mnewxcv

how can you know? Maybe I'm AI. Maybe @Andrew Reid is AI.

ah that mode, gotcha. Will give it a try sometime for night photography.

I don't personally know who moderates this forum, but I have reported these posts in multiple threads.

if you are using S mode, which shutter speed and iso do you select? And what is your metering mode set to: spot, center weighted, or multi?

I've been duped! 😄 Also, reported his post yesterday. Any moderators in the house?

what gamma setting do you use (normal, gammadr, gammac), do you adjust the picture wizard settings (rgb values, contrast, saturation, sharpness, hue), master black level? any links to something you shot on an nx1?

I am going to rest my brain from this for a bit, but I think so far it makes sense to use 1.99 whenever lighting is good to excellent. It doesn't love the shadows in low light footage, in which case using 1.00 works just fine. Perhaps .85 is good for low light detail without many bright lights, though the jury is still out.

16-235. I just tried 0-255 as well in some random tests as well as messing with master black. The rabbit hole is getting deeper. You know how we said if you go negative on the RGB values it starts to clip highlights? Well that's true and it isn't. For instance, if you shoot at .50RGB, highlights clip at about 92 IRE. But if you expose to have your highlights under 92IRE, they don't clip. So my idea of shooting <1.00RGB values and raising in post could possibly be done. It seems the lower you go the less DR you get at a certain point, but I think .50 is still roughly the same number of stops. Also I did a shot of the bulb at 0.05RGB and the bulb had nice exposure, though everything else in the shot was black at base ISO. As we know boosting ISO would be useless since at that low of a rgb value the IRE cap would be very low as well. Taking the same shot with RGB boost at base ISO, image is still under exposed, but it can come up somewhat (there are limits obviously, I was shooting 1/4000 and base ISO to expose bulb, the rest of the footage was uselss, but there was some info there). However, the difference between -15 and +15 master pedestal was obvious when doing this extreme test. Lifting the shadows on the -15 MP shot, colors on the color checker were distorted and wrong. While MP +15 lacked contrast and DR, the colors were present and much more accurate.

Yes, I changed aperture 3 1/3 increments (so 1 stop), both shots were ISO100, 1/50.

I would say that is evidence of more detail in the highlights. The white on the color checker is supposed to be the brightest thing in your shot, but when using 1.99 it seems to pick up possible reflections from the light on the plastic casing of the color checker which since they are more reflective than the white show up. I believe this information is normally lost in the curve, but consists of especially bright highlights. Here is another example (this time I got the exposure right on both). You can clearly see the histogram extends further into the highlights and with a more gradual curve (almost linear at the end) and on the waveform you can see on the first clip IRE reaches maybe 102/103, while on the second clip it is probably closer to 107-108 where the light bulb is.You can also see the opposite happening in the shadows, especially on the histogram. The middle of the shot is very similar, but the ends show the biggest difference. So it shows that that info up above 103 IRE just was not present in the other footage. It is new information in the video.

not really sure. No motion blur but perhaps something moved a little (I rest my grey card on the color checker between shots to set exposure). It may be 1/3 of a stop difference though looking at it. In terms of the histrogram though, I'm more referring to the fact that the top highlight roll off is basically a round curve, while the second one (1.99) starts dropping and halfway juts out and is more of a line than a curve.

based on how much info there is (intensity on histogram) and the curve from mids to high or low with saturation turned to 0. Shown below is 1.00 vs 1.99. Look at the curve blending mids with highs and lows. A question in my mind right now is is there any benefit to shooting 0.85, exposed for highlights so theyre not blown out, and lifting in post to reveal hidden shadow info, or is there any benefit to shooting 1.99, exposing for shadows, and dropping in post to reveal highlight info. Perhaps it's just a wash.

Using the histogram in premiere shows more info in the highlights when boosting and more info in the shadows when going 0.85 (what I consider the lowest without going below 100IRE). I also looked at the different gammas and see gamma C carries a lot if information in the mid range. I've never shot anything in GammaC but may have to try and see how it comes out. \ I'm thinking when in a situation where you cannot avoid highlights being blown out, it may be worth going to 0.85 and getting more shadow detail since the highlights are lost anyway. This doesn't apply to gradual highlights like skies, but rather like an indoor shot with a blown out window where it wouldn't make sense to expose for highlights. I think in this case the color checker is a limited resource. I will fill in as the subject for the next tests to see how real world situations are affected. Good stuff so far.

Please feel free to do that test, as I don't know how you would make it into linear space. All of what you say though makes sense. The curve doesn't change, but the value for each point on the curve shifts. Also, 0.85 will produce something registering at 255 on a 0-255 scale, 80 and lower will not achieve this (only 252-253 max). My test was for overexposure to begin with, so I will have to retest with normal exposure to see what else is happening, but with 1 stop of overexposure, my tests with values of 1.00 and lower register the light source in the scene as well as the white on my color checker both at the same value (255). When shooting at 1.99, the light source is 255, while the white on my color checker is 254, so a slight difference in highlight range even at 1 stop over. Shooting video only BTW.

Those Gamma C results sure are a monkey wrench in the mix. I am shooting normal (no gamma dr/C) for my tests. I tested with a light source present and premiere measures it to be 255 (on a 0-255 scale) for the light source with 1.99RGB and 1.00RGB, and shows 252 for 0.75RGB. I am going to do a few more tests to see the lowest point it still measures 255. HOWEVER! There may still be cases in which it is better to shoot with 0.75RGB and clip your highlights in order to expose the subject better (better shadow detail). Not that I would suggest taking a photo like this, but an example may be taking a photo of a person with a light source behind them.