RIP Sony a7s III

[jonpais]

Exactly. Because you intentionally captured an inaccurate exposure. You overexposed.

This is 100% semantics. Leeming says overexposijg highlights when he means clipping highlights. Brawley says you're not overexposing because it's intentional and you're going to be happy with your result. But technically, if you have to make a downward ISO adjustment in post, you overexposed. And you can overexpose your highlights without clipping them. Overexposing them just means they render brighter on screen than they should. But none of this language matters. All that matters is that you have a workflow that produces desirable results.

You are grossly mistaken on all counts. No one intentionally captured an inaccurate exposure. According to you, Paul Leeming and John Brawley are all wrong. Correct terminology does matter.

”The foundation of Leeming LUT Pro™ is shooting for maximum dynamic range while retaining highlight information by Exposing To The Right ( ETTR ), but not overexposing.” - Paul Leeming


”It's not overexposing. You're simply "exposing to the right".” - John Brawley

Brawley says you're not overexposing because it's intentional and you're going to be happy with your result.

Excuse me, but I fell out of my chair laughing as I read your mangling of Brawley's words, which require no further elucidation.

 

[ahalpert]

You are not putting medium gray where it's "supposed" to go on the gamma curve. If you did, you wouldn't have to "adjust your ISO" in post. It's an exposure strategy for reducing noise

Alistair Chapman:

Take a look at this chart. It plots the S-Log2 and S-Log3 gamma curves on a log scale of f-stops against the amount of 10 bit or code values used to record each stop. The center line of the chart is middle grey. Both S-log2 and S-log3 provide 8 stops below middle grey and 6 stops above. Take a look at the darkest stop, the one that is -7 to -8 and look at how much data is allocated to that stop. With 10 bit recording you have according to this chart about 10 code values for S-Log2 and about 20 for S-Log3. That’s if you have 10 bit, and it’s not a lot of data. Admittedly there isn’t going to be a great deal of scene information in that darkest stop, deep in the shadows and the noise. But there’s part of the issue, the noise. If you have under exposed and you take this in to post and have to stretch out the shadows, the noise in these darkest shadows is going to look pretty coarse because it hasn’t been recorded with many shades/steps so stretching it out will make even “rougher” for want of a better term. If you are recording with 8 bit the problems is even worse. With 8 bit, S-Log2 will only have around 2 or 3 code values for that bottom stop, in effect the noise will have two values – black or +1 stop. Imagine how nasty that will look if you need to raise or stretch you blacks because you are under exposed, it will become very blocky and grainy.

The solution is to over expose a bit. By over exposing your footage by a stop when you go in to post production you will in most cases be bringing your levels down. So instead of stretching the noise out and making it worse you will be shrinking it down and reducing the negative impact it has on it’s image. Because cameras like the FS5, A7s etc have 14 stops of dynamic range this small bit of over exposure is going to make very little difference to your highlights in the vast majority of situations

Oh, and the relative paucity of increments at the bottom of the exposure range is the same reason Netflix demands 12-bit capture for HDR material. banding can present in those bottom stops. That's why the technical data referenced by Tom described different performance levels for highlights, midtones, shadows

 

[jonpais]

Oh, and the relative paucity of increments at the bottom of the exposure range is the same reason Netflix demands 12-bit capture for HDR material. banding can present in those bottom stops. That's why the technical data referenced by Tom described different performance levels for highlights, midtones, shadows

Can you name a picture that doesn't have highlights, midtones and shadows?

Banding can occur anywhere in an image that contains large areas of uniform color with fine gradients and is very commonly seen in skies.

