Using my Fuji XT-4, for example, I shoot 4K H.265 -- which records 10-bit 4:2.0 internaly. Externally, using HDMI out to, say, an Atomos Ninja V, then it's 10-bit 4:2:2. I believe the GoPro 11 can also record in 10-bit.
Of course editing H.265 with my resource-challenged Vegas workstation is a non-starter, so I usually transcode it to Cineform 10-bit for a buttery-smooth experience.
I think it's all about processing power, hear generation and internal bandwidth. 10 bit ups data rates and the camera needs to be able to process it quickly while remaining power efficient and able to manage generated heat.
As 8 bit is enough for finished SDR video there wasn't a huge need for it until recently. More processing power made log gamma workflows feasible recorded internally at 10 bit precision.
On a slightly different note, I watched the video below about Rec.709, BT.2020, and BT.2100 (the guy has the Wikipedia pages on each linked in his video description. It made me wonder, depending on the resolution that we record in, should we be recording our 1080p videos in Rec.709 or Rec.2020 for 4K UHD? Or doesn’t it matter at all?
Color gamut has nothing to do with resolution which is just the number of pixels.
If you only have 8-bits to work with you can have a greater gamut of colors but at the expense of tonal precision- the same bits have to describe more colors so you may have artifacts in smooth areas. Same goes for extended dynamic range capture (log, etc.) Sure you can describe a greater brightness range with fewer bits but again you'll have less precision so more chances of banding and posterization.
If your goal is high dynamic range video, shoot 10-bit precision with a wider gamut and extended dynamic range capture like log, hybrid log gamma or raw. For standard dynamic range video (normal video), either 8 or 10-bit and generally REC 709 though you can bring larger color gamuts back with ACES or a LUT if you wish to shoot them.
@RogerS | Thanks mate, for that explanation. On another note, I have been looking at the picture profiles of my Sony FDR-AX700 because I came across a video on YouTube that talked about the various picture profiles that Sony cameras have. He mentioned that (my paraphrase), “The time when you might want to use a picture profile is when have a lighting situation where there is a darker room with the bright daylight outside and the standard picture profile is too dark or throws away a lot of the brighter and darker detail.”
So, with this in mind, I have been looking at Cine 1, Cine 2, Cine 3, and Cine 4 because there are lighting situations where I would like to retain more detail in my videos and have the option to adjust how much contrast they have. I recognise that I don’t understand these things completely, but I’m trying to. I have looked at HLG but that was a tad too hard for me to correct, especially in VEGAS Edit 15 at the time. Because I didn’t know where to start.
Of course, I’m happy for anyone to chime in and reply to this post in answering these many things I’m bringing up.
Your questions seem a little unfocused so I'm not sure to what end you want this info. I'd suggest focusing on the equipment you have and exactly what you intend to do with it and we can provide advice.
It looks like this camcorder is 8-bit only for internal recording.
For the Cine gammas I'd stay with Cine 2. Cine 3 and 4 are just variants with less dynamic range that I'd ignore (you can darken shadows in post by yourself). Cine 1 has marginally greater dynamic range than Cine 2 but is 16-255 that is flagged as "video" or limited range (16-235) so you have to manually correct this in Vegas so as not to lose highlights above 235, which is annoying and easy to forget. For that reason I use Cine 2 on my 8-bit Sonys.
For a darker room with daylight outside you may not have a single exposure that works well with both- just too much dynamic range so reframe so the window isn't in the shot. For outside situations the Cine profiles can help you keep detail in highlights like the sky compared to not using such a profile. It gives you more flexibility to mold the image in post using tools like the color grading panel or color curves.
if this camcorder would record in 10bit, then we would know that. Sorry. bit it is as simple as that.
So if you wish to record in 8bit, you will have to switch the camcorder.
Even the use of external recorders like the Atomos recorders will not improve the situation significant.
To record in HLG is a speficit topic again. Yes, it can be done with 8bit even if HDR requires 10bit. But you should ensure that you do not need any grading with the 8bit HLG footage, since the HLG format was never designed to be graded at all, even not with 10bit recording.
@RogerS | I do realise I might be making yourself and others a tad confused with talking about one thing and then something else. I guess my overall thought, that I should’ve conveyed much better than I have, is that I wondered if filming in a different colour space (or whatever it’s called) would mean that my video was recorded in a higher bit depth.
For example, if I recorded in Rec.2020 (BT.2020), I thought it would mean that my video would then be 10-12bit vs 8-bit, if I recorded in Rec.709? I realise now that it comes down to the camera, as it seems to be the case. But I do apologise for not clearly asking this in the first place. I hope by saying this it doesn’t make you or anyone else even more confused. I apologise in advance if it does.
As far as picture profiles go, that should’ve been a totally different thread/post. My apologies.
You should know somehow the develop history of TV-video. After YUV colorspace is born, the 420, 422 sub-sampling comes more and more refined, i.e. bandwidth allows from 8bit to 10bit to do finer sampling and save/transfer it. That time it was only in the definition Rec709.
