-
AF-100 Gamma choices
What are folks finding with the gamma curve settings? We started out shooting with Cine-like D, more or less by default and based on it’s description in the manuals, and planning on color correction – but it’s hard not to look at the footage and feel like it’s very flat. I’m accustomed to 5D/7D gamma, which I think is obviously more contrasty/punchier. Is it worth it to use this curve and wait for color correction, or shoot something that looks better right out of the camera?
-
8 Replies
-
You should take a look at the AF-100 Scene File Recipe List at the DvxUser website. Lots of interesting AF-100 looks…
DvxUser : The AF100 Scene File Recipe List
-
That is helpful. I guess my question is whether it’s worth being more conservative in the curve and relying on color correction to get the look, or if the AF-100’s media doesn’t contain enough data to pull out more of a look in post, the way you might with film or RED stuff…
Thanks!
-
I don’t own an AF-100 yet ( later this summer ), but I follow the philosophy of shooting “flat” low-contrast, low-sharpness, maximum amount of image detail, and then modifying the image in post to achieve the final look you are after.
I guess part of it is my fear of “baking in” the look with the camera settings, and then changing my mind about how things look afterwards. As long as you are willing to do the work, you can do almost anything in post.
-
I’m with you Guy- those settings recipes are great to play with. But I personally prefer to shoot flat and neutral and work the mojo in the comfort of my editing room.
Noah
Unlock the secrets of 24p, HD and Final Cut Studio with Call Box Training. Featuring the Panasonic GH2 and Canon 7D.
-
The Gamma choice that would best look like the 5D-7D is the B-Press curve.
Best,
Jan
Jan Crittenden Livingston
Product Manager, AVCCAM, AG-3DA1, AG-AF100
Panasonic Broadcast & TV Systems -
Well, I wouldn’t always follow this rule – it’s highly scene dependent.
One example: If your scene is flat plus you shoot flat you are not using the full range of 8 bit luminance (which is already limiting compared to what the sensor can do). If you want it a bit punchier later, you’ll have to stretch out the limited range you used and risk banding.
You can’t compare an AF100 to a camera shooting RAW. You can’t even record 10 bit, 8 is all Panasonic is giving you. Plus, if you don’t use an external recorder, your footage is highly compressed by H.264. This codec is – among other things – reducing the number of shades in color and luminance where the eye wouldn’t notice. If you later need to stretch some values again, the eye will notice!
I’d try to get as close to the look you really want in the camera (monitoring with a calibrated monitor) and only do minor corrections in post. The tools are all there, as you can see from the examples at DVXUSER.
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
-
[Uli Plank] “Well, I wouldn’t always follow this rule – it’s highly scene dependent.
True, but for most location shoots I find that I am almost always trying to reduce contrast. ( the problem is rarely that the shot is lacking contrast )
[Uli Plank] “One example: If your scene is flat plus you shoot flat you are not using the full range of 8 bit luminance (which is already limiting compared to what the sensor can do). If you want it a bit punchier later, you’ll have to stretch out the limited range you used and risk banding.”
I’ll partially agree with you here, as the Panasonic AVCHD CODEC appears to be very adaptive, so I’m not certain the process is a linear as you might think it to be.
[Uli Plank] “I’d try to get as close to the look you really want in the camera (monitoring with a calibrated monitor) and only do minor corrections in post.”
I think I’m going to have to try shooting it both ways and see what the limitations are when the footage is up on the editing suite. In theory what you state sounds correct, but I still want to know how much of a difference each method makes.
-
When I’m talking about 8 bit, I’m not relating to compression only.
As far as I can see, changes in the contrast curve are applied before encoding to H.264 happens. Any modern sensor has more contrast range than our current display systems, TV in particular, so you need to squeeze reality into a narrow range anyway. But how you distribute values in this narrow range is more an aesthetical decision than a technical one.
With raw recording or – to a minor degree with 10 bit formats – you can change such decisions in post, with 8 bit compressed recording you can’t without the risk of massive deterioration, which may even show up only after another compression, like broadcast or Blu-ray.
And this ain’t theory, this is from experience. I’ve been bitten too…
Director of the Institute of Media Research (IMF) at Braunschweig University of Arts
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up