Actually, I can't help but agree with Jon on this.

Truth be known, I used the PP given by Doug Jensen in his EX3 video. Why? Because I had to start someplace. And where better to start than with a true professional?

It's very minimal--no more, really, than a "boost" to the factory settings. Chroma is increased just enough to make the colors "pop," the latitude is widened just a bit so the highlights aren't blown out, and the blacks are a bit richer with some detail in the shadows (relatively speaking). I was lucky in this regard. Watching Doug's presentation and seeing how his PP worked in my camera, it's obvious (to me) that Doug and I have like taste in images and similar philosophical approach to shooting video. I understand this doesn't work for everyone.

The whole approach to PP is purely subject. What else can one say?

I use Doug's settings as they look good but leave room for further colouring in post if a definite 'look' is required. As I have said before the Vortex EX1 DVD got me up and running very quickly. I have never found time to just sit and fiddle with the settings since delivery back in February.

Does anyone have both the Vortex EX1 and EX3 dvds? I have the EX1 version but wondered if his settings are the same with the EX3?

Dan

Out of curiosity, I have revisited these training videos for both the EX1 and the EX3. They are the same in both cases:

PP: DOUG_01
Matrix: ON
High SAT
White: Preset White: 5600
Gamma: CINE4
Black: -3
Black Gamma: -2

As you can see there is not too much tinkering here. The White Balance is dialed in for standard Outdoor color temps, so no mystery on this. The Black and Black Gamma settings are pretty safe adjustments which most editors will do in Post to obtain nicer blacks. So that leaves CINE4 and High SAT to achieve more color saturation and clamp the whites so they don't blow out.

I will have a chart printed up and ready to mail out this next week. So far I have two people interested, Piotr Wozniacki and Ted OMalley. Who else wants to participate? I am looking for another couple of EX1 owners and another couple of EX3 owners. I will mail out the charts with specific instructions on the test to perform and the setup used.

It will require that some footage be ftp'd to my server so that I can check out the results. Basically it will entail capturing some footage with the test chart lit by two 60W incandescent frosted bulbs, one on either side of the chart so as to illuminate it evenly and with no reflections. The chart will not be useful for anything other than a comparison of cameras within the parameters of the test.

So who else will participate? Please respond with your full name and mailing address by pm.

Barry,

Thanks for that, good to get confirmation.

Dan

Sorry folks. With only two responses to do some testing with a common test chart I see no point in doing this. A sample of two is not worth any effort. If I get at least three EX3 owners and three EX1 owners to sign on then I will continue the project. Please PM me with your name and address to send the charts to and when I have the number of people I think is needed to make this worthwhile I will start a new thread.

Did you mean dial in by hand? I've always wondered how the Save and Load Settings to disk worked.

Every camera is calibrated or better put, biased, to produce a "pleasing picture" out of the box as the manufacturer sees it. Sony cameras traditionally have a cold look out of the box with slightly pink skin. Panasonic's are overall warm. But yes, the traditional practice by manufacturers has been to calibrate their cameras. That to be not too far off, on scopes, for compatibility with standards dating back to the 1960ies. This idea is a bad one but has been defended for a long time in the name of backwards compatibility so a stock of new cameras in the field doesn't flip everything on its head in terms of what's expected picturewise. They admit this creates not the best pictures and it's on the end user engineers to tweak that out for themselves.

The purpose of the +99 to -99 range is not due to a lack of factory calibration per say. It is to accommodate as wide a range of shooting situations as possible and provide as much flexibility as possible in creating looks.


Yes, it is.


You do not have some fundamental paint parameters in the EX that the pro cameras have.

White R/B
Black R/B
White Gamma R/B
Black Gamma R/B

When matching cameras you start with these parameters. Then you proceed to fine tune with the matrix. As far as I know these controls are fixed and inaccessible in the EX. As you might suspect, scopes are fairly essential in calibrating these parameters. Perhaps that's why Sony didn't provide these controls. They could always have included an internal scope though, like Panasonics HP170. But in their defense that wouldn't stop users who don't know what they're doing from wholly destroying their images, that is, making them grossly illegal. You can make your pictures illegal with matrix also but there it can be blamed on what you're shooting. In essence the above controls are primarily for manual black balancing and white balancing the camera (which is 100% of the time more accurate in capable hands than having the camera do it by the WB switch).

That said, if you connect the RMB to the EX3's port you should gain access to the above controls with the RMB. Then you can match your EX3s.

Without the RMB, I'll say it's curious that you were dialing in the same numbers from one EX1/3 into another and you were landing so far off from the general area for picture matching, assuming all your cameras had the same WB or preset and same lenses. That should not be. I'd be interested in knowing the exact process followed step by step.

EDIT: you won't necessarily make your pictures illegal with the above controls. But you may very easily make pictures so bad that you'll have the nice picture police, not the fcc, knocking on your door and dragging you away in handcuffs. Only thing you could do is oversaturate the scene which will break legal.

bears further analysis

EDIT: I suppose you can get an idea by using the HDV output for your tests since the compression specs are similar to what goes on SxS but typically you want to measure in the same format you'll be recording in to assure what you're seeing on the scope will be what goes on tape, which I don't think is possible with the EX.

For this reason I'd think the BBC white paper measurements are inaccurate for SxS because they were made using HDSDI 4:2:2 10bit. If that's your output to record then that's fine.