HD100 & Motocross **CLIPS**

Daniel Patton · April 14th, 2006, 01:17 AM

Well true, the moto was shot in that range and it's fair to say the results can vary. But when you start playing around 2.8 and lower the CA ruins it for me.

Tim Holtermann · April 14th, 2006, 10:14 AM

This is where better glass will make a difference.

For many of us staying wide open is beneficial as it decreases dof and reduces the HDV artifacting. The stock lens and most lenses for that matter would do much better above 5.6 with f8+ probably the sharpest part of the lens.

Good ol' catch 22.

Gary Morris McBeath · April 14th, 2006, 11:09 AM

Tim,

The defraction phenominin is related only to the f-stop or aperture and the size of the imaging chip and its pixel size. It has nothing to do with the quality of glass. Better glass will, of course, render a better picture across all stops, but the defraction still occurs at smaller openings relative to the pixel size of the ccd.

As I mentioned, the same thing occurs on the 2/3 inch cameras; my HDCAM with a 30K lens on it still had its sweet spot around f-5.6, and degraded with smaller aperture openings. Larger ccd's are slightly better than the 1/3 inch ccd's, and can be stoped down another f-stop or two, but still have the same problem.

This issue is true of all HD cameras, regardless of brand or glass used. Welcome to the world of HD.

Gary

Tim Holtermann · April 14th, 2006, 11:38 AM

Gary, yes I agree. I may have not worded it correctly but I follow what you are saying.

However, lenses sharpen up when stopped down. Regardless of the chip or medium (film) capturing the image even a fast lens will perform better at higher f stops. For example, I have a Canon 5D Digital SLR which as a full frame 35mm sized sensor (Super 35mm technically) and even with good Canon "L" glass I get much better images from the lens when I stop down.

My horribly executed point was that shooting wide open puts in a tough place because we need very good lenses to make up for it (i.e. they perform good at wide f stops).

John Clark · May 15th, 2006, 11:03 PM

I love everything about this clip. framing, angles, the in your face style. It felt as if it was done by a big professional movie crew. So many of those moments could have been in a feature film and I wouldn't have noticed. The image quality and color are far beyond a lot of the footage I've seen. I was really impressed when the motorcycles came with the bright sky in the frame and all the lighting stayed so nicely balanced. overall it had a nice film feel to it. I'd really like to see some of your other work. you're a pro.
thanks for sharing

Paolo Ciccone · May 15th, 2006, 11:39 PM

Very nice Daniel, thank you sharing it and for mentioning TC.

Love those flying chunck of mud :)

Paolo Ciccone · May 15th, 2006, 11:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

Hey Paolo! Have you seen any additional odd compression noise with those DSC settings? I'm wondering if maybe I was getting more artifacting due to pushing the color more, just a crazy thought.

No, I didn't notice any more noise. I don't think the colors would affect the noise, I would expect that to be possibly an issue with the stretch or gamma settings. Of course the detail settings could do that too but, if you used the TC config, you're detail should be at MIN, isn't it?

Chad Terpstra · May 16th, 2006, 11:51 AM

Speaking of added noise, has anyone tested turnig the gamma all the way down as a way to reduce noise? To me the gamma level option is kind of like a mini-gain setting where increasing it makes things brighter at the expense of more noise. However, turning it down all the way (while darkening the image) seems to reduce the noise. After you adjust for proper exposure, I couldn't tell a difference other than it seemed slightly cleaner. Anyone else try this or am I way off here?

Daniel Patton · May 16th, 2006, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Clark

I love everything about this clip. framing, angles, the in your face style. It felt as if it was done by a big professional movie crew. So many of those moments could have been in a feature film and I wouldn't have noticed. The image quality and color are far beyond a lot of the footage I've seen. I was really impressed when the motorcycles came with the bright sky in the frame and all the lighting stayed so nicely balanced. overall it had a nice film feel to it. I'd really like to see some of your other work. you're a pro.
thanks for sharing

Thanks John, it's rewarding when someone likes what you shoot, but it's all very rough, as is motocross itself. I have a lot more footage, but only this year am I shooting HD, all the older clips are DV. Shoot me your email and I'll send you a couple links to the other quick edits.

Paolo, I found out my odd added noise from an Easter egg shoot was in fact a high f8.0 setting, I should have used more ND and kept it in the 5.6 - 4 range, it was my bad. And yes, I keep the Detail to min and more recently off. Too much detail looks too edgy to me, min is plenty.
p.s. I'm from your area, grew up in Santa Cruise, Los Altos and Sunnyvale. I miss that area. Santa Cruz is the shiz! Is 17 still a curvy motor speedway? ;)

Chad, I have not tried reducing the gamma, although it's an interesting observation. I might do a little testing of my own just to see what I get. That's part of the reason I keep the detail setting min - off, it's a lot cleaner. On a larger good monitor you can see the noise increase as you turn the detail up. Does anyone know if gamma is actually added at the default level or ??

Steven Thomas · May 16th, 2006, 09:56 PM

Yes,
closing down to f8 or greater will show more noise.

Stephan Ahonen · May 16th, 2006, 10:42 PM

The trouble with gamma is that it only affects midtones, not shadows or highlights. Since noise is mostly visible in the shadows, turning down either black gamma (I think it's called black stretch on this camera?) or master black would be more effective, at the cost of crushing your blacks.

