DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   Sony ENG / EFP Shoulder Mounts (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-eng-efp-shoulder-mounts/)
-   -   PMW-350 Developing Scene Files (Picture Profiles) (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/sony-eng-efp-shoulder-mounts/471485-pmw-350-developing-scene-files-picture-profiles.html)

Paul Cronin January 28th, 2010 02:54 PM

8 Attachment(s)
Ok I did a few test in my office. My studio is packed with gear so that is out today.

I used one Lowel Tota light off to the left side 5’0” from the Fiddlehead chart at 15 degrees.

The Fiddlehead was 11’-6” from the lens which is all the room I have today.

The Long Island Sound Chart is 16” behind the Fiddlehead chart.

Note the shade area on the right side of the Long Island Sound Chart due to the Fiddlehead. Also the chart had folds which I like since it offers a harder object to shoot.

I shot eight test four with stock lens, and four with Canon J15x9.5B4 IRS SX12 SD lens.

Stock PMW-350 Lens clips
Stock Lens AN-D (Alister’s Natural Detail on at F6.7)
Stock Lens AF (Alister’s Film with Detail off at F6.7)
Stock Lens TS-D (Tom’s Sat with Detail on at F8)
Stock Lens TF (Tom’s Film with Detail off at F8)

Canon J15x AN-D (Alister’s Natural Detail on at F4)
Canon J15x AF (Alister’s Film with Detail off at F4)
Canon J15x TS-D (Tom’s Sat with Detail on at F4.8)
Canon J15x TF (Tom’s Film with Detail off at F4.8)

Cris Daniels January 29th, 2010 10:03 AM

Well the only thing I can say is based on what I see on the net since I do not have a 350 yet, so admittedly that isn't very much. The problem is that I don't know what the scene REALLY looked like, so maybe the one on the left is less accurate to reality.

The thing I cant stand is these -99 to +99 settings with no explanation, surely somebody at Sony could do better with the documentation of these settings and exactly what they do and do not adjust.

I am still an advocate of some capture sharpening at some degree, so I am hesitant to shoot with detail turned completely off. I am still a believer that the manufacturer knows something about how to best sharpen their own signals. For the sake of impressing people, it is probably overdone out of the box so finding that sweet spot when you dial it back has been my goal.

I understand that none of that blather is very scientific, but with the charts and experimenting, I have simply grown to rely on my eyes and a production monitor for making those adjustments.

Alister Chapman January 29th, 2010 10:41 AM

I spent some more time with the camera today, looking at detail settings. I was comparing it with my PDW-700 which I have well dialed in now. I feel that I had backed the correction down a little too far on the 350. These are the settings I ended up with at the end of today as my general all-round setup:

Detail level -14
H/V Ratio +15
Crispening 0 (really doesn't need this raised at 0db)
Level Depend ON
LD Level 0
Frequency +40
Limit 0
White Limit +38
Black Limit +30

Aperture -15 (maybe -10)

My prefered Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)
For extra "punch" Black Gamma ON, level -40, Range H.Mid

I have a couple of clips on my site in a zip file comparing the 350 and PDW-700, a 35Mb/s MP4 from the 350 and a 50Mb/s MXF from the PDW-700.
http://www.xdcam-user.com/samples/350-700.zip

Paul Cronin January 29th, 2010 11:34 AM

Thanks Alister,

They both look like nice scene files and very close. I like the 350 clip when you close down the iris in the middle of the clip.

Are the settings you posted here all that you have changed?
The rest are default?
Multi Matrix is Off
Matrix > Off
Etc..

Interesting how you cut the H/V ration in half and up on Frequency and b/w limits. Do you find this a more natural sharpness then upping detail?

Will give your new setting a try and again thank you for posting your new findings.

Paul Cronin January 31st, 2010 11:27 AM

Alister this setting seems very natural with a very slight punch.

Sharp edges with no fringe color on the edges
Exposure is easy and has very nice latitude

I have always heard the Hyper Gamma’s were nice and this proves it.

Thanks for sharing your setting and the experience matching to the 700.

Alister Chapman January 31st, 2010 01:00 PM

Everything else is default.

I'm really liking this detail level now. I have a corporate shoot tomorrow and then of to Norway for the Northern Lights at the end of the week so hope to get some good material.

Paul Cronin February 1st, 2010 07:19 AM

Great that is how I set it up.

