So many golfers focus on perfecting the swing instead of the goal, which is getting the ball in the hole in the least amount of strokes.

So too, I think, with setting up the A1. There are endless possiblities, some, I'm sure, are yet to be discovered. To me, getting the look you want and being able to repeat it is all that really matters.

Now stepping down from my soap box while looking over my shoulder for the Canon CP police :)

Thanks for the comment Marcel.
Last week I did some testing. It was great weather with a few clouds in the air. I did no manual WB and set the camera to 5600K.

I switched the camera on M(anual)

I did no manual WB and set the camera to 5600K: (Little switch under the LCD set to (K) and white balance to (PRE) then press the manual white balance button and wait for the kelvin temperature blink on the screen and turn on the little wheel to change it to 5600 <-- Quick explination for beginners.

Then I switched on the custom presets and selected true color and some other CP's. I watched the picture on our 32 inch Full HD screen and compared it with outside....that was a WOW! moment...

After making the CP movie I was wondering which methode was right: number 1 or number 2. And yes, you are completely free to have a choice. But Canon said: number 1 is the way to go.

Both are the same thing. No extra work. No extra handlings....just a little change in the way you do it....only difference: the resulting picture.
As I said: If you have a CP which tells the camera to +3 the color red, green or blue and if you do a manual WB and that brings the camera back with -3 on the color you +3....then it has no meaning to have CP's. This is no techno stuff...it's very basic.

I"m not the expert in CP's and how to handle things...but I was very curious about the way I should really handle my A1. And this was one of the things I could not find in the manual. Yes they tell you how to handle WB and CP's....but they don't tell you in which order they should work. So I asked Canon..

Please, if you have the time, read this article:

http://www.dvuser.co.uk/content.php?CID=69

Thanks, Gert.

Actually, it not as basic as one might think. White balancing does not necessarily negate your color settings in the preset. For example if you have your preset set red to +3 and white balance, it may move red to -2 or to +4 in order to produce white. It depends on and is relative to the other color settings in the preset and of course the color of the light. Balancing white doesn't necessarily deminish the affect of the saturation of each color and how it appears individually in the picture. In addition, there are many more settings in a preset than just simple color gain that affect the look of the picture.

When I was working on modifying a preset, I was outdoors. While I was playing aournd, I white balanced the camera and then moved through my 3 favorite presets. I repeated the process but this time white balancing after I switched to each preset...all the while recording to tape. Later, when played back the footage in my NLE, I ended up with 6 different looks. I didn't think about it much then, but if white balancing after switching to the preset negates the settings then the last 3 would have all looked the same. This was by no means a controlled experiment and other stuff happened in between moving through those presets, but I did learn from it. I also tried no w/b and using the outdoor K setting just to see how that looked.

I just happened to find that the preset I was modifying had a more pleasing look (to me) when I used the second method, rather than the first so I continued to modify the preset using that method.

I'm not saying that Canon's method is wrong or that I would never use their method in the future. I'm just using a different method now and happy with it.

This takes me back to my point that it's all about what works to create the look you want.

By the way I did read the article. Very informative. I have worked with video since back when it was black & white on reel-to-reel machines. I'm also familiar with using gels on lighting rigs, etc. and that article brought back some memories of nightmare lighting situations.

I also understand that if I want to capture the colors of a sunset, I'm not gong to white balance. Most of the times, though...I'm not shooting sunsets.

What I've come to find out through the years is that practical application doesn't always equal theory.

I understand your point that Canon said this is how they intended for CPs should be used. I spent hours upon hours playing with the settings on this camera since I got it and I have found that they can be used in other ways as well...and with good results.

I really enjoy the A1's adjustability!

By the way, where is Ens? I was born in Den Haag. (I don't even know if I spelled that right )

Thanks again for the nice reply Marcel. I hope there will be more people telling about their experience with this.

It sertainly helped me with getting some answers and I am sertainly going out the door tomorow to do some testing.

Oh yes, Ens...look at the little atachment....if you use it in Google Earth, it will bring you to on top of our little house in the middle of the Netherlands.
I also added a KMZ of the place where I made the custom preset movie. And I will return there very soon to make the second one with now 42 presets.
(And also doing some tests with WB and CP's in combination). I also have a ColorChecker card from X-Rite to give me some help with that.

And Marcel, may I ask what you use for doing a manual white balance? Are you using a white surfaced object (a white colored card?) or do you use a 17% grey card?
Next to that, how do you set your apperture of the camera? Just enough light to get some zebra on the white? Or just enough and without the zebra?