As far as 10-bit internal codecs and why they aren't suitable for HDR capture, few have summarized it as succinctly as Art Adams:

"The Y’CbCr encoding model is popular because it conceals subsampling artifacts vastly better than does RGB encoding. Sadly, while Y’CbCr works well in Rec 709, it doesn’t work very well for HDR. Because the Y’CbCr values are created from RGB values that have been gamma corrected, the luma and chroma values are not perfectly separate: subsampling causes minor shifts in both. This isn’t noticeable in Rec 709’s smaller color gamut, but it matters quite a lot in a large color gamut. Every process for scaling a wide color gamut image to fit into a smaller color gamut utilizes desaturation, and it’s not possible to desaturate Y’CbCr footage to that extent without seeing unwanted hue shifts.

My recommendation: always use RGB 4:4:4 codecs or capture raw when shooting for HDR, and avoid Y’CbCr 4:2:2 codecs. If a codec doesn’t specify that it is “4:4:4” then it uses Y’CbCr encoding, and should be avoided."

Accordingly, the ProRes 4444 XQ codec found in Arri Alexa cameras is suitable for HDR while the ProRes 422 HQ codec found in cameras like the Nikon Z9 is not.

 

[Tom Roper]

That's why the technical data referenced by Tom described different performance levels for highlights, midtones, shadows

And here I thought I was being laughed out of the room for making it over complicated. Somebody got it! I knew it would be Abe. Well done!

 

[jonpais]

And here I thought I was being laughed out of the room for making it over complicated. Somebody got it! I knew it would be Abe. Well done!

If that’s so, I’ll wager he can’t explain why not all Ultra HD Blu Ray discs and 10-bit Y’CbCr HDR videos uploaded to YouTube suffer from annoying banding artifacts, though.

 

[Doug Jensen]

I know, right? That must be why Alister Chapman alone has published 10,000-word guides explaining Cine EI.

10,000 words? That's what happens when an engineer gets involved. I could tell you everything you need to know about exposing for S-LOG in about 200.

 

[Andy9]

10,000 words? That's what happens when an engineer gets involved. I could tell you everything you need to know about exposing for S-LOG in about 200.

Expose to light, not too much, mostly +1.

 

[Andy9]

Or more in the spirit of this thread - For sale: a7Siii, never used.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Or more in the spirit of this thread - For sale: a7Siii, never used.

Speaking of that, I was a late comer to this trainwreck of a thread, so I decided to go back to the first post to see what it was supposed to be about. On his first post, jonpais recommends an article that supposedly explains why CINE EI is such a big deal. https://www.gen.media/in-focus/benefits-of-cine-ei Unfortunately, this article does just the opposite. It was clearly written by someone who has no understanding of S-LOG or how to expose for it. Anyone who's exposure advice revolves around judging by how the picture looks on a monitor/EVF can be written off as a fool. Nothing more needs to be known. The blind leading the blind. I don't mind when someone is ignorant about something because we all start there -- but when an ignorant person starts giving advice, that is when they are doing real harm to others. And when someone re-posts bad advice, they are adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Tom Roper]

You're wrong. This thread is about the trainwreck itself. Welcome to the machine.

 

[JimGao]

It doesn’t appear to be getting the attention it deserves, but Sony’s firmware update 2.00 for the FX3, their popular entry-level cinema camera, just rendered the a7s III obsolete. In an effort to better integrate the the FX3 with the rest of their cinema lineup that includes the FX6, FX9 and Sony Venice cameras, new log settings and timecode support have been introduced, owners can at last bid farewell to S-Log2 and users can now load custom LUTs. Of particular interest to us are the new Cine EI/Cine EI Quick modes that more fully exploit the wide dynamic range of S-Log3, though it will doubtless take some time before filmmakers accustomed to shooting under poor lighting conditions and cranking up the ISO learn to appreciate it. Not even Katie Eleneke, the hurried presenter in the Sony video, gives two ****s about Cine EI. To learn why Cine EI is such a big deal, check out this article.

This is great news! Thanks for sharing.

