Technicolor CineStyle unnecessary

[Janke]

... it really looks like you don't need it.

I made a few tests today, checking the latitude you get with different styles.

The results were amazing; Canon's contrasty "Standard" style gives you 7 stops of latitude, Technicolor records 9, i.e. 2 stops more in the shadows, BUT:

Canon's own Neutral style, with contrast set to minimum, can record 10 stops! This is evident if you lift the black level in post to the same dark grey (approx. 15-17) that Technicolor uses (for some strange reason...)

If you drop Technicolor's black to 1, it looks just the same as the Neutral style at minimum contrast...

Go figure - but look at this little test image, shot from a set of ND filters, assembled to a 12-stop scale. All exposures were exactly the same, the only change was in the "style":

styles.jpg

So, it looks like the only difference between "Neutral" and "Cinestyle" is the boosted blacks in the latter. But that's easy to achieve in post from the Neutral style.

Load this image into a photo program, and use the eyedropper to check the values of the different patches - I did, the differences are minimal.

PS: Note that the jpg compression may have lost some of the finer shades in this test...

[Halsu]

There's a reason to lift the blacks - there are more values to store subtle brightness changes than near zero. Also, compression tends to go haywire near zero - look at the blockiness and noise near black in the lifted neutral in your example versus the rather clean looking technicolor.

In your example the difference between stops 9 and 10 is (in RGB values) 2 and 4 in neutral, and 18 and 21 in technicolor. Now, if there's a bit of noise (as there always is), in the neutral profile that noise may record as 1 or 3 in area where general brightness is 2. In other words, the noise gets amplified due to the quantization - brighter parts of noise get three times as high a value as the darkest parts. In Technicolor, similar noise could be randomly between 15 and 20: not as radical a change, the brightest parts of noise have only 25% higher value as the darkest parts.

[Janke]

There's a reason to lift the blacks

So Technicolor did this to reduce shadow noise, but losing 7 % of the gamut, or 1 stop of latitude at the same time?

It's hard to see noise in the shadows. It's most prominent in the midtones, IMO. Note that the jpg compression of the still picture caused the blockiness, it's not in the original.

For some reason, I see more banding with the CineStyle than with Neutral.

YMMV, of course...

[krewcial]

Confirms my experiences.
Even if there is a difference it is minimal and not worth all the trouble and extra work of shooting with Cinestyle.

I shoot either in Neutral (modified following the Philip Bloom settings, similar to what you suggest here) or an Ektachrome Profile for a more vintage and slightly saturated effect in camera.

[Halsu]

So Technicolor did this to reduce shadow noise, but losing 7 % of the gamut, or 1 stop of latitude at the same time?

It's hard to see noise in the shadows. It's most prominent in the midtones, IMO. Note that the jpg compression of the still picture caused the blockiness, it's not in the original.

Of course, i don't know why technicolor did what they did - but reducing nose and compression artifacts could be one reason. Another might be better compatibility with other cameras, and with the REC 709 HDTV standard, which assumes RGB levels between 16 and 235 (but allows for some super whites up to 255).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rec._709

For some reason, I see more banding with the CineStyle than with Neutral.

I guess the compression algorithm eats more into a low contrast image (similar to the excess softening assumably due to noise reduntion and compression in HV20 cinemode).

[Janke]

I looked at the original file of the gray patches, and yes, there's slightly more noise in the Neutral with lifted blacks than in CineStyle. No blockiness though, that's the jpg compression for hv20.com display...

So, I can see one good use for the Technicolor style, that is when you need to get every last shadow detail out of a low-key scene, with minimal noise.

I'd rather expose a couple of stops more myself, and darken in post... provided you can add the light.

better compatibility with other cameras

Probably the main reason!


If you want to experiment, here's the original h.264 MOV file of the seascape in the other thread - can you get it as contrasty, with any less banding than I did?

http://www.saunalahti.fi/animato/temp/MVI_0230.MOV

(http://www.saunalahti.fi/animato/temp/MVI_0230.THM is the thumbnail file, if you need it.)

[Halsu]

If you want to experiment, here's the original h.264 MOV file of the seascape in the other thread - can you get it as contrasty, with any less banding than I did?

Something like this?

[Janke]

You can still see the blockiness, but it is indeed better than mine, "banding-wise", but not as "sunny"... here's mine:

attachment.jpg

The problem, of course, is the original file, which is waaaay too flat... much better to get what you want while shooting, rather than try to fix in post!

[drapeama]

I think it's quite acceptable:

My settings
Settings.jpg

I've added a 4k Solid Layer with the VideoCopilot.net FastFilmGrain preset to it:
The result
Results.jpg

Another Levels added (input black: 0.2706 & gamma: 0.19)
Results_100percent_LevelAdded.jpg

Same at 200%
Results_200percent_LevelAdded.png

Higher resolution files available here. I personally think it's more than acceptable. Sure DSLR vs Film have some restrictions and less latitude, but in the end, with the results I've achieved, I think it's not that bad.


Original File untoutched with only GrainLayer added:

[Janke]

Yes, Drape, that looks pretty good indeed. You got rid of most of the banding/blockiness and still got that bright, sunny feeling.

I'll use better settings in the future; utilizing more (most) of the available 8-bit gamut right away, when setting up the shots...

[drapeama]

Yes, Drape, that looks pretty good indeed. You got rid of most of the banding/blockiness and still got that bright, sunny feeling.
I'll use better settings in the future; utilizing more (most) of the available 8-bit gamut right away, when setting up the shots...

1) Thanks. I think it's probably the closer to the best it can look, due to the original footage's problems.
2) I understand more how it works now, and I think I'll make some other tests soon to compare and try to find a better "balanced middle" to both Technicolor and some "more contrasted" presets.