Well, that's a good question. On my last shoot "Vasquez Rocks", I actually used a cloud in the sky. The card I use was back in the jeep and I was too lazy to get it. :) The card I have is very old so I don't remember if it is white or 17% gray...it's probably white.

I try to keep the aperture between 4 and 5.6. My understanding is that this setting gives you the sharpest picture on this camera.

I have the zebra set to 85% so I will adjust the ND, aperture (staying between 4 and 5.6) and shutter speed if necessary to have it just before I see any zebras or, very slight zebras depending on the shot. I can always up the contrast in post, but if it's already blown out, you can't get the detail back.

Also, I changed zero gain to -3db in the camera setup.

I look forward to the results of your tests with CPs and WB.

Have fun!

P.S., I see that Ens isn't that far from Den Haag. :). Also, thanks for the link to the aritcle. I'll read it in just a little bit.

O.K. guys, I thought I'd pull a Jethro Bodine on CP's and add a little humor to our CP discussion.

I went to the paint store and chose 5 color chips in a range of colors, taped them to the bottom of my computer monitor, then white balanced my A1 using the Canon Default CP. I then took a picture of the color chips with each of 4 CP's I like (Canon Default, Panalook2, TrueColor, VividRGB) and arranged the rendered results on my monitor above the physical paint chips and then retook a picture of the monitor's display of all 4 CP's against the physical color chips with the same 5500K lighting. I wanted to see what the difference in CP's was on my Samsung 216BW monitor since I do all my editing on it.

My thoughts:

1. Jethro would be proud. Serious videographers will not.
2. The rendered CP's are closer than I expected to each other.
3. A calibratable(?) screen would really help!
4. Taking pictures of your screen isn't a good idea!

A little levity is good for the soul.

And the winner is...... Canon Default! ummm...well,it's probably the closest...at least in this test.

That is interesting, though.

Lol, great test. Shame you didn't had a callibrated screen.

Light green and yellow both look not ok in all pictures...

For all it's problems, the test was interesting for me actually looking at the screen. Trying to share the results with you guys by taking a picture of a screen while lit with 5500K to light the color samples was a really, really, really bad idea!

From my vantage point on my monitor the Canon Default was probably the closest to the paint chips. In real shooting I tend to prefer TrueColor; but either way I end up making some adjustments in post to create the look I want. Here's a quick handheld using TrueColor with the blacks slightly pressed and upper-mid color curve slightly elevated in post:

http://vimeo.com/1105499

Fantastic idea to use those color chips from a paint store to compare Presets. I'm definitly going to try that as soon as I have some time.
Your biggest result so far is probably that you now know your monitor fails to show decent yellow and green.

Kees,

The monitor is slightly off on the yellows and greens as you say, but not as bad as the image shows. I think what is going on when I try to share the results is this:

When I color balance the camera for the chips, the camera adjusts its processing for how it interprets reflected colors based on the light source. The monitor, however, isn't reflected light, it is itself a light source projecting its own independent colors. So the camera on the composite picture interprets the screen (a light source) inaccurately as it is assumes all colors in the image are reflections from the same light source. The colors are also a little faded as I have two 5500K lights glancing of the screen at an angle. Add to that that the monitor portion is now an image of an image.... so color innaccuracy is magnified greatly upon sharing.

I think comparing the chips to your screen has some validity if you are looking at the results on your screen using your own eyes. It's probably a complicated endeavor to try and accurately capture the results and share them with others. I've been trying to think of a way to physically partition the lower part of the screen (where the physical chips are) and isolate the 5500K lamps there, but I still don't know how to white balance for a computer screen. Perhaps I should project a white image through the monitor and then white balance it and then photoshop the monitor results onto the paint chips? I think it's an interesting test for personal use, but probably not worth the effort it would take to make the "sharable" image accurate.

Hee Kees,

I have the X-Rite Color Checker card and I was allready planning a test with all the CP's. This card has 24 colors who are scientifically engineerd.

I'm very curious how this turns out.
I'm planning a few tests:

SUN + Custom WB
LAMP + Custom WB
KELVIN 5600K

And all three with Canon neutral and 42 CP's. Maybe I'll find a way to compare all three in one picture.

Is there a difference between using CP1 (Canon Default) and turning the CP function off? Does "off" default to CP1 or something?

Also, my A1 has a number of factory CP's in memory that are locked. Have you guys deleted them or have you found a use for them?

