should i set luminance to full than broadcast to retain details in my shot,....???

@bug009 what is the perfect luminance setting which helps grading the video better without artifact,.... full or broadcast,.. what are the gamma setting i can choose if i need a video which is so similar to mts luma range after conversion??????????

@Mark_the_Harp

"crunchy That's really interesting. So would this above pair of applications (plus avisynth) allow me to convert mts in realtime to use in an application that only accepts .avi files? Or do I completely not undestand what avisynth can do?"

More or less it works like you said. Instead of avs script you get a directory with avi, wav and some other files. However, don't expect that you'll be able to edit in real-time such avi file.

Seeing as Premiere CS6 can edit .MTS natively, is there any benefit to using 5DtoRGB?

well, good thing I always use 5DtoRGB

http://www.eoshd.com/content/8076/how-osx-lion-still-screws-your-gh2-fs100-nex-footage-a-must-read

I've never tried 601, but I might just to see what happens, but my settings are already on record... I'm more concerned with what's going on in the film modes at this point because I think I've seen enough to know that there's not enough of a difference to make 5DtoRGB a MUST, but it is preferential to mts and fcp conversion at least IMO.

Is there actually a proven benefit of encoding through 5dtorgb as all it seems to do is pull up the blacks and pull down the highlights, thus potentially actually reducing the dynamic range. These screen grabs are from final cut 7 waveform. In fact it takes longer to encode and FCP wants to render the timeline earlier when grading the 5dtorgb footage (prores LT)?

.mts file straight onto the timeline. almost identical to log and transfer footage.

Here're the results of my GH2 test of 5DtoRGB, as compared to direct .mts import into Premiere CS6. Needless to say, there's significant benefit to using 5DtoRGB, and it isn't merely a gamma shift issue. Interestingly, 5DtoRGB with luminance range set to Broadcast produces an image virtually identical to the image resulting from a direct .mts import, whereas with luminance range set to Full, it's leaps and bounds better.

Edit - just some additional info, this was shot at f/1.4 on a Voigtlander 25mm f/0.95, ISO 320; Smooth -2, -2, -2, -2. 5DtoRGB [Full Range] appears to do great things for dynamic range.

@Sangye no it doesn't. All it does is compress the highlights, and lift the shadows. It does absolutely nothing to the dynamic range.

The only real advantage is that there is less chroma smearing when doing heavy grading on the full range conversions.

http://www.personal-view.com/talks/discussion/comment/55869#Comment_55869

@Sangye - take some properly exposed footage of something more colorful (full range of colors will be best). Transcode with 5DtoRGB in Broadcast and Full. Import into whatever you color correct with. In FCPx, I simply created three duplicate stacked clips (Full atop Broadcast) along the timeline so I could A/B them at 400%. Take the first stack and correct the Broadcast footage so it looks as close to Full as you can. Then on the second stack, do the opposite. Then, if you want, on the third, find a middle ground and grade them both there. (It took me about 15 minutes using the scopes and rudimentary color tools in FCPx.) Compare and you will have your own answer.

On this topic, although I know I recommended full range first, I'm pretty positive that doing Full Range is actually not a good thing after all. I have yet to take my most recent tests to my colorist (from Modern, if that helps put his experience in perspective) but after investigating someone's suggestion, it seems counter-productive to use Full Range as a setting.

You can try this yourself, but what you want to do is this (recommended here a number of months back):

Set your camera's LCD and EVF up (or just one) to the lowest saturation, lowest contrast settings in the LCD calibration. Then set the LCD brightness to A*1 in the menu. What this does is show you a less contrasty image and less saturated image (duh) and the brightness about matches what's coming through the lens.

Incidentally, not only does it show you just how far the camera's REALLY reaching into the shadows and highlights, making exposure on the LCD by eye MUCH freakin' easier, it also shows you what you would get when converting via 5DtoRGB with Full Range. Short version: you can now see at least MOST of what the image would look like flattened out.

Now, in post, convert two of the exact same files with a decent contrast range in two different ways: 709 Full Range and 709 Broadcast Range, then match them whichever way you'd like. TO my eyes, the Broadcast range looks slightly better and when you go to add contrast back to the full range, it's almost like you can never really get the colors to separate properly. I mean, it's 4:2:0 regardless, but the Broadcast Range seems to play a lot better.

I'm going to the DI suite next week with new test footage for my $10K feature film, part of it's going to be testing this. I know I posted using full range and such before, but it may NOT be the way.

As far as lowering contrast goes, I think (think means I am NOT sure just yet, and not saying this is fact) you just need to do it before the lens or via the lens. As in Ultra Con filter, Low Contrast, and if you want to take the edge off of things a Tiffen black Diffusion.

I've since stumbled on an old junk lens that I had around, tested the above theory against my newer glass and the result was probably the most comfortable I've been with the image coming out of this camera without having to resort to using PL glass; namely Standard Speeds.

Let me know what you guys think.

Also, after I stopped using Full Range I saw Thomas post this:

This all looks good, but I'd use broadcast luminance range instead of full range. The GH2 doesn't write any data below 16/above 235, so you should be fine using broadcast range. Full range will compress the luma/chroma range too much (you can observe this with a waveform or a histogram).

So, that should tell you something. It's probably why I could never really get the Full Range image's blacks to a proper place without affecting the mids too much.