mnewxcv

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.

Yes, I pointed out a few pages back that when set to 0.50, IRE is clipped at 92. I am trying to find how low you can go without clipping below 100, so I threw a dart basically and decided to try 0.75. If it doesnt work, I will go higher, and if it does work, I will go lower. My colorchecker shows 'pure white', based on what is lighting the scene, but I do not have anything brighter than that in the scene like you mention. I just took some shots with light sources in them for the overexposure test. Stay tuned

next I will do the same tests underexposed a stop. It may take me a day or two to get this together. Upon initial inspection, the 1.99 footage has more highlight info and less shadow/black info. However, in brightly lit tests 1.99 seems to have a smoother black roll-off when boosting shadows, due to what seems to be the fact that it has less lower end info, so it has less steps of black that get noticed. It may appear slightly more contrasty, but macroblocking/posterization is actually less (seemingly). Will be doing overexposure tests once I finish underexposure.

messing around with this today. I am at the moment comparing PW with RGB 0.75, 1.00, and 1.99. My initial tests show 0.75 not having any obvious negative side effects, and provides -0.3 roughly of exposure compensation. AKA, similar to a 0.1ND filter. Please note, this is the first of many tests to be done. This test consisted of recording a colorchecker in 3 lighting situations: basement no lights on (light through windows) referred to as LL, normal light on referred to as NL, and lastly an LED flood light aimed at the color checker referred to as BL. All tests were white balanced on a grey card (warm result) and exposed for it as well. Please discuss what you notice about the differences. LL test settings to achieve proper exposure: RGB 1.00, EV 0, f2.0, 1/50, iso5000: ll100.bmp RGB 1.99, EV -1, f2.0, 1/100(accident), iso5000: ll199.bmp RGB 0.75, EV +0.3, f2.0, 1/50, iso6400: ll75.bmp NL test settings to achieve proper exposure: RGB 1.00, EV 0, f2.0, 1/50, iso640: NL100.bmp RGB 1.99, EV -1, 1/100 (accident), iso640: NL199.bmp RGB 0.75, EV +0.3, 1/50, iso 800: NL75.bmp BL test settings to achieve proper exposure: RGB 1.00, EV 0, f2.0, 1/100, iso100: BL100.bmp RGB 1.99, EV -1, f2.0, 1/200, iso100: BL199.bmp RGB 0.75, EV +0.3, f2.0, 1/80, iso100: BL75.bmp disregard.bmp

one thing leads to another, now I am looking more into the 16-235 vs 0-255 setting. While it has already been discussed in length, it may have appreciable differences when using boosted/limited RGB levels....

I certainly will play around with resolve for the project I am working on and have some questions arise, will be sure to post them here. :)

I am going to revisit this using negative values (<1.00) for each color again to see where it starts to fall apart and lose DR.

wow, what a great thread. Glad I found it as well as the black magic resources.

He wasn't being condescending, you were being sensitive. He was merely suggesting something to try that he thought may be helpful.

the red dot is the zoom tool, OKAY. That is what I wanted to know. The artifacts look like noise to me. Could it be that v log is disabling noise reduction and thats why you notice it? Hard to tell with just the screenshots shown.

also it may be obvious to some, but I have no idea what camera you have. Please specify. To me the red dots looks like hot pixels.

re you referring to the red dots? I don't see what the picture after that shows. Do the dots move as the video plays? Can you take another video and see if they are still present?

I can confirm that turning OLED Color on/off creates a visible difference when shooting a colorchecker. Attached a photo of each. Looks like a bit higher saturation overall, but it is also not linearly increased for each color. Rather, blues seem to be a bit higher in saturation with OLED color on, and the magenta trace seems to pull true to magenta, while the magenta trace pulls slightly to the blue side of magenta with OLED color off. Also, my wallpaper, which I consider to be in the white family but containing some color looks much more yellow/warmer with OLED color on. However, the white squares on the color checker are almost identical between on and off, so white balance isn't really affected directly. oled off.bmp oled on.bmp

I will take a test tomorrow with oled on/off with a color checker and see if I can determine a difference. Will post back in 24hrs.

I thought OLED color only changed the way the screen displayed color, not affecting recorded video. Correct me if I am wrong. .95 green, -3 sat, -10 sharpness are all pretty common practices. Hue -6 is new to me. Since you are using picture wizard, I assume you are in normal mode and not GammaDR. Are you using a color checker? How are you comparing the nx1 to the fuji?

Unfortunately not.

would be good to see a before and after.

well dang. Guess I will need to save a little longer. Either that or get the 12-35 and a 40-100(ish) as a secondary. As much as I would love it in one lens, f4.0 just isn't good enough for every situation.

not bad at all, but OIS is a must for me on my daily carry lens. Doesn't seem like that lens has it.

thanks, that is what I have been looking at and a lot of people speak highly of it. Open to other suggestions as well. Looking for a suitable replacement for NX1/16-50S.

are there any good zoom lenses available new or used that would be similar to these specs? f2.0-f2.8 (or faster) 12-40mm range (or similar/greater) OIS under $800

Is there focus peaking while recording?

It is an incentive to buy the studio version. But really, most other companies don't offer a free version of their software at all.