image "flickering" when shoot on progresive mode

David Mullen ASC · June 25, 2005

I haven't used the Panasonic SDX900. The Sony F900 does not have any reset "film rec" settings -- you have to create them manually.

Having just played with a Varicam, it's sort of nice to have those settings already preset and easily selectable. But it's not that hard to emulate it on the Sony. Forgetting Detail and the Color Matrix for a moment, all you are talking about is Black Gamma, Gamma, and Knee settings, plus little things like Knee Sat, etc. And most people find that they want similar settings on the Sony (Gamma at .45, Level at 0 or something higher, Gamma Table 5 preset, etc.)

Simon Wyndham · June 25, 2005

Interesting. Have you had experience of the 950? The PDW series of cameras, and I assume the newer 400 have 5 film gamma settings supposedly repllcating the following Kodak stocks;

1. Standard Film (average of all below)

2. Kodak 50D

3. Kodak Eastman EXR 100T

4. Kodak Eastman EXR 200T

5. Kodak Eastman EXR 500T

Anyone who uses the SDX any comments on its gamma presets and how often people use them?

David Mullen ASC · June 26, 2005

No, I haven't used the 950.

I don't think the 5 Gamma Tables correspond to film stocks, especially considering the gamma of those EXR stocks are roughly all the same.

On the F900, Table 3 is much more contrasty than 4 and 5, which are similar.

Simon Wyndham · June 26, 2005

Hmm, interesting.

From an official Sony XDCAM rep I was told that the film gamma tables represented the following. Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick with regards to the numbers?

1. Average (Film2-5)

2. Film No. 5245

3. Film No. 5248

4. Film No. 5293

5. Film No. 5296

When selected on the camera, number 5 gives the more contrasty picture (as in difference between light and dark). The others appear to give much more contrast in terms of latitude.

I'll try to find out some more about them. Specifically I woiuld be interested in knowing if they were designed purely for the purposes of filmout.

David Mullen ASC · June 26, 2005

Well, that could be Sony's thinking but it's a bit silly -- there isn't enough of a difference in gamma between the standard-contrast color negative stocks to justify individual gamma tables. The feat is to get a video camera to resemble color neg at all. To get it to create the difference between 5293 and 5296 is ridiculous since the main difference between those two stocks is speed and graininess, not contrast.

Simon Wyndham · June 26, 2005

It could just be a case of they could, so they did. You are correct, there is minimal differences between most of those settings. Although from a general use point of view, they do handle the highlights far better than the STD gamma tables. So in that respect I think they *should* be useful even if there is only a need for one of them.

I am trying to find out some clarification from Sony however.

David Mullen ASC · June 26, 2005

Sure, the tables are useful -- I just question whether they really correspond to the gammas of individual Kodak EXR stocks.

Stephen Williams · June 26, 2005

Sure, the tables are useful -- I just question whether they really correspond to the gammas of individual Kodak EXR stocks.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

David,

I agree I don't think they correpond to the Kodak EXR stocks at all. If they did then that would be the end of film!

Stephen Williams DP

www.stephenw.com

Simon Wyndham · June 26, 2005

I'm not so sure. The minds of electronics giants are hard to figure out!

Certainly replication of certain gamma characteristics would not spell the end of film. The cameras are standard def after all, and the actual full dynamic range of film can not be captured despite the wide capability of the camera head.

It would seem odd to me that the numbers mentioned would correspond to specific stocks if that was not what they were attempting to replicate. Remember we are talking about gamma characteristics here, not actual full replication. It would not surprise me at all if most of these settings were just placed into the camera purely because they can, possibly as an afterthought. They may well have added in a generic film gamma setting along the lines of the SDX and Varicam, and then just added the others for the hell of it.

I don't think there is any need to read too much into it. But as I mentioned I am awaiting a response from Sony as to what the settings are meant for and whether they do represent the specific stocks gamma characteristics. If they do, it may seem pointless, but that would be a mute point as I am interested in knowing how similar these gamma selections are to the Panny Film gamma settings as well finding out exactly what the gamma characteristics of the settings are.

Just my curiosity to find out exactly how things work and why is all.

June 28, 2005

Dave

If this was all theory I would agree with you. But, all of this is backed up with actual measurement with real cameras. For an SD digibeta for example he got 10 stops, measured after adjustment. For HD he got 11stops measured .

For the camera tests you do need the passwords tho.

Remember, this is the overall system performance, not the performance of just the camera or just the neg stock. It is misleading to compare film neg to video head, whether you are talking of contrast range or resolution. To make any meaningfull comparisons, the entire process needs to be measured, from lens to projection. This is especially true when people talk of 35mm film as having a resulution of 3K. By the time it reaches the big screen the res. is down to HD standards of around 2K.

I can't see where the extreme ends of knee and toe are being dismissed??