 

[jonpais]

Speaking of that, I was a late comer to this trainwreck of a thread, so I decided to go back to the first post to see what it was supposed to be about. On his first post, jonpais recommends an article that supposedly explains why CINE EI is such a big deal. https://www.gen.media/in-focus/benefits-of-cine-ei Unfortunately, this article does just the opposite. It was clearly written by someone who has no understanding of S-LOG or how to expose for it. Anyone who's exposure advice revolves around judging by how the picture looks on a monitor/EVF can be written off as a fool. Nothing more needs to be known. The blind leading the blind. I don't mind when someone is ignorant about something because we all start there -- but when an ignorant person starts giving advice, that is when they are doing real harm to others. And when someone re-posts bad advice, they are adding fuel to the fire.

What of it? For well over a century, filmmakers have shot celluloid without the benefit of any scopes: no zebras, no false color, no vectorscope, no histogram, no wave form monitor, no RGB parade, no nothing! Were Fellini, Tarkovsky and Welles hacks? In the digital age, with a professional monitor ,WYSIWYG. I mean, it’s not like the a7s III or FX3 have any professional exposure tools like false color or wave form monitor anyhow.

But speaking seriously, Arri, RED, Blackmagic, Panavision, Canon, Sony and other professional cinema cameras all use some form of EI and you’re going to dismiss Cine EI just because you don’t approve of one DP’s writing? In any case, nowhere does the DP write that he relies solely on a monitor!

The CineEI mode allows you to view via your footage via a LUT so that you can get an appreciation of how the footage will look after grading. Also when monitoring and exposing via the LUT because the dynamic range of the LUT is narrower, your exposure will be more accurate and consistent because bad exposure looks more obviously bad. This makes grading easier. One of the keys to easy grading is consistent footage, footage where the exposure is shifting or the colours changing (don’t use ATW with Log) can be very hard to grade.


Then once you are comfortable exposing via a LUT you can start to think about using EI offsets to make the LUT brighter or darker. When the LUT is darker you open the aperture or reduce the ND to return the LUT to a normal looking image and vice versa with a brighter LUT. This then changes the brightness of the S-log3 recordings and you use this offsetting process to shift the highlight/shadow range as well as noise levels to suit the types of scenes you are shooting.

- Generation Media

He’s explaining how MLUTs work for those who are unfamiliar with Cine EI - which he does exceedingly well. In fact, much of what he says is almost word-for-word what is found in Alister Chapman’s authoritative tutorials. No one of sound mind reading the excellently written article would ever jump to the hasty conclusion that the author never uses exposure tools. I’m going out on a limb here, but I’d be willing to bet that most of his audience already knows how to read a waveform monitor and false color guides.

Originally posted by Doug Jensen

I don't mind when someone is ignorant about something because we all start there -- but when an ignorant person starts giving advice, that is when they are doing real harm to others. And when someone re-posts bad advice, they are adding fuel to the fire.

The kettle calling the pot black! LOL

Originally posted by Doug Jensen

Anyone who's exposure advice revolves around judging by how the picture looks on a monitor/EVF can be written off as a fool.

Is that so? Here’s the Cine EI nutshell version by Sony expert Alister Chapman himself:

But in it’s simplest form, all you need to do is to turn on the MLUT’s. Choose the MLUT that you like the look of, or is closest to the final look you are after. Expose so that the picture in the viewfinder or on your monitor looks how you want and away you go.

- Alister Chapman

No way in hell you know more about exposing S-Log than Alister Chapman. For sure, he devotes a couple of paragraphs explaining the waveform monitor in the longer version, but Chapman is writing a 10,000 word tutorial; Gen Media’s article is explicitly not a tutorial; as the title says, it’s an appreciation of the benefits of Cine EI that can be read in its entirety in under 4 minutes - not a Cine EI Masterclass. EI, with its ability to shift the highlight/shadow range, and MLUTs to preview its influence in the monitor are exclusive benefits of Cine EI; traditional exposure tools like waveform monitors and histograms are not.

 

[JimGao]

Before FW2.0, it was a 50/50 split between using an FX3 or A7S3.