Agree I think this is the best picture I have had from the camera to date. Good luck on your shoot and maybe next year I will come along on the Northern Lights trip too short a time frame this year. Enjoy

Piotr Wozniacki February 2nd, 2010 07:25 AM

Alister, Paul & Tom,

Since all of you guys are lucky enough to have both the 350 and EX1/3 - just a quick question: how do the last Alister's settings keep up on the EX1, in terms of the best sharpness / natural edges / no noise exaggeration ?

Of course, some settings do not apply - but most should be the same!

What's most interesting to me is a balance between detail level (as a crude means to "sharpen" the image), and those more subtle ones (white/black limits, frequency, crispening and aperture).

Paul Cronin February 2nd, 2010 07:59 AM

Piotr the 350 exceeds the EX1 in all the areas you asked about. I have tested both cameras side by side and I will only shoot with the EX1 now when I have too. The stock lens on the 350 is OK and I tried a Canon J15x9.5 which was not up to the stock lens. So IMHO you need to buy nice HD glass to make the most of the 350. Canon HJ or Fujinon ZA, HA.

The Picture profiles from one can not be used in the other. I tried this for a test and it was not a good result.

The 350 handles the edge sharpness/natural look much better then the EX1. I say EX1 since I don't have a EX3.

The 350 really is the next step up in EX line and is worth the price.

Sorry have to run client just walked in. Happy to answer detailed questions later.

Alister Chapman February 2nd, 2010 08:11 AM

As Paul said the settings for the 350 don't cross over to the EX1 as the 350's default "sharpness" is higher than that of the EX. On the 350 I'm looking at a much higher amount of softening from the default than I would use for a similar look on the EX1.

Piotr Wozniacki February 2nd, 2010 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin (Post 1480580)

The Picture profiles from one can not be used in the other. I tried this for a test and it was not a good result.

Thanks Paul & Alister - that's what I wanted to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Cronin (Post 1480580)
The 350 handles the edge sharpness/natural look much better then the EX1. I say EX1 since I don't have a EX3.

I'm sure it does, Paul. Unfortunately, it's beyond my means at this time...

Piotr Wozniacki February 4th, 2010 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman (Post 1480588)
As Paul said the settings for the 350 don't cross over to the EX1 as the 350's default "sharpness" is higher than that of the EX. On the 350 I'm looking at a much higher amount of softening from the default than I would use for a similar look on the EX1.

That said, I'd just like to make sure (don't have access to a 350, so cannot check myself):

- the difference between your 350 scene settings and those for the EX1/3 cameras are only quantitative, not qualitative, am I right?

In other words, are the mechanism of the picture sharpness/noise related settings the same in both camera types? I'd say they are (detail, frequency, white/black limits, crispening); not sure about aperture - but please confirm.

Thanks,

Piotr

Alister Chapman February 4th, 2010 02:49 PM

Both the EX and PMW detail systems do the same thing, adding a white or black outline to outlines and edges. The amount of correction is different between the two cameras.

Aperture is an additional adjustment not available on the EX1/EX3.

Piotr Wozniacki February 4th, 2010 03:07 PM

Thanks Alister.

Regarding the ongoing strive for keeping as much detail as possible without exaggeration of the outlines and noise, I've already had several surges of energy for experimenting with these settings on my EX1, but frankly, I ended up with just two - quite different yet simple - looks to be chosen from, depending on the destination of my video.

When I'm after that filmic, dreamy look I usually dial the detail setting down to some -15, and crush blacks. This looks best with 180 Deg shutter; sometimes no shutter at all. OF course, this is accompanied by very specific color/gamma choice(s), but that's another subject.

When I'm after the opposite - i.e. the most "realistic" look - I must admit I like it sharp, so I use faster shutters, and crank detail up into default territories, or even up to +10 (but no more than this - above +15, the picture looks almost "embossed"). I have been trying to fight the "echo" around edges with detail set high like this using the black/white limits, frequency and crispening settings, but with varying success. I'd appreciate it very much if some of you guys (Alister, Paul or Tom) share your EX1 experience in this regard.

Tom Roper February 4th, 2010 06:09 PM

Piotr,

You will probably get 3 different answers on this, but for a highly detailed look from the EX1, I prefer:

Detail Level: +1 (or soften to taste)
Frequency: +65
White Limit: +75
Black Limit: +75

all the others at default.