[Janke]

Histograms rule! Shoot a still picture while stting up the shot, and look at the histogram. If it's all "bunched up", you need to choose a contrastier setting. (Low-key scenes excepted, unless you want them bright... )

[drapeama]

Histograms rule!

With ML (I think) you can record with the histogram "preview" so I think I'll use it next time. Thanks for the tips.

[Randy Malone]

Hmm. Just another voicing the opinion that in general, the neutral style with all the values turned down is sufficient. If that's not enough range for you, learn to light better.

[Janke]

the neutral style with all the values turned down is sufficient.

Indeed. I made a test today, taking a very contrasty old slide, and shot that with Technicolor CineStyle (left) as well as Neutral style (right) - watch in full size...

TCvsNtest.jpg

This image shows how I've lifted the shadows (left in each example), as well as darkened the highlights (right, unmodified in middle), to see exactly what the camera captured - and note that the Technicolor style shows more posterization (banding) because of the more limited use of the 8-bit space. Also note that the shadows are just as noisy in both cases.

This, IMO, proves my statement that the Technicolor style is unnecessary - you can get just as much latitude with Neutral, and less banding, to boot.

Furthermore, when you adjust shadows or higlights as I've done here, you notice that Technicolor in fact becomes more saturated thanthe Neutral style (which did have saturation dropped) - so if you need saturation, just hike it in Neutral...

[liverpool 1]

Thanks Janke good reading, on the 60d i am just using neutral with contrast down 2 notches and saturation down one notch, then in post just pull the saturation down if to colourised, also the new cinema profile i have down loaded is good also but very contrasty. steve

[drapeama]

Indeed. I made a test today, taking a very contrasty old slide, and shot that with Technicolor CineStyle (left) as well as Neutral style (right) - watch in full size...[..] This, IMO, proves my statement that the Technicolor style is unnecessary - you can get just as much latitude with Neutral, and less banding, to boot.

Good point, thanks for comparing it. But the difference isn't as noticeable with this picture than it was with the previous one though.
I think it can be helpfull at night, as you can get more details, and leave them if not needed after, in post. Because from what I understand (and from what I've seen) banding is much more visible in bright areas. So it's not totally unnecessary in the end. I might do as well a test in low-light, as I'm done at work at 3am tonight, so I may have some free time to spend on that. I'll post the results right after.

[liverpool 1]

Nice one Drapes, waiting for results...

[drapeama]

Nice one Drapes, waiting for results...

I'll try to work on it later tonight or tomorow. So far I've shot some nice videos using Janke's preset and I think it's actually quite good and enough in low-light.

[Snurb]

On the latitude test, it seems like Cinestyle reacts differently in the whites, maybe it's my monitor...

Regarding the banding, I'm completely fed up with it. If there was a less destructive way to remove banding in post, maybe I would shoot with Cinestyle more often. But, I'm going to lean towards other profiles such as Neutral, Crooked Path Flat 3.0, or maybe even Marvel Cine.

[drapeama]

If there was a less destructive way to remove banding in post, maybe I would shoot with Cinestyle more often. But, I'm going to lean towards other profiles such as Neutral, Crooked Path Flat 3.0, or maybe even Marvel Cine.

Neutral or even Janke's preset is more than needed, but in low-light, CineStyle is a lifesaver when you can't rely on external lighting. As the whites values are usually the ones that shows mainly the banding, it doesn't show much in that particular situation.
Other than this, I've posted about a method to "remove" or hide the banding and it's almost completely gone with it. Doesn't take much time neither and works well. Depending on what you want to do, but the same applies with CineStyle: if you don't think or want to color correct in post, then don't use it, it'll be simpler!

[Janke]

One more hint to maximize latitude: Use the "Highlight priority" option in the camera's menu - that adds a stop more latitude in the highlights.

I haven't (yet) checked that for banding, though.

[drapeama]

I wonder about that Marvel CineStyle. I'd like to do some comparisons between this picture style and yours Janke. I'll try that, and I'll try to find some time later this week to shoot some little videos downtown at night, comparing Technicolor cineStyle, Marvel CineStyle and Janke's S-Curve. I'll post results after.

[liverpool 1]

First time using cinema profile picture style, pitch black apart from lantern lights and a street lamp light. canon 60d, sigma 30mm 1,4, shutter speed 50, aperture 1,4, iso 1250, awesome!!! bring it on next year..... i love this picture style, the contrast looks spot on and i love the colour, it seems to pop to me!! will post daylight mode soon as soon as last wedding out this week. sorry should have done a comparison with neutral but no time.. steve
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dmOW-7dHpc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uenKJC_NFU

[drapeama]

First time using cinema profile picture style, pitch black apart from lantern lights and a street lamp light. canon 60d, sigma 30mm 1,4, shutter speed 50, aperture 1,4, iso 1250, awesome!!!

The fact you're using a quite "wide" lens that has f/1.4 is a plus in that case.

I wonder about that Marvel CineStyle. I'd like to do some comparisons between this picture style and yours Janke.

I've downloaded it and I've tested it quickly before I get back to work: Janke's preset is very similar to the Marvel CineStyle, but his preset his more bright (which is a bit better for low-light situation). Then I've tested the three profiles: Marvel CineStyle, Janke's S-Curve et Technicolor:

Marvel CineStyle: Very similar to Janke's preset, same shadows and blacks (not lifted) but a bit darker.
Janke's S-Curve: Virtually identical to the Marvel's preset, but brighter and better imho.
Technicolor: Compared to the 2 others, way too flat. Everything seems gray compared to other profiles.
I'll try to get some pictures from the tests and I'll try to work on it to post some results soon.