Btw, I would interpret the terms "contrast" and "dynamic range" in this way:

I really had the impression that what seems to get lifted when comparing Cine1 to Cine4 are the mid tones while high lighting handling and shadow detail would stay the same. When I switch between Cine1 and Cine4 my shadows don't seem to change. Just the mid tones. Do this test: Set the camera to auto-iris and point it to a chip chart and watch the mid gray chip. Now change between cine1 and cine4. You will see that the mid gray will vary but the auto-iris will not change the exposure.



So by shadow-contrast you mean shadow gradation?

If not, a graphic would be great ;-)




Really? Pretty much every EX1 has IR problems. Are you using a 80a or 80b filter or just bluing all your lights and avoiding tungsten all together? Maybe that could explain why IR wouldn’t affect your camera much as tungsten is most responsible for accentuating IR contamination?


So if I understood you right, you seem to recommend Cine4 for high contrast scenes like a day exterior with lots of shadow and Cine1 for low contrast scenes. But how about low light? Low light is a kind of low contrast and yet cine1 is so bad at it .


To sum it up, what gamma do you think:



Produces less noise?



Records more dynamic range?



Best for High contrast situations?



Best for low light situations?



Best for low contrast situations?

from what I've seen, all the cine settings make compromises of some sort. If you want a RAW spectrum captured, that has as much data as this cam/cmos can capture, use a STD setting.(not std2). Then post process to get the best image possible. All the cine settings are compromises to make the monitor look good.

OK, I'm sure I'll get an argument, but, trust me....LOL

Cine4 HAS lighter shadows than cine1 (black of course stays black). I will post a test-image soon.
The auto-iris won't change because the gamma-curves get applied after exposure-measurement.
I attached an illustration. I hope that makes things more clear.
(These curves aren't measured but customly set up by my estimation/experience.)
I don't know the filter-types. They were included with the lights.
I just checked it out again without filters and yes, there are some reddish colors even after white-balance. I guess I oversighted it becauce I was used to that tungsten has very warm colors.
Yes.
No, low light is not concerned with low contrast. Low light is just low light, like a low constant factor before everything. If you put a too strong nd-filter before your cam, even a daylight-situation becomes low-light, but that doesn't change the contrast (ratios between dark and light areas).
The gammas don't produce noise (except the stds, read my comment to Bills statement underneath), but are more or less accentuating dark-areas (where the SNR is bad).
Cine1-4 record basically the same dynamic range. But the stds without knee have less dynamic range, because they're throwing away sensor-range which was left as dynamic headroom for knee (see attached illustration).
Cine4. Or cine1 with slight underexposing and compensation for that in post (my preferred way).
I don't like cine3 a lot, because it's got some built-in negative black stretch.
Is not concerned with gamma-curves. If it gets dark, you need gain/different exposure-settings - not a different gamma.
Cine1.
No, stds without knee are wasting sensor-range (see attached illustration) and so are downgrading SNR. With properly set knee they are not neutral ("raw") any more.

Dominik, it has been an useful and interesting conversation. But I’m still confused with what you are trying to say, especially that you seem to be starting to contradict some of your earlier posts.

I’m looking forward to the images then. Because on my tests, shadows didn’t change and I’m not talking blacks.


Thanks for the graphics. I think I understand what you mean by shadow-contrast or high light contrast. It’s what I would refer to gradation or how much difference you see in the shadows or high lights as in, do they clip abruptly or gradually. Right?

This is what I thought. Maybe a 80 filter on the lens instead of the IR one would be a better move as it would potentially “cure” two problems with one strike? Although the 80 filters cut 2 stops. Not sure how much the 486 or the new IR filter cuts if any.

Well, low light means not enough light for an exposure yes, but most low light tend to be low contrast especially indoors.

That’s noise. If Cine4 is indeed brighter in the shadows it means it is lifting the blacks and if it is lifting the blacks it will produce more noise in the shadows. You said it yourself earlier that Cine1 is cleaner in the shadows right? You were talking about noise I thought here:

So for you, which of the gammas produce less noise?

I don’t understand how they can all record the same dynamic range in your opinion when you say Cine4 records more info in the blacks. That would mean it records more dynamic range than Cine1 for example. If you recommend Cine4 for high contrast it also means it records more dynamic range. Or?

By compensating in post you mean lifting the blacks? This will cause noise. Or did I miss understood you?

And so you recommend Cine4 for high contrast but use Cine1?

I thought Cine4 had built in black stretch, if it produces brighter shadows .

Actually, it is. This is the reason the F900R and F23 have hypergammas for high contrast and for low light. If it was not related to gamma why would there be a hypergamma for low light?

By the way, I found a post by you from another thread which I don’t understand either. :)

Here it is:
What do you mean by “and take noise”?