That setting has worked well for me with std gamma 3, Black -4, and the knee point and slope adjusted for the scene, and also for both 60i and 24p shooting modes.

The PMW350, just like the EX1 will clip the colors (think of bare tree branches against a bright sky, like some of the pictures you posted in the past), if you don't manage the knee point and slope properly with the standard gammas.

Compared to the EX1, the PMW350 needs the detail level dialed back to -10 to -15. I think the PMW350 benefits from having the Frequency set lower as well, +55. Although the default level of sharpening in the PMW350 is higher than the EX1, the PMW350 better avoids the heavy black and white outlines drawn around high contrast edges than the EX1. That said, they can still be effectively mitigated on the EX1 with the above black/white limits and frequency settings.

What I observed on the PMW350, is if the Aperture setting is too high, (at least in some combinations with the other settings), specular highlights get exagerrated and blown out, think of glinting pinpoint sources of light from waves on the water, or reflections. I prefer the Aperture -20. That's why in the end, I don't prefer Aperture alone to be the primary detail enhancement mechanism. It can work alone within some limits, but only on certain parts of the picture, and can be overdone. It's why I think the Detail-On circuit is still preferred, to achieve overall balance.

Piotr Wozniacki February 4th, 2010 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom Roper (Post 1481757)
Piotr,

You will probably get 3 different answers on this, but for a highly detailed look from the EX1, I prefer:

Detail Level: +1 (or soften to taste)
Frequency: +65
White Limit: +75
Black Limit: +75

all the others at default.

That setting has worked well for me with std gamma 3, Black -4, and the knee point and slope adjusted for the scene, and also for both 60i and 24p shooting modes.

Dear Tom : bingo!

The above are almost identical to what I considered my best my own settings for that punchy, detailed look -except that for even more punchiness (when I feel in the mood for it), I use Cine1 (or even Std1 with carefully adjusted, manual knee). And, I use 25p exclusively (I don't do fast action, though).

Good to know that quite independently, we've both come to similar results...

Alister Chapman February 5th, 2010 01:38 AM

Just be aware that the details circuits on the EX1/EX3 generate additional aliasing when the detail level is above -8. This has a serious impact on SD downconverts and highly detailed textures.

Piotr Wozniacki February 6th, 2010 06:22 AM

Yes Alister - I'm aware of that. In my experience with Vegas Pro, with detail on at 0-10, any aliasing that results from downrezzing to SD can be eliminated successfully by applying just a tiny bit of Gaussian blur before, and just a tad of sharpening - after the downconversion.

I agree though that high detail settings may need mitigating on a scene-to-scene basis (very fine textures, etc.). But, it's nowehere as bad as with the V1E in 25p mode!

As to the aperture setting which enhances fine details on the 350, and is not present on the EX1/EX3: the latter have another setting with "aperture" in its name, the KNEE APERTURE. While DETAIL emphasizes the entire luminance range of the signal, KNEE APERTURE emphasizes signals only in the highlight areas that were compressed by the KNEE function.

My very specific question is:

- is this setting active with both std and cine gammas? It's always accessible in PP menu, but frankly, I couldn't notice any difference even with big changes to its value, when any cine gamma is active. With standard gammas, where you can define manual knee, with some slope/knee combinations the influence of knee aperture on the compressed highlights' content can be very significant!

Alister Chapman February 10th, 2010 10:40 AM

Knee aperture only works with the standard gammas and not with Cinegammas.

Piotr Wozniacki February 10th, 2010 11:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alister Chapman (Post 1484227)
Knee aperture only works with the standard gammas and not with Cinegammas.

So I thought - but then, it should be disabled in the Detail settings when a Cinegamma is on (just like most of the Knee options are)...

Thierry Humeau February 20th, 2010 05:37 PM

What is the easiest way to crank up saturation a bit in the PMW-350 paint settings?

Thierry.

Tom Roper February 20th, 2010 09:52 PM

There's not an easy way. You have to bump the saturation 16 times, one for each axis in the multi-matrix menu.

Tom Roper February 24th, 2010 02:30 PM

3 Practical Presets for Everyday Use
 
*************************************************************
Name : Alister_Hybrid:

Gamma Select: (Hypergamma) 4 4609

Black Gamma : On
Level : -40
Range: H.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +5

Comments: Hybrid preset combines elements of Alister's gamma settings with Tom's detail and color settings. Pros: Neutral, wide latitude, forgiving of exposure, punchy preset works indoors or out.
Cons: Compresses highlights, disables Knee, about 1 f-stop slower than ITU - R709.

