My Settings plus Footage
 

I would like to share the settings I came up with after an extensive test session and the results of a recent shoot I did using them. These settings were intended to deliver a pleasing gamma to the image while retaining as much color fidelity as possible. I did not get the chance to test them using a color chart, but in the real world they seem to deliver nice results with good skin tones. At the following link you can find a sample I shot with these settings. Unfortunately the original shot was not HDV but regular DV. The shot is not color corrected, but straight from the camera.

http://www.js-films.com/test/terra.wmv

The settings I used were:

GAM 2
KNE L
BLK S
PED -9
SET 0
SHP -9
HDF H
DHV 0
COR 0
NR1 0
NR2 M
CMX 2
CGN 0
CPH 0
RGN 0
GGN -1
BGN -3
RGM -4
RBM 4
GRM -2
GBM 6
BRM 1
BGM -6

Hope you guys enjoy playing around with 'em. If anyone comes up with anything better feel free to post :)

The look of the scene reminds me the look I'd get from my DVX100, not A or B with original cinegamma preset. I've filmed something similar in Saint Tropes, France. Good work!

Seems odd to use the black stretch to pull all the black levels up, only to then pull the pedestal down so far that all the shadow detail is getting clipped.

Try it. The result is pleasing to the eye, as the shadows retain detail without looking washed out.

Dear Luis,
It would be very nice if you posted both your settings and the same shot with standard settings to compare the difference. Thank you for sharing your work. By the way, I wouldn't dare to put my notebook at the edge of a pool!/ Johan

Yeah, that was my notebook in the shot. I was a bit nervous about it :) I was working really fast that day so there was no chance of fooling around with my settings versus standard settings, but since I posted my settings, perhaps someone out there can? So far, I have shot tons of footage with my settings and I like the resulting images a lot. I don't think adding pedestal would increase shadow detail, since most of what's there to record survives any cliping because of the black stretch. Shadows start clipping at around -7, but the difference between that and -9 is negligible. Any higher and all you get is gray blacks. By the way, my posted settings crank the sharpness all the way down, which leads to a soft unsharpened image. I tend to work like this because I like to sharpen in post under more controlled conditions, but if you want the image editable out of camera, some sharpening should be added. Also, if you downconvert HD, there are workflows to get optimal sharpening that benefit from an unsharpened original image.

Yeah, a comparison with stock would be illustrative. In any case, though, direct sunlight and shadows at the pool is a tough lattitude test. It looked like you figured out how to handle that quite nicely. I have a busy weekend ahead but if I get a little spare time somehow I might give these settings a try. Thanks!

Yes, I'm surprised at how nice images come out of this camera even when dealing with backlight or extreme contrast. That particular scene at the pool had no fill whatsoever, it was merely available light. Would you believe that? The charts may be showing a reduced latitude for this camera, but my real world experience tells me otherwise. It behaves like a big camera. I wasn't expecting much since a lot has been said about how you cannot expect big camera performance from 1/3" ccd, and how you get what you pay for, but in this case I feel I'm getting a hell of a lot more than I initially was hoping for. The colors are also surprising. When I get to review my footage back at the studio it tends to feel a lot more like SDX footage rather than DVX footage. I also have a Letus XL on order so I will be testing that when it arrives and I'm expecting to make some presets for that as well.

Comparison of stock to Terra preset
 

Here are a couple of comparison stills I made using the preset Luis suggested. I've named it "Terra" unless Luis has a better suggestion! If you click the thumbnails, you'll get the full-size image. The one on the left is stock, no preset, and the one on the right is the Terra preset. These first shots were taken at dusk with the camera in "A" Program auto exposure mode.

Dear Chris,
I see one upper (0133) and one lower (0134), not left and right... /Johan

Stock on left, "Terra" preset from Luis on the right...

Again these were both in Program AE at dusk. OIS on, Gain off, AWB. I should have balanced manually...

In that case Johan the upper one is stock, the lower one is the Terra preset.

0133 and 0137 are stock -- 0134 and 0138 are the preset from Luis de la Cerda.

I included the .CPF file and .TXT file for 0134. They're identical for 0138.

Dear Chris,
They still show up as one upper and one lower in my Safari and Firefox browser. They are shown on two separate rows right above each other.
I assume the left is the first one... (with lower file number) /Johan

Great samples there Chris! I have made a minor modification to the preset for a sharper image out of camera. Sharpening in post is a good idea, but very render intensive and time consuming, so for all of us who have to work within the bounds of a deadline, turn the sharpening up to -3 (or 0 if you want a VERY sharp image) and the coring down to -4 to keep noise levels at bay. :)

Sorry fellows, I'm so "old school" and still using MSIE. I really need to get FireFox and see how the real world looks. Yes the even numbers were stock, the odd numbers were the preset from Luis.

Thanks Luis -- hope to see more custom preset files fom you! I'll make the change to sharpness and shoot some more today. How do you feel about calling this one "Terra" or did you have another name in mind? Because the name "DeLaCerda1" will not fit the file naming scheme!

I'll happily admit I come from a non-technical background, but my instant reaction was that I prefer the stills on the left ie the ones taken with the stock settings.

In comparison the ones with the "terra" setting look dull and flat. More specifically the cats eye and the hedge in the background show noticeably more detail with the stock setting (IMG_0133).

If the "terra" setting is supposed to be an improvement then I can't see it. I can see a bit more detail on the "sculpture" but that's all. Am I missing something?

Paul that could be my fault for just grabbing the camera and shooting in Auto mode with available light (at dusk no less). I would like to see the preset from Luis in a better environment, better lighting and a manually dialed camera.