Hi Roger,

CP1 is no different than any other CP position. It's a "default" only if you haven't loaded it up with some custom settings. There's no reason not to configure the CP1 position as you would any other CP position. By the same token, any other CP position might be the "default" look if it's empty of settings... this could be CP2 or CP6 or any slot that hasn't been filled a custom setting.

The "off" position means just that... custom presets are off, and the camera reverts to the default, out-of-the-box image. The "off" position is the real default, but any empty CP position is as good as the "off" position for this purpose.

The factory settings at CP7, 8 & 9 are described on page 82 in your operator's manual and can be unlocked and deleted at your leisure. They can be restored either by performing a system reset or by manually entering their values as listed on page 82 of the manual. Hope this helps,

Chris,

Thanks for the input on CP defaults, I appreciate you taking the time. I can't imagine you thought this discussion would live this long back when you posted on Dec 6, 2006! Thanks for pulling this together.


Gert,

When you do the tests with a calibrated monitor and the proper color chips, would it be possible for you to run a direct feed from your camera to the monitor and change one of the camera's CP's interactively (with real-time feedback through the monitor) until you feel the camera's colors match the physical chips?

That can only be done with a calibrated monitor. Otherwise he can see the differences between the various presets but can never be sure which one produces real colors. But .... it sure will help.

In many instances and single locations, it might not necessarily benefit to follow the steps outlined by Canon, because you're right, its your look and whatever pleases you is the right choice.

But what I'm thinking is that if you're doing a longer shoot over many days in several locations, and times of day, then fixing the WB first would be the tool to create consistency, "to make the whites white" BEFORE applying your intended CP look.

But yes, in some instances white balance is not the case. I had to shoot an event where they had yellow gels over all the lights... which means white balancing would ruin how the event really looked.

Not to rehash what's already been talked about, but as I'm about to embark on a two week shoot, I figure that if I'm setting the CP AND THEN white balancing, I can't guarantee that the CP will have the same effect over every location and a lot of color correcting will need to be done in post. (regardless I do color correct, but less is better). Doing the opposite, I figure would bring consistency into the entire shoot.

PS. I really wish I had a calibration system for my monitor. That would be nice.

I don't have a callibrated monitor available right now. But I'm also looking around for a good tool to achieve that. As far as that is possible with my screens....

But there is an other way to do it.
The XH-A1 can make photo's. Those photo's can be stored on the SD card and read out by Photoshop. And because I have a list of all RGB values with the card, I can determain in Photoshop with those photo's if the camera has the right color.

Still, as many people have told me in the mean time: It's also a matter of taste and I doubt I can reproduce an exact copy of the card by making pictures of it.

The custom presets are there for taste and handling your camera in different situations. I think it's impossible to make all recordings 100% like they should be. But, you sertainly can try....like I intend to do. Video is fun an creative and I love the A1's flexibility.

In the mean time I still hope the weather will clear up over here because I want to start on the 2.0 CP movie. The last few days weather was wet and there were lots of thunderstorms. I don't like to be surprised in the middle of the field by one of those.

I'm not sure that doing the opposite will guarantee anything either. If you consider that you are white balancing relative to the color temperature of reflective light which will surely be different from day to day unless you're in a studio. Therefore if the white foundation that you set your cp against would vary, it stands to reason that there will be some difference in the final picture, as well.

It's kinda like if you go back in time and kill your parents before you were born, then you will never be born so how could you go back in time... lol.

Both scenarios are a bit of a paradox if you as me :)

I'm curious what Canon USA would say about this subject. I know...helpdesks of company's are not that good. I had some experience with them a week ago. All they did was pointing me to sertain parts of the manual.

After a few reply's they finaly started to read my email and answer my question. I may do the same thing with Canon USA, but it would be more logical if a US customer would do that because there is a chance they begin pointing to the Dutch helpdesk....

After all they are the builders of the device. So they should know which paradox you should use.

Panalook2 and White balance
 

Thank you for the Panalook2 pre. I'v just shot an in service in SD to match up with some footage I shot in 30p cine DVX100.
It looks really good. I should be able to quickly match these up.

PS...
White balance on a card often. Sure it will change the way your pre's look, it supposed to set the camera to a standard "white" so that there is a consistency in your work; unless you want to mess with the colour to create a look in the camera.
All well and good in short scene with controlled lighting. Otherwise things change.
Looks are much easier to "create" in Colour/Post leaving your original footage standardized.