**************************************************************

Name : ITU - R709 SAT

Gamma Select : 5 R709

Black Gamma : On
Level : +10
Range: H.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Knee : On
Knee Point : 84%
Knee Slope : +30

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +10

Comments: Dynamic, wide range preset for transparent capture with perceived detail and contrast.
Pros: About 1 f-stop faster than Hypergamma 4, very clean and saturated, preserves Knee function. Maximum dynamic range.
Cons: Sensitive to overexposing of highlights. Use Auto-Iris -0.5, or expose scene manually.

**************************************************************

Name : Low Light

Gamma Select : 5 R709

Black Gamma : On
Level : +10
Range: L.Mid

Detail : On
Level : -12
H/V Ratio : +35
Crispening : +20
Level Depend Level : +15
Frequency: +55
White Limit : +75
Black Limit : +75

Aperture : On
Level : -20

Low Key Saturation : On
Level : +10
Range: L.Mid

Knee : On
Knee Point : 84%
Knee Slope : +35

Preset Matrix : On
Preset Select : 2

Multi- Matrix : On
Axis : B,B+,MG-,MG,MG+,R,R+,YL-,YL,YL+,G-,G,G+,CY,CY+,B- (All)
Saturation: +15

Comments:
Indoor preset is low noise and saturated, with maximum sensitivity.
Pros: Preserves sensitivity and shadow detail in varying low light conditions, retains color without emphasizing noise.
Cons: Sensitive to overexposing of highlights, use Auto-Iris -0.5 or expose manually

**************************************************************

End

Paul Cronin February 24th, 2010 02:44 PM

Wow Tom you have been busy. Thank you for posting three detailed settings. I will add these to my scene files and check them out. So far my scene file of choice has been Alister's Natural.

This weekend if it ever stops raining or early next week I will be testing on my EX350 a Canon HJ17x and Fujinon ZA17x. I will look at each setting in the proper light to help me decide which lens to buy. I have a strong feeling already for my lens of choice, but testing in the field with my 350 and a friend with his F800 will be the true deciding factor. I think it is easy to get narrow vision with studio testing and scopes and miss the point, which is what the client will receive. Besides I don’t have scopes but I do know what I like and what my clients are looking for. So my testing will be real world shooting as if I was delivering to a client.

Alister have you modified your Natural setting after your trip North?

Again Thank You Tom for all of your hard work making this happen.

Tom Roper February 24th, 2010 03:12 PM

I actually had one more Paul, which was another variation of Alister's but with a slightly higher saturation. In the end, I too preferred the natural look, and to not overemphasize the color saturation with the hypergamma, that seemed to work better with the ITU R709 gamma, so I omitted that preset.

As for the ITU R709 gamma, I share your concern about recording of the highlights hot. The adjustment I made, is the knee adjustment, and to underexpose the scene by about 1/2 stop, while bumping up the black gamma so as to not crush the blacks.

I tested the Alister_Hybrid and ITU R709 SAT in various lighting conditions, flat lighting, and also high contrast lighting. If you have the proper exposure, both presets take on a similar look that mostly differ in just the extreme highlights and lowlights, with the ITU R709 being more contrasty.

Alister Chapman February 24th, 2010 03:34 PM

No I have not changed my Neutral settings. If you are going to do any serious grading work I would turn the Black Gamma off. This will give you more shadow detail to play with in post, but straight out of the camera the pictures look rather flat. A compromise would be black gamma on, H-Mid -20.

I have a couple of days set aside next week for some further experimentation.

Paul Cronin February 25th, 2010 07:50 AM

Alister,
I have been using Black Gamma on, H. Mid, at -30 but will check it out at -20 and also look with Black Gamma off when I do a lot of grading which is very rare. Look forward to any updates you might have. Two delivered jobs on the current setting and both customers are very happy.

Tom,
I tried your settings and still prefer Alister's Natural. Alister's is very easy to expose and does not seem to have the electronic look your setting seem to give. Why are you pushing the B/W limits so high? Also I really like the HG 4609 and can't fully explain why but each time I look at it I have a smile an feel I am on the right path.

Tom Roper February 25th, 2010 02:16 PM

Paul,

I'm not really sure what you are calling my setting, but I think you are just stating a clear preference for the HG 4609 which I agree is nice.