Bill, what std gamma do you use and what knee, black, black gamma etc settings to get the widest dynamic range or RAW as you put it?

Interesting discussion. It seems Dominik (whose observations / opinions I share almost 100%), gives the term "contrast" a meaning I proposed, which was rejected by Michael :)

STD gammas are producing some very strange white lines (halos?) in high contrast areas.
So I won't recommend using them.


Dennis

Comparison is attached, and cine4s shadows ARE lighter.
Yes. Hopefully they don't clip.
That heuristic is of course true.
It's not producing, but accentuating, because the signal-to-noise doesn't change, because the the picture-information in those shadows gets amplified, too.
Again, the cines are all identical in terms of signal-to-noise-ratio. But the stds without knee lower the clipping-point, so you have to recude the exposure to capture the same highlight-information, and so you are reducing the signal-to-noise-ratio in all picture-areas.
Theoretically, as long as an used gamma-curve does/can have an inverse, it can't destroy information. Practically, there's quantization-noise especially caused by the mpeg2-compression, which compression-technique is build on reducing quantization-precision on frequency-components which are rated as "less important" for our human visual system. But experience shows that all gamma-curves are accentuating the shadows/shadow-noise so much, that the quantization-noise is almost negligible compared to shadow-noise.
There are different ways to to judge right exposure:
-no highlight-information is gone
-the average brightness is middle-gray
-the main-subject in the picture is exposured well
If you use the first, then it doesn't make a difference which (cine-)gamma-curve you choose.
If you take the second, then it does matter. But because you can do all that gamma-stuff in post, you should concentrate on capturing most relevant information, which almost doesn't deppend on the (cine-)gamma. "Relevant" shall express, that capturing all highlight-information can be a bad idea, if your (darker) main-subject then vanishes in noise.
I said that cine3 has "negative", so the opposite of, black-stretch, so cine3 makes shadows darker. Cine3 also has more highlight-compression than cine1. So it's a very unneutral gamma, but I want to capture pictures neutrally, so I don't like it.
The cine-gammas use more of the available sensor-range than the stds (without knee), so they must look darker, because what a std shows as white the a cine shows as gray, and what a cine shows as white a std shows as clipped.
Using more sensor-range allows to use more of the available light by increasing exposure. But increasing exposure won't increase sensor-noise, so the signal-to-noise-ratio increases.

sorry, guys. got pulled into this discussion once before. not this time.

I see it. Weird that in tests I did using a waveform monitor I could only see difference in the mids. I will have to retest that.

I’m assuming the aperture was the same for all gammas right. Because to my eyes, Cine4 doesn’t really look as bright as std3 in those pictures. It seems just a bit darker than std3 in the shadows. At least less contrasty in the shadows, to try to speak in your terms :)
Also, looking at your samples, I don’t see why Adam Wilt called cine3 “brighter cine” since cine3 seem to have darker shadows than cine1.
I guess one of the things which is making it so confusing is the technicalities which clearly are what is keeping us from getting to a common understanding because we don’t seem to agree on the technical terms here. But yes, it doesn’t “produce” noise which is not there, but what I obviously meant was which gamma produces the cleanest image with the least visible noise?
That would only mean that when exposing to high lights using the stds without knee you would capture less info in the shadows because they would be underexposed. It would not necessarily mean the shadows would be noisy. If using for example std2 which crushes the blacks you shouldn’t see much noise.

But what you are saying is all cine gammas has the same amount of visible noise?
:
Here we got lost again. I’m talking about dynamic range and or latitude or how many stops of info can be recorded and you are talking about something else ;)
How does that explain why you recommend Cine4 for high contrast but use Cine1?
So what you meant by “and take noise” is that the cine gammas show less noise?

By the way, you totally bypassed my reply about gamma having an effect on low light and the F900R having a hypergamma preset for low light while you said it wasn’t related to gamma. Mind commenting on that?

Dominik, although I think this is an useful discussion, let try to be objective rather than getting lost in technicalities which will probably just add more confusion as it’s clear there are some words getting lost in translation here. ;)

The shorter way sometimes is the better one.

Cheers.

Mike


I

Ok Bill, without getting pulled into the debate, do you mind giving your settings?

No rejecting Piotr. Just trying to find a common ground so I can understand where he is coming from and what he means ;-)

Michael...

Lighting situations, especially outside, are wide and varied. You're right about knee and slope. Every situation requires custom tuning. Really can't provide a "one size fits all" for you. Setting up requires judicious use of the histogram and the zebra's. The non-linear nature of the way gamma is applied really demands that over-exposure be carefully controlled. I'd MUCH rather under-expose than over-expose.

Ah, how easy was life when we still used old "chemical" film ;-)
Underexposed slide films (positive) and overexposed negative films. Sooo easy.
I have now clue what to do with video. P.