LX5 Film Mod settings

Hi,

Just recently bought a LX5 around a week back and still figuring my way around it. The camera itself is simply awesome.

I do have a question, what are your preferred settings for the Film Mode (standard, dynamic, vibrant etc) including contrast, sharpness, saturation and NR to provide best colours?

I know this is something that will vary from person to person but I just wanted to get an idea of what most people would recommend.

Thanks and Regards,

Quack29.

I am using the Dynamic mode, with contrast -1, sharpness+1, colour -1 and NR-2

Here is a sample:





Hope it helps

I use Nature color, -2 NR, -1 for everything else.
--



http://evanravitz.com/photos

Thanks for the input!

Any more suggestions?

quack29 said:

Any more suggestions?

Click to expand...

Maybe try what I did with my LX3. Take outdoor sunny and indoor flash shots of a friend or relative and select a film that gives best skin colours, may need fine tuning of Contrast and Saturation to get best results. It's all personal taste about colours and all a bit pointless unless using a properly calibrated monitor.

Next I found that the default Sharpness gave extra noise and added nasty edge halos that gave problems when doing savage post process crops for more "zoom" or attempting large prints, I reduced that to -2.

Then (particularly at higher ISO than 80) the default Noise Reduction gave detail smearing that would cause problems with those large prints again. So that was reduced to -2 as well, and limit the ISO to what gives decent results without needing noise reduction in post process. In the case of the LX3 that was 80-200 range, maybe 80-400 for the LX5.

Both noise reduction (if problems occur) and sharpness are better done to taste in post process to suit final display or print size.

Once you find a setting that you like, write it into C1 and use that in future. That way any temporary changes get reset at turn off and settings mistakes are less.

Regards............ Guy

May I ask how much leeway there is for video colour correction or colour grading with those settings?

Lax Jought said:

May I ask how much leeway there is for video colour correction or colour grading with those settings?

Click to expand...

If that's me you are talking to, then I rarely do video, no importance to me. I just use stills. Pity that these LX3/5 camera were not made stills only cameras, it would be a much better camera then.

I did find a film setting for video that I happened to like then wrote that to C2-3 to fix those settings. It (on LX3) seemed to need maximum noise reduction and minimum sharpness to look OK, but not tried that yet on a decent large screen HD TV so my adjusts are suspect for video. Maybe I will shoot the odd video just a few times in every few thousand stills.

Regards........ Guy

Guy Parsons said:

Then (particularly at higher ISO than 80) the default Noise Reduction gave detail smearing that would cause problems with those large prints again. So that was reduced to -2 as well, and limit the ISO to what gives decent results without needing noise reduction in post process. In the case of the LX3 that was 80-200 range, maybe 80-400 for the LX5.

Click to expand...

For JPEGs straight out of the camera and with all four parameters in STD FILM set to -2: In the case of the LX5 it is between ISO 80 to 640/800. The amount of noise at around ISO 800 on the LX5 is near about the amount of noise at ISO 400 on the LX3. That said, I'm being conservative here. In some cases, depending on the contrast of the scene, the LX5 can go even a bit higher up to ISO 1000... making the LX5 approximately a full stop to 1.5 stops better at processing noise in camera than the LX3.

That was JPEG output mentioned above. RAW output will be even easier to post-process for obtaining more detailed results.

Guy... with the lower X'mas pricing, if would benefit you if you bought an LX5 to discover all these benefits (accompanied with its peculiarities) for yourself. If you shoot RAW, am pretty sure you will be convinced that the LX5 is better than the LX3 in a number of ways!

At about USD $375 the LX5 will most probably be nearly bottoming out on the price front. I don't think it will fall lower than this. It is available at USD $399 at many online retailers already now. That way if you really do like the LX5, you can sell your LX3 for nearly the same price! Like a one-for-one exchange without much additional top up in case you decide to change cameras!

In case you missed this thread earlier... have a good look at the first few photographs at the top of the first page. The results declared subsequently are quite interesting!

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=36248092

In case you haven't already, also look at...

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1033&message=36301914

It was the images in these two threads that ultimately convinced me to try out the LX5... in spite of everything I read in the forums earlier!

......
Click

I shoot in RAW but I do record a JPG also just so I can send those files to some one at a moments notice. Other then that I only work on RAW images so all these different camera setting mean nothing.

in raw the film settings DO make a difference

Edward Chatlos said:

I shoot in RAW but I do record a JPG also just so I can send those files to some one at a moments notice. Other then that I only work on RAW images so all these different camera setting mean nothing.

Click to expand...

MrClick said:

Guy... with the lower X'mas pricing, if would benefit you if you bought an LX5 to discover all these benefits (accompanied with its peculiarities) for yourself. If you shoot RAW, am pretty sure you will be convinced that the LX5 is better than the LX3 in a number of ways!

Click to expand...

Ha! This is Australia where the usual double the proper price may drop by a couple of percent for Christmas, if we are lucky.

I do realise that the LX5 can provide better results than the LX3 but my LX3 satisfies me for what I use it for, plus of course I now have the E-PL1 for when I want better quality (I may have a look in again around LX7 to see what has happened to the LX line).

On balance I think I use the LX3 more than the E-PL1 when I am at home, but when on holidays it will probably be mostly E-PL1.

I feel happy and secure with my current combination of cameras.

Regards............. Guy

aerorail said:

Edward Chatlos said:

I shoot in RAW but I do record a JPG also just so I can send those files to some one at a moments notice. Other then that I only work on RAW images so all these different camera setting mean nothing.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Just did a test of RAW files only with all color and one B&W film mode setting and opening them in ACR I see no difference between any of the film mode settings. I suspect the difference you are seeing is in the small included JPG the camera uses to display the image on the LCD screen. Even the B&W image, when displayed on the cameras LCD was in B&W, opened in ACR it is in color. The only difference I saw was in the slightly different in color temperature the camera used when recording the RW2 files. I am using Auto WB.