The issue before was that the FX3 was supposedly a micro cinema camera, but all they did was:

- remove the evf to accomodate a form factor for rigging, but completely forgot to include an anti-rotation hole for the tripod/should rig/gimbal mounting
- added a fan that has dubious effect
- and then added an XLR box where the 1st AC might want to work most days.

none of those scream cinema.

So the choice for the average cinema type shooter looked like EVF or Fan thingy. Not really going to be using the fixed EVF all that much, since it is not in a place for ergonomic use on a set. It is a useful thing, just not an everyday all the time thing. So, in a way, that pushes towards the fan thingy. But that always felt like a tough choice.

But FW2.0 are actual feature for cinema use. The time code removes needing that PD150 XLR box, and the CINE EI mode is an interesting option, as it not only standardizes the FX3 into the Cinealta system, it also gives for-web shooters the option to shoot 10bit and smaller files, and speed up their workflow from a raw one. Because let’s be honest, if you have the money for a raw workflow, you have the money to rent an old red or Alexa. Where the FX3 might have an edge, is in battery life, low light, and offering cine ei and getting fil sizes and playback speeds that are smaller than red’s.

Also, if i have a camera at home, i’d rather have one with custom LUT’s and CINE EI. a much nicer way to play around with ideas.


This is not a photography forum, so i am wondering why all the pushback towards the OP? To me, the A7S3 is RIP, as well. But if i am being honest, i’d probably get a Komodo or something. The FX3 is still a bit too much of a first gen half ass adaptation of the A7S3. At least the A7S3 can be useful for anything you throw at it. So, it obviously is the better buy option for the majority of media professionals. However, in the context of dvxuser a film making community, i’m in agreement with the OP.


The FX3 when introduced, felt more like a documentary cinema verite type camera. the fans help with longer takes, and the XLR box for OMB style shooting. However, it never felt like a cinema camera until FW2.0. And now it does. so the choice between the two body styles is easier.

 

[JimGao]

Hi doug, that article was written bu an ACS member, and while many cinematographers are actually quite simplistic towards their technical knowledge, this article was clearly written for people that might be coming from the perspective of a beginner.

I do tend to agree with you though, sometimes over simplifying can be more trouble down the road. But i have worked with directors that ask me to expose differently based on what they see in the monitor. People react to that. If we are being honest, we all react to the monitor. Since i started in electronic video, and not film, i am a big fan of waveforms and vector scopes, since they are so incredibly accurate. I’ve seen DP’s try to trust their light meters while clipping their highlights and having way too much room in the shadows. So, i am completely on board with your technical approach. But i cannot discredit the OP for citing that article. Because at the end of the day, that article still accurately introduces a good reason for using the cine ei workflow.

 

[ahalpert]

, it also gives for-web shooters the option to shoot 10bit and smaller files,

Didn't we have this already?

I don't think that the majority of dvxusers are shooting scripted drama. But that's sort of incidental. I have an fx3 and an a7siii and I use them interchangeably. I haven't updated the fx3 firmware yet. But for what I use these cameras for, I don't really need it.

The purchase consideration for a new camera has shifted towards the fx3. But that doesn't mean the a7siii is dead

 

[Doug Jensen]

What of it? For well over a century, filmmakers have shot celluloid without the benefit of any scopes: no zebras, no false color, no vectorscope, no histogram, no wave form monitor, no RGB parade, no nothing! Were Fellini, Tarkovsky and Welles hacks? In the digital age, with a professional monitor ,WYSIWYG.

Nothing? You’re embarrassing yourself. Ever hear of a light meter? Yeah, I didn't think so. Professionals don't guess about exposure or judge exposure by eye, they use precision instruments to ensure consistent and correct exposure. Modern electronic cameras offer many exposure measurement tools (you have mentioned several) that were previously not possible with film cameras, but only a fool wouldn't know that light meters have been used for a hundred years or more. I have a Scenic L-758C. What model do you own? I have a Leader LV-5330 waveform monitor. What model do you own?