Paul Cronin February 25th, 2010 02:29 PM

Tom,

Sorry if I was not clear. I do prefer the HG 4609. Also I think in Alister setting he keeps the White Limit, Black Limit, Frequency, and Black Gamma setting lower. To me this is a more natural and less electronic look. I could be off base but that was my point.

Tom Roper February 25th, 2010 08:27 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Paul,

Below are 100% crops from frame grabs from the most recent detail settings Alister posted in #43 (on top) and mine (on bottom). I shot them identically with HG 4609. The difference between the two groups of detail settings are not so large as to expect that the lower one should appear less natural or more electronic, thus the reason for examining the crops in detail. In fact, I find these two settings to be grossly unremarkable for their difference, but you can in fact see the result of the higher Black/White Limit settings as causing slightly softer outlines on the contrast edges. To me this is more natural.

You might find it helpful to examine these at 200%.

**************************************

Alister's detail setting from post #43

Detail level -14
H/V Ratio +15
Frequency +40
White Limit +38
Black Limit +30

Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)

**************************************

Tom's detail setting:

Detail level -12
H/V Ratio +35
Frequency +55
White Limit +75
Black Limit +75

Hypergamma is HG 4609 (HG4)

Paul Cronin February 26th, 2010 06:53 AM

Tom looking at those two crops I agree one is softer showing less edge detail.

Tom Roper February 26th, 2010 11:01 AM

The setting in the group that always causes me the most concern is the Frequency. As the Frequency is increased, the width of the outlines drawn become narrower. It's good on the one hand because it makes the appearance of each individual outline less prominent, analogous to enhancing with a fine artist pencil instead of a black felt marker. But it is a double edged sword because the number of instances (the quantity) of these finer edges within the scene may be vastly higher, stressing the codec, creating haze, moire, or other artifacts.

So the frequency is a compromise, the setting could be too high or too low depending on the scene. Since I don't want to worry about it when I'm shooting, I settle on the above value, and it may not be ideal for every situation. That's why your observation was a big worry to me. I could reduce the Frequency setting and have no worries about the potential for electronic noise, but if it draws cartoon-like outlines around images, that's not good either.

By comparison, the Black/White Limit seems like a low risk proposition. Increasing the Limit makes the outlines stand out less, but the effect of the setting is subtle. So we look at the number 75, and think that's a lot! But it's all relative. It's just a number, and the effect even at 100% limit is not really profound.

Paul Cronin February 26th, 2010 11:13 AM

Understand Tom but you have to look at it from my point of view. I shoot very fast motion and need as one client says "Show me the detail and have it real". So going too soft on the edges hurts that, and anytime I have increased to the upper numbers with a setting i have not been happy with the results after we land. Too expensive for me to make that mistake. So that is why I did fast motion test and gave the comments I posted.

Paul Cronin March 9th, 2010 08:31 AM

Alister, Tom, anyone else who is using a 350. I am still trying to tweak my scene files and am not fully happy with the results. Have you tweaked your files and are you happy with the results?

Alister Chapman March 9th, 2010 10:22 AM

I'm still fiddling a little. I have been looking at the colour matrix of both the 350 and EX1/3 and have some new settings that remove the slight yellow/green cast that I don't really like. It enhances reds and blues a little. I don't have the settings to hand but I'll write them up as soon as I can.

Paul Cronin March 9th, 2010 01:28 PM

Thanks Alister I will be interested in seeing your dialed in settings.

Alister Chapman March 11th, 2010 11:37 AM

New Dialled in settings and Aperture Correction Notes.
 
