RIP Sony a7s III

There was never a more succinct synopsis than what John Brawley brilliantly described Cine-EI as an exposure tool for visualizing ETTR.
 
I say tomatoes and you say tomatoes, I say bananas and you say bananas. Tomatoes Tomatoes, Bananas, Bananas - Let's call the whole thing off.
This is a argument with no content.

"If you really shot film then you’d know that we did not always overexpose" - Please refrain from personal insults on these forums. It's banned.
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:
.
”The CineEI mode in some regards emulates how you would shoot with a film camera. You have a single film stock with a fixed sensitivity (the base ISO). Then you have the option to expose that stock brighter (using a lower EI) for less grain, more shadow detail, less highlight range or expose darker (using a higher EI) more grain, less shadow detail, more highlight range. Just as you would do with a film camera.” - Alister Chapman
Click to expand...

This is true. But all it amounts to is an exposure aid and a way of communicating with your colorist. It doesn't change what the camera can do. And you could achieve the same results when not shooting Cine EI

I'm not saying that it isn't a useful tool. And more options are always better. But news of the death of the a7siii is greatly exaggerated
 
For cinema, planning your shot would work like this:

1.) Decide on an aperture opening that sets the desired DOF.
2.) Decide on a shutter angle that sets the desired motion blur characteristic.
3.) Decide on an EI setting for the desired latitude above and below mid gray.
4.) Light the scene.

People who shoot in available light won't have any benefit from Cine-EI.
People who don't have Cine-EI can use an external monitor with Lut to visualize latitude as with EI.

Summary:

FX3 new firmware brings Cine-EI feature.
A7SIII viewfinder brings benefit to available light shooting.
 
Tom , I would agree with everything you said except that people who shoot in available light won't benefit from Cine EI. Why Not? I shot the FS7 and FX9 for years and pretty much always shot Log in Cine Ei whether it was available light on a doc , or it was carefully lit . I didn't have a monitor with exposure adjusted LUT's and I like to see what I'm getting in a monitor and my viewfinder , so As long as I wanted to shoot Slog with more exposure to protect my blacks (most of the time ) then Cine Ei was the only the way to do it. Still is the only way to see what you're doing in the EVF.

I did get used to shooting Slog on the EVF on the A7s with a histogram though and that was OK for Broll but not when I was lighting. In the film days I was used to trusting my eyes and the meter when lighting. but sadly video knocked that out of me so that now I'm dependent on the damn screen.
Now that my monitors ( including a 5" on the A7) have exposure adjusted LUTs though , I don't really need Cine EI as much. Been shooting with a Log image on the A7 and a LUT on the 5" monitor . Its actually a nice way to work.

What had been tricky was shooting an FX9 and a 2nd angle on the A7. You want them to match so its a good idea to monitor the color in one monitor. Since i didn't have a LUT in the monitor it was really difficult . the FX9 (Cine EI) could show me a good picture but the A7 couldn't. Now I have 2 ways to solve that one.

Hope that's not too convoluted to follow.

Lenny
 
ahalpert said:
This is true. But all it amounts to is an exposure aid and a way of communicating with your colorist. It doesn't change what the camera can do. And you could achieve the same results when not shooting Cine EI

I'm not saying that it isn't a useful tool. And more options are always better. But news of the death of the a7siii is greatly exaggerated
Click to expand...

Seeing how Sony prioritizes their cinema lineup, if I were purchasing one of their cameras today, I'd never buy anything but one of their FX cameras.
 
jonpais said:
Seeing how Sony prioritizes their cinema lineup, if I were purchasing one of their cameras today, I'd never buy anything but one of their FX cameras.
Click to expand...

What about the lack of variable shutter setting on the fx3, which the a7iv and a1 have?

"Why does your footage have hideous LED banding?"

"Forget about that--- isn't this workflow STREAMLINED?"
 
The a7Siii has a fantastic EVF (albeit in a not very useful position) and WAY more customisable buttons than the FX3, so even with the recent FX3 firmware it wouldn't be an easy choice for me.
 
ahalpert said:
What about the lack of variable shutter setting on the fx3, which the a7iv and a1 have?