BTW, I don't use either of them in my day-to-day shooting. As anyone who has watched any of tutorials can tell you, all I need is Zebras to hit perfect exposure in just a few seconds in 99% of all shooting situations. Doesn't matter if I am shooting LOG, RAW, or REC709. The procedure is exactly the same. There's no need to make it more complicated.

But speaking seriously, Arri, RED, Blackmagic, Panavision, Canon, Sony and other professional cinema cameras all use some form of EI and you’re going to dismiss Cine EI just because you don’t approve of one DP’s writing?

When did I say I dismissed CINE EI? Don’t put word in my mouth. I love CINE EI and use it on every shoot with my F55 and FS7. I use it on many shoots with my FX6 (when not shooting S-Cinetone). I wish my other cameras that have S-LOG but not CINE EI (Z280, Z750, A1) did have a true CINE EI mode because it makes shooting with LOG easier. But they don’t. So to say that I dismiss CINE EI couldn’t be further from the truth.

In any case, nowhere does the DP write that he relies solely on a monitor!

Then what does he rely on??? He never mentions any exposure measurement method except looking at a LUT. Never says he used a light meter, zebras, histogram, waveform, or anything else except judging exposure from how the picture looks. Go back and read it again. He has no clue what he is doing, and you are following him like he does.

He’s explaining how MLUTs work for those who are unfamiliar with Cine EI - which he does exceedingly well. In fact, much of what he says is almost word-for-word what is found in Alister Chapman’s authoritative tutorials. No one of sound mind reading the excellently written article would ever jump to the hasty conclusion that the author never uses exposure tools. .

No, it is not a hasty conclusion. It is logical to assume he doesn’t use exposure tools because if he did, he would have included that information in the article. The article is not complete without a discussion of proper exposure levels and measurement. If he doesn’t understand that, or chose not to include it, either way he’s an idiot for writing a half-assed article that leaves so much important information out. Read the article again, the whole thing is based on looking at the picture and judging exposure by how it looks on the monitor.

LUTs are not exposure tools. LUTs tell you nothing about the exposure.
Let me say that again.
LUTs are not exposure tools. LUTs tell you nothing about the exposure.
Memorize it.

No way in hell you know more about exposing S-Log than Alister Chapman. For sure, he devotes a couple of paragraphs explaining the waveform monitor in the longer version, but Chapman is writing a 10,000 word tutorial;.

So if I write a 12,000 word tutorial, then by your logic, mine would be better? Length is what matters?

I know for a fact I know more about exposing for S-LOG than Alister. Look, I am friends with Alister and we have spent a lot of time together over the last 15 years, so I don’t want to start arguing with his methods when he is not around to defend himself. But Alister is an engineer at his core, and I’ll happily admit he can talk circles around me when it comes to the technical aspects of almost any subject. But a technical knowledge of this stuff is not needed. People only need to know how to use S-LOG, how to expose for S-LOG, and how to handle S-LOG in post. That’s it. There is no need to understand the technical underpinnings of it. In fact, one thing that always surprises me when I am working with, training, or listening to, and ASC cinematographer is how absolutely little technical knowledge they have about the camera they are using. And I don’t blame them. Technical expertise is not a requirement. Knowing HOW to shoot beautiful images is far more important than being able to write a 10,000 word white paper on the subject.

BTW, Alister loses a lot of credibility when he frequently talks about using skin tone to judge exposure, or judging exposure by looking at the picture on a monitor. Both are demonstrably wrong ways of setting exposure.

EI, with its ability to shift the highlight/shadow range, and MLUTs to preview its influence in the monitor are exclusive benefits of Cine EI; traditional exposure tools like waveform monitors and histograms are not.

There you go again showing your ignorance of how CINE EI works. You keep saying the author of the article doesn’t judge exposure by looking at the LUT – but that’s exactly what he is doing and you are following. You are in denial.

Repeat after me . . . LUTs are not exposure tools . . . LUTs tell you nothing about the exposure . . . LUTs are not exposure tools . . . LUTs tell you nothing about the exposure.