Advanced technique then let camera went to 10bit422...Logs gradually, etc. etc. The Rec2020 definition afterward comes never to practice, or as it's mature, the HDR format appears.
All these things can be set independently, even in combinations that make little sense. You can use a wide S-log 3 gamma with a small Rec 709 gamut and then do it in 8-bits to ensure the final image is close to unusable!
"For the Cine gammas I'd stay with Cine 2. Cine 3 and 4 are just variants with less dynamic range that I'd ignore (you can darken shadows in post by yourself). Cine 1 has marginally greater dynamic range than Cine 2 but is 16-255 that is flagged as "video" or limited range (16-235) so you have to manually correct this in Vegas so as not to lose highlights above 235, which is annoying and easy to forget. For that reason I use Cine 2 on my 8-bit Sonys.
For a darker room with daylight outside you may not have a single exposure that works well with both- just too much dynamic range so reframe so the window isn't in the shot. For outside situations the Cine profiles can help you keep detail in highlights like the sky compared to not using such a profile. It gives you more flexibility to mold the image in post using tools like the color grading panel or color curves."
I've done comparisons of the Picture Profiles with my camera which has the same general characteristics as the one used by @MH7. Generally, I shoot Cine1 or Cine2 when outside. Mostly, Cine1 even though I know it will be more hassle because of the levels definition (16-255). RogerS comment about Cine2 keeping the available bits in the range 16-235 appears to be verified by the comparison video.
"For a darker room with daylight outside you may not have a single exposure that works well with both"
To use the studio RGB settings for the scopes will only change the scale of the scope from 0-100% to -7% to 109%. If one wishes to stay in the legal range, what is 16..235, one can take care in both settings (but will see that easier if he enables the studio RGB settings).
That is of interest for broadcast stations for sure - but not so much for the private video sector.
I also have the Sony AX700 which has 10 picture profiles to choose from and most are customisable.
I prefer to use the what you see is what you get profile settings so I do not need to mess about too much in Vegas. I mainly use just levels filter to adjust the picture, and I am very happy with the result I get on my 65in OLED TV. I drove all my family mad when working through the picture profiles to get the balance I wanted, took about two weeks of fiddling comparing the different profiles and settings. There are many combinations to try.
Doug Jensen does a master class on the AX700 and goes into full detail of all the camera functions. The full class is available to purchase with the first overview lesson free. You also get his Picture Profile setting as part of the paid course which is developed in conjunction with expensive monitoring equipment. I used his profile and tweaked it slightly for my liking.
@Wolfgang S. said: "That is of interest for broadcast stations for sure - but not so much for the private video sector."
My wife watches broadcast TV all the time. When I interrupt her to play a family video from the media server, I want it to look like something from the same universe, so I attempt to follow broadcast standards.
With the tuners that I have, I can capture actual ATSC (2.0) OTA streams. Here is a sample of the levels that my local CBS affiliate delivers to my tuners.
Here is an example of the levels for some of my recent renders:
Thanks for everyones input. It’s greatly appreciated. Something that I have thought about: I remember reading or hearing somewhere that it’s good to shoot your videos a bit darker to retain more detail and then just fix them in post.
However, I’ve recently been rethinking that approach as I have found that videos that I film on my iPhone, I have filmed with the lighting adjusted for how you’d normally adjust them for family videos and bright parts like windows and lights are a tad blown out. Yet, it didn’t bother me too much.
So, with this in mind, I have wondered if I should not be to worried about really bright areas, like windows and lights, and just adjust my camera to film so that they could easily be watched, if desired, with no adjustment really needed. By this, I mean, it wouldn’t be too dark, or dark at all, but just at the right amount that’s not too blown out and not too dark. My apologies if that still is a tad hard to understand what I’m trying to say.
it’s good to shoot your videos a bit darker to retain more detail and then just fix them in post.
Definitely not. Expose to the right and use warning zebras to protect the most important highlights of your scene (which is not a window or a light source- those can blow out to white).
Well, for a good while I had been filming my videos a little darker than I how I would’ve wanted to. With one in particular being a tad too dark. So, when I went to lighten it in post, I did notice more noise, despite being film with a lower ISO/gain, than I would’ve liked. This video I’m talking about was filmed with my Sony FDR-AX700.
However, with your help, I now understand, decently better, how I need to set up my Sony camera. Thank you.
Just for clarification, what did you mean by “Expose to the right.” Did you mean to expose to the light?
The guide also has zebra settings for different Sony profiles.
Ah okay. I understand. I have had a little look at that link. Thank you. I will definitely make sure I have my camera display it’s Zebras and Histogram from now on. I think I’m understanding all this a fair bit better than I had been before. Now, thinking about it, I believe that recommendation to film darker was for iPhones but not for normal regular cameras.
Nevertheless, I definitely won’t be filming darker anymore with either my Sony camera nor my iPhone and I believe that I’ll get better results than I had been with now understand much better how to set up my cameras.
As far as the Sony picture profiles go, wouldn’t the Sony picture profiles be different for different Sony cameras, as in they may have the same profiles but each Sony camera could be ever so slightly calibrated differently.