After completing the multi camera shootout at Visual Impact, one thing was bothering me about the pictures from the PMW-350 and that was the way the specular highlights in the tin foil were artificially enhanced. During the test the camera was set to factory defaults, which IMHO are too sharp, but the foil in particular looked nasty. Since then I have been further refining my paint settings for the 350 and looking at detail and aperture. Today I was replicating the tin foil test and looking at the aperture settings (not the knee aperture) and I noticed that turning aperture on and off had a very pronounced effect on highlights but a much smaller effect elsewhere in the image. Normally I would expect the aperture setting to act as a high frequency boost making subtle textures more or less enhanced, which it does, but the amount of enhancement appears to vary with the brightness of the image with specular highlights getting a really big hit of correction. With Aperture at +99 there are big ugly black lines around the highlights and textures are enhanced. To some degree this is the expected behaviour although I am surprised by how thick the edges around the highlights are, this looks more like detail correction (it could be "ringing"). With Aperture at -99 textures appear very slightly softer than OFF, which is not unexpected while specular highlights are still sharper than OFF and this is not expected. I don't like this behaviour I'm afraid to say as a typical way to get a filmic look from a video camera is to turn the detail correction off to give a natural picture and then use Aperture correction to boost high frequencies to retain detailed textures. On the PMW-350 you can't do this as this as a high Aperture setting will give you nasty edges on highlights. So what can you do? Well the 350's native, un-enhanced resolution is very high anyway so it doesn't need a lot of correction or boosting. The default Detail and Aperture settings will give some really nasty highlight edges so you need to back things off. If your going for a filmic look I would turn OFF aperture correction altogether, for video work with pictures that have some subtle enhancement I would use Aperture at around -20, certainly never higher than -15 unless you like black lines around specular highlights.

My current prefered detail, aimed at giving a very slight, not obvious enhancement are are as follows:

Detail Level -12, H-V Ratio +15, Crispening 0, Frequency +30, White Limit +30, Black Limit +40 (all other detail settings at default)

Aperture OFF for filmic look, Aperture -20 for video look.

I have also made some changes to the Matrix settings. I have been finding the pictures from Sony cameras to be a little on the Green/Yellow side so I have tweaked things a little to remove the yellow cast and put in a bit of red, this is a subtle change but really helps with skin tones, stopping on screen talent from looking ill! These settings work in the PMW-350, EX1/3 and PDW-700.

On an EX1/EX3 this works best with the Standard Matrix, On a PMW-350 or PDW-700 you can use it on it's own or mix it with one of the preset matrices as a modifier. User Matrix On, R-G 0, R-B +5, G-R -6, G-B +8, B-R -15, B-G -9

There are pictures of the Aperture behavior on my blog at xdcam-user.com.

Tom Roper March 12th, 2010 04:17 AM

2 Attachment(s)
I re-ran the MTF-50 curves with Imatest for the PMW350. I ran them many times over, each time making adjustments to the detail settings in order to grasp the nature of each control, and to achieve the best balance per Imatest.

The posted curves are neither the best, nor the worst, but are representative. The lessons learned are summarized below:

1.) Most of the settings have very little (if any) influence on the vertical resolution. The settings predominately affect the horizontal resolution.
2.) The settings with the largest influence on resolution are not even in the detail settings, but the lens itself, zoom level and iris opening.
3.) Resolution (and contrast) increases as you go wider. At the lens center, the highest measured resolution is with an aperture opening between f/3.4 and f/4.0.
4.) In relation to a standard 2-pixel sharpening radius, the vertical is virtually always undersharpened, and the horizontal oversharpened, almost no matter what you do with the settings. Ideally, the best balance should be when the horizontal is oversharpened by the same amount the vertical is undersharpened.
5.) When creating a detail setting, due consideration should be given to each end of the zoom, in other words it should look as undersharpened at the long end of the zoom as it looks oversharpened at the wide end.
6.) In viewing the MTF50 curves, of primary importance is the smoothness to the curve, free of peaks and valleys.
7.) After experimenting with many settings, ironically the best curves were produced by the settings that visually had the best appeal, so if you like your settings, they probably exhibit good transfer characteristics. I really was surprised when the settings I already had produced the best curves, though not necessarily putting up the highest numbers, they were nonetheless very good.
8.) The PMW350 with the kit lens easily meets the resolution specification stated by Sony, and moreover reaches the nyquist limit.
9.) There are other factors that define image quality, contrast, flare resistance, pincushion/barrel distortions (spherical aberrations) and digital processing.

MTF Curves below, Horizontal and Vertical

Paul Cronin March 12th, 2010 07:09 AM

Interesting Tom I wonder how this test would change with more expensive lens? It might show the Kit lens is great or is limited.

Alister Chapman March 12th, 2010 12:07 PM

I'm not surprised that your Imatest results didn't show much change with different detail settings, as detail and aperture only really change perceived image detail levels as opposed to actual camera resolution. The results obtained with the lens are pretty typical of most zoom lenses with the wider end producing more contrast than the tele end and f4 is about where you would expect a well designed lens to perform at it's best. Below F8 you will be in to diffraction limiting anyway.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:35 PM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network