The other problem is that you end up reducing the camera's latitude for highlights. I'm guessing it would end up looking like overzealous use of knee. I know some people like the look of softening up highlights with knee, so it would work for them, but I personally think it makes the highlights look way too unnatural, I just turn it off and let bright parts of the picture clip.

Paolo Ciccone · May 17th, 2006, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Patton

Paolo, I found out my odd added noise from an Easter egg shoot was in fact a high f8.0 setting, I should have used more ND and kept it in the 5.6 - 4 range, it was my bad. And yes, I keep the Detail to min and more recently off. Too much detail looks too edgy to me, min is plenty.
p.s. I'm from your area, grew up in Santa Cruise, Los Altos and Sunnyvale. I miss that area. Santa Cruz is the shiz! Is 17 still a curvy motor speedway? ;)

Good to know that you found the cause. I use ND filter almost every time I shoot outdoors (and indoor if there is enough light). Yes, Hwy 17 is the usual, really great if you ride it in the middle of the day with a motorcycle, lots of fun :)

April 14th, 2006, 01:17 AM	#16
Daniel Patton Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Knoxville TN Posts: 589	Well true, the moto was shot in that range and it's fair to say the results can vary. But when you start playing around 2.8 and lower the CA ruins it for me. __________________ Our eyes allow us to see the world - The lens allows others to see the world through our eyes. RED ONE #977

May 15th, 2006, 11:03 PM	#20
John Clark New Boot Join Date: May 2006 Location: shelter island, ny Posts: 11	wow! I love everything about this clip. framing, angles, the in your face style. It felt as if it was done by a big professional movie crew. So many of those moments could have been in a feature film and I wouldn't have noticed. The image quality and color are far beyond a lot of the footage I've seen. I was really impressed when the motorcycles came with the bright sky in the frame and all the lighting stayed so nicely balanced. overall it had a nice film feel to it. I'd really like to see some of your other work. you're a pro. thanks for sharing

May 15th, 2006, 11:39 PM	#21
Paolo Ciccone Trustee Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Santa Cruz, CA Posts: 1,116	Very nice Daniel, thank you sharing it and for mentioning TC. Love those flying chunck of mud :) __________________ Paolo http://www.paolociccone.com Demo Reel Last edited by Paolo Ciccone; May 15th, 2006 at 11:54 PM. Reason: Added text

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

April 14th, 2006, 10:14 AM	#17
Tim Holtermann Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 184	This is where better glass will make a difference. For many of us staying wide open is beneficial as it decreases dof and reduces the HDV artifacting. The stock lens and most lenses for that matter would do much better above 5.6 with f8+ probably the sharpest part of the lens. Good ol' catch 22.

April 14th, 2006, 11:09 AM	#18
Gary Morris McBeath Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Steilacoom Washington Posts: 72	Tim, The defraction phenominin is related only to the f-stop or aperture and the size of the imaging chip and its pixel size. It has nothing to do with the quality of glass. Better glass will, of course, render a better picture across all stops, but the defraction still occurs at smaller openings relative to the pixel size of the ccd. As I mentioned, the same thing occurs on the 2/3 inch cameras; my HDCAM with a 30K lens on it still had its sweet spot around f-5.6, and degraded with smaller aperture openings. Larger ccd's are slightly better than the 1/3 inch ccd's, and can be stoped down another f-stop or two, but still have the same problem. This issue is true of all HD cameras, regardless of brand or glass used. Welcome to the world of HD. Gary

April 14th, 2006, 11:38 AM	#19
Tim Holtermann Regular Crew Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 184	Gary, yes I agree. I may have not worded it correctly but I follow what you are saying. However, lenses sharpen up when stopped down. Regardless of the chip or medium (film) capturing the image even a fast lens will perform better at higher f stops. For example, I have a Canon 5D Digital SLR which as a full frame 35mm sized sensor (Super 35mm technically) and even with good Canon "L" glass I get much better images from the lens when I stop down. My horribly executed point was that shooting wide open puts in a tough place because we need very good lenses to make up for it (i.e. they perform good at wide f stops).

May 16th, 2006, 11:51 AM	#23
Chad Terpstra Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Grand Rapids, MI Posts: 320	Speaking of added noise, has anyone tested turnig the gamma all the way down as a way to reduce noise? To me the gamma level option is kind of like a mini-gain setting where increasing it makes things brighter at the expense of more noise. However, turning it down all the way (while darkening the image) seems to reduce the noise. After you adjust for proper exposure, I couldn't tell a difference other than it seemed slightly cleaner. Anyone else try this or am I way off here?

May 16th, 2006, 09:56 PM	#25
Steven Thomas Trustee Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Gilbert, AZ Posts: 1,896	Yes, closing down to f8 or greater will show more noise.

May 16th, 2006, 10:42 PM	#26
Stephan Ahonen Major Player Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 512	The trouble with gamma is that it only affects midtones, not shadows or highlights. Since noise is mostly visible in the shadows, turning down either black gamma (I think it's called black stretch on this camera?) or master black would be more effective, at the cost of crushing your blacks. The other problem is that you end up reducing the camera's latitude for highlights. I'm guessing it would end up looking like overzealous use of knee. I know some people like the look of softening up highlights with knee, so it would work for them, but I personally think it makes the highlights look way too unnatural, I just turn it off and let bright parts of the picture clip.