Preset Query
 

Hey guys,

I'm about to shoot an 8 week sailing documentary with an XH-A1 and but have only have 2 days to play with the camera itself before we set sail. I have shot a lot with Sony Z1u's and V1u's and have only just received the Canon in the mail for this project. It seems by speed reading this forum that few if any of you shoot the camera with it's factory setting. It also seems the consensus thinks the A1 has a red bias. I don't have time to trail a lot of different settings. I want to shoot clean, fairly saturated footage that's not over worked and will be easily manipulated in post. I'm shooting in 1080 60i to cater to all the outlets for this footage (both potential and actual) which include SD Pal, web and NTSC 1080 60i. One more thing, I'm also shooting a HV20 as a second camera and matching the two would be really handy.

It seems Steven Dempsey is a bit of a guru round here. Any advice mate?

Oh and if anyone has any tips for colour balancing at sea that would be nice too.

Cheers
Josh.

Here is your tip of the day.

Shoot the documentary with the Sony Z1, you know the camera and will therefore be able to concentrate on the important thing, i.e. the sailing. The Canon will do an excellent job, but it is one big risk to go on an 8 week assignment with equipment you don't have any experience with.

Good luck

A few tips maybe: USE A GOOD COVER FOR THE WATER! I use one from KATA. Salt and water don't mix with XH-A1 hardware. I will KILL your camera.

About the rest:

Presets: VIVID RGB (Steven) or REALITY (Kees). Both are sharp and give really nice colors.

White balance: automatic on SUN, or depending on the weather: MANUAL
(You don't have much time to do experiments on the boat I presume...)

Set the DAIL on Av or Tv.

And try to make as much recordings with the sun shining on your back. Also don't zoom, walk towards the subject or person. Try to concentrate on the stable picture in stead of the little details.

Apply the rule of 1/3.

Matching with the HV20 is hard, but there is a thread on that subject somewhere on this forum. (Use the search).

Have fun! Don't drop the A1 in the water....

P.S. Get real good ensurance!

And yes....if you are a bit unsure about the whole situation: Use the Z1.

Hey guys,

Thanks for the pointers.

I totally agree with you, shoot the gear you know. I don't have that situation, I have an A1 and I'm going to be shooting an A1. I guess that puts me little in damage control right from the start (not that the Canon is a lesser camera, just my in-experience with it )

Gert, Thanks for your concern. I have a Kata RC14 as well as a EWA marine housing for when it gets really bad. I also have everything in pelican cases with silica desiccant to draw moisture.

Lastly I'm taking my Macbookpro with me so I can review footage as we go. The reason I posted the question is, I would hate to begin in one setting only to discover it was the wrong one half way into it.

By day 10 we'll be on Midway and the potential for stock footage is huge. I need to know I have it nailed but I also want the docu to look consistent.

Cheers guys,
Josh.

Sony HC1 and Canon XH-A1 colour matching
 

I recently purchased the A-1 and also own a Sony HDR-HC1. I have balanced the HC1 to my Merlin Steadicam finding they make a great combination. I tried the A-1 on the Steadicam but I think it is a little too heavy to be practical so I have resigned myself to using the HC1 only on the Merlin.
Being so new the the Canon I am wondering if anyone has suggestions or comments about using this combination of cameras? I could try to create a preset to emulate the A-1's colour to the HC1 but that seems like "detuning" the better camera to the lesser camera. Alternatively I could do the colour matching in Eduis Broadcast. Obviously this would be more time consuming. I shoot educational doc's (mostly interior shots) and weddings (much exterior stuff).

But that's the only direction you can go in though.

You pretty much have to make a decision, as to whether you want to save time by matching the cameras once in pre-production, or whether you want to spend time and match them in post-production.

I guess my next question is how is it best to develop a preset that matches the HC1?
Thanks

Match
 

Hook both cameras up to their own identicaly calibrated monitors; use a colour chart or bars from the camera to calibrate the cameras to one another. Or.... throw the hc1 overboard and forget about it :) said with smile...

Is there any chance someone could type out the settings for the Kees REALITY preset. I'm having trouble opening the preset files.

Many thanks,

Mark

Presets
 

Hey Mark,

Here is a XLS file with all the settings typed out.
If you don't have Microsoft Office, you can use a EXCEL viewer. You can download that program for free. Just Google for 'excel viewer'.

Print it out on paper and you have all 42 presets available right now.
Number 20 is the preset made by Kees.

Good grief,

Gert