"Why does your footage have hideous LED banding?"
Click to expand...

This is not an insignificant feature. LED lighting has become ever present, and the banding is a major concern.
 
Tom Roper said:
This is not an insignificant feature. LED lighting has become ever present, and the banding is a major concern.
Click to expand...
Over at DPReview a reader reported that shutter speed changes can be quite dramatic, possibly leading to choppy footage or smearing and that events not seldom have more than one light source causing banding and that it’s not possible to correct for both. That’s not my personal experience, just relating what was said.
 
jonpais said:
Over at DPReview a reader reported that shutter speed changes can be quite dramatic, possibly leading to choppy footage or smearing and that events not seldom have more than one light source causing banding and that it’s not possible to correct for both. That’s not my personal experience, just relating what was said.
Click to expand...

Often, I can defeat LED banding without a massive change in shutter speed. Maybe it's 1/113.2 shutter instead of 1/120. It's just about finding the right frequency. Either way, I'd far prefer to use a suboptimal shutter speed than have rolling bands of light and dark over the footage, which is usually unacceptable for the edit.

I shoot at 100+ venues a year (between hotel rooms and reception halls) and the issue of multiple light sources with different refresh rates is very uncommon for me. There is one venue that I shoot at a few times a year that has this problem, and it's a pain in the butt. But it's definitely better to have 1 minimized rolling band than 2 untreated going at different speeds.

But also, why are we making excuses? Sony's less video-focused cameras have this feature. It should be easy to implement. Panasonic has had it in mirrorless cameras for several generations.
 
ahalpert said:
Often, I can defeat LED banding without a massive change in shutter speed. Maybe it's 1/113.2 shutter instead of 1/120. It's just about finding the right frequency. Either way, I'd far prefer to use a suboptimal shutter speed than have rolling bands of light and dark over the footage, which is usually unacceptable for the edit.

I shoot at 100+ venues a year (between hotel rooms and reception halls) and the issue of multiple light sources with different refresh rates is very uncommon for me. There is one venue that I shoot at a few times a year that has this problem, and it's a pain in the butt. But it's definitely better to have 1 minimized rolling band than 2 untreated going at different speeds.

But also, why are we making excuses? Sony's less video-focused cameras have this feature. It should be easy to implement. Panasonic has had it in mirrorless cameras for several generations.
Click to expand...

I don't care about flicker since I've never had an issue with it.
 
jonpais said:
I don't care about flicker since I've never had an issue with it.
Click to expand...

That probably says more about you than about flicker. It could be TV and computer screens, neon store signs. It's not just a documentary shooting issue, definitely a concern for narrative and commercial as well.

All of which is aside the fact that the A-series cameras have a feature that this FX camera does not. That's all
 
Having watched dozens of videos about Cine EI and reading the comments and questions posed by genuine working professional cinematographers in the comments sections of Alister Chapman's expert articles, I haven't come across a single person claiming that base +1 stop is identical to shooting Cine EI. Only two or three outliers in this forum who are not representative of the filmmaking community at large. In fact, they are not at all the same, and many who shoot EI also ETTR when doing so, among them Erik Messerschmidt, to name just one prominent award-winning DP.
 
Last edited:
What kind of banding problems have you guys had? I haven't had any but want to be on my toes.

(Jon - why don't we just drop it. I don't think anyone really cares. If it matters to you why not ask Alister himself . He's easy to contact. )
BTW - No one mentions it because 1- its self evident and 2 - you would only do it with an A7Siii.)
 
Last edited:
LennyLevy said:
What kind of banding problems have you guys had? I haven't had any but want to be on my toes.
I]
Click to expand...

I mostly see banding in the form of horizontal bars of light and dark rolling up the background or subject due to dimmed LEDs that aren't flicker-free. (I assume that they are decreasing their refresh rate in order to dim.)

Forum posts I see online of people complaining about how the FX3 doesn't have Extended Clear Scan seem to center on shooting computer screens. That's the first scenario I remember using it for, with the EX1.

Attached is photo of ECS option in FX9 menu
 

Attachments

  • photo130429.jpg
    photo130429.jpg
    31 KB · Views: 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top