Hehehe. The name terra sounds great to me. Funny thing, because the footage from the pool was named terra because it was shot at a hotel called Terranova in Veracruz, Mexico. :) I need to get myself a macbeth color chart to make more presets. The best tool to make them is the trial version of canon's console, because it allows you to check numerical color values for individual pixels onscreen, but it is rapidly nearing expiration for me. And as great as it is, I'm not sure I want to pay the 500 bux for it, because the functionality it brings to the table is limited in my opinion. Carrying a laptop around all the time is not my idea of an efficient way to operate, plus glidecam work is impossible with any kind of cable hanging from the camera, plus there's no way to charge laptop batteries away from the laptop itself, plus the display lags too much to be useable as a field monitor. I think I'll rather buy a firestore, even though I will lose out on the preset tweaking.

Paul, of course the stock images look more detailed, the preset I did dials sharpening all the way down. It's in the way it handles color and contrast that it shines, in my opinion.

Luis,
Your setting seems to reduce those red/green fringes quite much. Should be interesting to see what more sharpness makes.
In my opinion I prefer the stock setting for Chris photos so far. However, your pool film looks very nice and I am impressed you could handle those sunlight reflections in the water without problems.
But to be fair, your setting makes the picture look darker and that will of course reduce the blown out problem with white. So, if you increase the exposure and sharpness a bit - what would it look like?

I do not understand

why 4:3 not 16:9 luis ?

James, 4:3 because I was shooting a video that will be displayed on regular TV's through the hotel's internal system.

Johan, the image becomes darker because of the cinema gamma 2 setting. Cinema 1 and Video Gamma increase overall brightness of the image, with video gamma being the brightest of both. However, it tends to look washed out and noisy. I prefer my contrast to live within the higher levels of luminance, where sensors tend to have the greatest dynamic range and less noise. It's amazing how much information is in there before 100% zebras start showing. Color also becomes more vivid as a side effect. I was also sursrised at the reduced fringing with those settings, no more magenta in bright areas. Look at the detail in the white fur on Chris' cat with both settings.

Here's a quick comparison I just shot. I looked for a spot with really high contrast to see how each setting reacts to contrast as well as color. I did a poor job at white balancing, but I kept the same white balance for both shots, only modified the settings from stock to terra. I had to adjust exposure for each setting, as it varies from one to the other by about a stop. but both were adjusted to keep highlights within limits, using the stones at the door as a reference.

http://www.js-films.com/test/stock.jpg
http://www.js-films.com/test/terra.jpg

Hope you don't mind me attaching those images Luis...

Stock on left / above, Terra on right / below.

The next time I try this, I'll be sure to change exposure accordingly when switching to the preset.

Not at all :)

By the way, settings are meant to be played with, so anyone who has any improvements is very welcome. I wish there was a way to input color curves into the camera, wouldn't that be the ultimate? Nikon SLR's can do this AFAIK.

Okay, another comparison sample... this time with changes to the preset as suggested by Luis: sharpening at -3 and coring at -4. There is about a full stop of difference in exposure between the stock version and the preset version (somebody needs to groom that horse!) Preset image is on the right / bottom.

So that's the bad news, it costs yet another extra stop to get the extra dynamic range. But look at the darker horse, in the terra version you can make out the tonalities much better than the stock version. To me it seems to be worth it. :) Let's work on a low light version :)

Hi Luis, even though the sun was setting fast and I was rapidly losing light, I still had plenty of room to play with exposure. Here are the EXIF data for both images: the stock version was 1/100, f/9.5, Exp. Compensation -1.5. The Terra version was 1/60, f/7.1, Exp. Compensation -0.33.

Chris, did I miss something!
 

Did you get a XLH1?

Bill I wish it was a GL H1.

Chris, I shoot all outdoors and I have tried everyone's preset, however I have yet to come up with a natural look. It seems the combination of exposure and natural light angle is effecting my presets. Have you come up with one that is giving you a wysiwyg look?

Bill as you can see from my frames, everything I've done so far has been low light at dusk because my day is so filled up with other stuff I gotta do! Meaning I haven't had enough time to scout my own presets very much. The one thing I wanted to accomplish this weekend is a couple of different "film noir" styled black and white modes because I'm such a big fan of that kind of look.

In my opinion it's going to be very difficult to get what you're looking for, for two reasons. First, it's because the XL H1 out of the box doesn't give you the "reality" look. Instead you get the "Canon" look. Lots of folks prefer the Canon look to the real-world look, that's why they keep buying Canon cameras over and over. There's something about the Digic processor and a type of color that Canon calls "memory color." For the folks who don't like it, fortunately you can dial in whatever color you want.

The other reason is because outdoor light is constantly changing, from time to time and place to place. Where I'm at in Texas, we've just had some major rainfall (finally) and the daylight constantly cycles especially with all the different kinds of clouds the sunlight filters through. Just this evening toward sunset it was dark, then some clouds parted, it became bright, then dark as the clouds rolled in again, then bright when the sun reached the horizon under the cloud layer -- then the hues went all over the map, everything golden then orange then red -- then dark as the sun finally went down. All in the course of less than an hour.

On a typical cloudless summer day in Central Texas the color temperature outdoors will remain consistent from 9am until 7pm, and I can come up with a preset for that if I tried long and hard enough, but I doubt it would match *your* lighting wherever you are. To me outdoor light is a dynamic and constantly changing thing, and even when it ain't, it's different from the sunlight you're getting over at your place.

Yes I agree with you Chris, that is exactly it, the "dynamic outdoor lighting" in fact I have concluded for color, it's best to adjust the presets sparingly and color grade in post as I have done in the past with my XL1/XL2. No doubt blacks and highlights are more useful for custom presets.