You’re just digging a deeper and deeper hole.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Hi doug, that article was written bu an ACS member, and while many cinematographers are actually quite simplistic towards their technical knowledge, this article was clearly written for people that might be coming from the perspective of a beginner.

Jim, that is exactly why it must be called out as being wrong, at the very least, incomplete. It perpetuates the idea that exposure can be judged by someone's eyeballs just looking at a monitor. Okay, maybe in a tightly controlled video village, with expertly calibrated monitors, where things are also being checked with scopes, but that is not the world we, or beginners, are working in. He's teaching very bad habits and compelte distorting the purpose of CINE EI.

But i have worked with directors that ask me to expose differently based on what they see in the monitor. People react to that. If we are being honest, we all react to the monitor.

THAT IS MY POINT!! You cannot trust the monitor or someone eles's opinion. The exposure is either correct or it is not. And that can only be determined by scopes, zebras, light meter, etc. If a director tried to tell me tmy exposure was wrong, I'd double check to see that I hadn't ****ed it up, and then I'd diplomatically explain to him that he is wrong. There's no way I'd change my exposure based on his feelings.

nd having way too much room in the shadows. So, i am completely on board with your technical approach. But i cannot discredit the OP for citing that article. Because at the end of the day, that article still accurately introduces a good reason for using the cine ei workflow.

No it doesn't. It distorts the whole reason for, and use of, the CINE EI shooting mode.

 

[ahalpert]

THAT IS MY POINT!! You cannot trust the monitor or someone eles's opinion. The exposure is either correct or it is not. And that can only be determined by scopes, zebras, light meter, etc. If a director tried to tell me tmy exposure was wrong, I'd double check to see that I hadn't ****ed it up, and then I'd diplomatically explain to him that he is wrong. There's no way I'd change my exposure based on his feelings.
.

I think this is really where LUTs become important. The director, especially an inexperienced director, is going to want to see the image the way he/she wants it in the edit. And if you can't preview that for them, it's going to impact their faith in you (at least until they get to post) and leave them with what Jeff Bezos calls a cold, prickly feeling instead of a warm, fuzzy feeling

 

[Doug Jensen]

I think this is really where LUTs become important. The director, especially an inexperienced director, is going to want to see the image the way he/she wants it in the edit. And if you can't preview that for them, it's going to impact their faith in you (at least until they get to post) and leave them with what Jeff Bezos calls a cold, prickly feeling instead of a warm, fuzzy feeling

Yes, one purpose of LUTs, and being able to change the EI up or down, is to put a prettier or more "normal" looking picture on the monitor for other people to view. It's a pacifier. It should not be confused with a legitimate way of setting the actual exposure. I'm not even sure everyone here understands that the video that is going to be recorded to the memory cards will not be affected by the LUT or the EI setting (unless a camera has dual ISO, but that is a different topic). It is just smoke and mirrors. Useful smoke and mirrors sometimes, yes, but not an indication of proper exposure.

 

[JimGao]

There's no way I'd change my exposure based on his feelings.

This is perhaps a topic for another thread, but i think it is at least worth having the discussion on set to alter the exposure based on the director’s feelings. That is one of the nice things about the monitor, is that a director can be more specific with visual intent. But in the case i referred to in my last post, what was even more fun, i just turned down the brightness on the director’s monitor. He looked at me and cracked up. we had a good little chuckle and got back to work without much skipping a beat. You see, their monitor had been adjusted for an exterior daylight scene, and was at max brightness. So despite not using perfectly calibrated monitor system, the monitor is generally a good indicator of the final image. I’m not super precious about my own aesthetics, but if the situation is something like that, we’ll fix it, and make the rest of the day go smooth.

However, if you look at the language used in that article, the author keeps saying “LUT”. To me that implies that waveform, vectorscope, and other exposure tools are responding to the LUT. I don’t see the author saying “exposing to the monitor” a whole lot.

i hope that helps when re-reading the article.