So the film modes had no effect when shooting RAW only or on the RAW file when shooting RAW plus JPG.

Guy Parsons said:

...plus of course I now have the E-PL1 for when I want better quality (I may have a look in again around LX7 to see what has happened to the LX line).

Click to expand...

Cannot argue at all... with the LX3 and E-PL1 I really do not see to much need for the LX5 if you are happy with the LX3 for stills... especially if you are not into too much high iso shooting.

I myself lusted for the Olympus Pens over the Panasonic GFs... but due to the lack of higher LCD resolution on the E-PL1 and lack of in-camera flash on the other Pens, I am left still waiting for Olympus to offer both a higher res LCD + a decent in-camera flash... and once they launch this model... I think I would pick up on in a heartbeat!

......
Click

MrClick said:

I myself lusted for the Olympus Pens over the Panasonic GFs... but due to the lack of higher LCD resolution on the E-PL1 and lack of in-camera flash on the other Pens, I am left still waiting for Olympus to offer both a higher res LCD + a decent in-camera flash... and once they launch this model... I think I would pick up on in a heartbeat!

Click to expand...

I was waiting on the global sensor shutter for M4/3 to make it as silent as the LX3/5, but the rumours seemed to have died back and it would be a little foolish to buy the first model anyway - so years of waiting were negated by diving in at E-PL1. No regrets.

The E-PL1 back LCD is indeed a little disappointing, useless in sunlight at default brightness but becomes better at +7 brightness. That problem was solved by buying the totally excellent VF-2 viewfinder with its clear as crystal true 800x600 pixel display, the best accessory that I've ever bought for any camera ever. Much the same comment on my growing (slowly) E-PL1 comments page http://homepages.ihug.com.au/~parsog/olyepl1/02-epl1-comments.html#lcd

In fact I like the high standing viewfinder way better than a viewfinder built into the body, this way my awful habit of left eye viewing still leaves the right eye able to see the scene and watch for intrusions.

What I wish for is Olympus to make a dedicated M4/3 24-60mm equivalent lens (preferably f/2.8 at wide) and then I will be happy. Meanwhile I make do with my old 4/3 11-22mm lens and the kit 14-42mm lens or old 4/3 14-54mm lens (plus occasional use of the kit 40-150mm lens).

One thing about the E-PL1, the jpegs are just gorgeous, no need to bother with RAW even though I do seem to store them for just-in-case purposes.

Though in the end, it always seems to be the LX3 in a belt pouch each time I leave the house, the E-PL1 is more for special occasions.

Regards......... Guy

aerorail said:

in raw the film settings DO make a difference

Click to expand...

In the absence of any evidence to back it up, I don't believe this claim.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

morepix said:

aerorail said:

in raw the film settings DO make a difference

Click to expand...

In the absence of any evidence to back it up, I don't believe this claim.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's the RAW converter being used that makes the difference.

Some converters just by default display the straight RAW image which is always the same for all Film settings (except for Dynamic B&W).

Other converters may be by default applying settings they find in the header (are all camera settings always in the RAW file?) or doing some other magic stuff and thus the RAWs may come out looking different for each Film mode. Or are they always looking at the embedded jpeg in the RAW which may have the normal jpeg's features?

Just like that Dynamic B&W RAW that many claim is a perfectly normal RAW because that is what they see, an auto white balanced version which corrects the yellow green bias. But look at a Dynamic B&W RAW with say Silkypix, and you see it in all its yellow-green glory.

The filter of software often distorts our view.

Regards.............. Guy

Guy Parsons said:

Maybe it's the RAW converter being used that makes the difference.

Click to expand...

Right, maybe Silkypix can (optionally?) apply film mode adjustments in the RAW conversion process. Not that they do anything to the RAW image, but they could be applied after the fact based on metadata. I doubt there are any RAW converters besides Silkypix that would do that.
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix

Well RAW should be RAW! Raw sensor data! That is what RAW is!

Personally I don't want a converter to use any of the in-camera JPG settings on the RAW image data. That just defeat RAW.

morepix said:

Right, maybe Silkypix can (optionally?) apply film mode adjustments in the RAW conversion process. Not that they do anything to the RAW image, but they could be applied after the fact based on metadata. I doubt there are any RAW converters besides Silkypix that would do that.

Click to expand...

Silkypix is a bit dumb and cheap in that it does not do or have any film mode simulations, it's always up to you to adjust to taste via the standard controls. Some enterprising dude with lots of time to spare could develop a canned set of Silkypix Tastes that simulate film settings, but it's such an important task (ha ha) that nobody has done that yet that I know of.

That is quite different to Olympus Viewer 2 (free for Olympus users) where the camera film settings etc are duplicated in the software so you can try all enhancements and adjusts on a RAW at home at leisure and get the same result as in a jpeg from the camera. With Olympus you can even change the aspect ratio in the computer and not lose anything as the full RAW frame is taken every time. The default developed jpeg image is the aspect ratio of the camera setting, but can be changed.

Usually the idea of using RAW is to get things the way you like them and not to slavishly follow what the in-camera jpeg engine provides.

Regards........... Guy

Edward Chatlos said:

Well RAW should be RAW! Raw sensor data! That is what RAW is!

Click to expand...

Yep, agreed totally. However, any software maker can cobble together whatever they want to manipulate images in any way they want. So what?! No one needs to use it. No need to get excited about it.

However ... most of us accept lens correction manipulations these days as a step in RAW processing -- to fix distortion & CA. That's sort of RAW. That's OK ... or is it?
--
http://www.pbase.com/morepix