RIP Sony a7s III

markfpv said:
FALSE. FALSE. FALSE. There is absolutely nothing about overexposing each shot (when shooting slog3cine) by one stop with the a7sIII that makes post more time-consuming. Just as there is also nothing about overexposing each shot - when using FX6, FX9 or FS7, F55 in CineEI mode, that makes post more time consuming.



Oh please, wise master of the CineEI, please show us this "redistribution of dynamic range" you speak of using Sony's charts.
Click to expand...
No one but you is unaware of the redistribution of dynamic range in Cine EI mode. Astonishing.

And no one but you is unaware that a project with consistently properly exposed shots is much easier for the colorist to grade than one with a bunch of pointlessly under- and overexposed shots. Even a novice can comprehend that.

Overexposure means clipping of highlights that is unrecoverable, regardless of whether one is shooting in Cine EI or Flexible ISO and no matter whether you are shooting Sony or Pentax.

Underexposure results in footage that will require denoising.

We were discussing overexposure when practicing ETTR, which inevitably results in clipping, as was very clearly explained in my post:

”By definition, when shooting ETTR, it is not possible to record any more light without clipping the highlights.”

No one was talking about any harm done when exposing one stop to the right, as everyone is aware that S-Log3 benefits from more exposure.

Exposing for middle gray then giving the camera one extra stop of light is not the same as overexposure.

Overexposure means you've lost pixels completely or very fewer pixels remain in highlight areas with less chance to recover them in post.

There is no such beast as slog3cine.
 
Last edited:
Tom Roper said:
Cine-EI does not redistribute dynamic range. It portrays how latitude would be affected by exposure for indexed units of ISO.
Click to expand...
At lower EIs more stops of dynamic range are allocated below middle gray, at higher EIs more stops of dynamic range are distributed above middle gray.
 
jonpais said:
Overexposure means clipping of highlights that is unrecoverable, regardless of whether one is shooting in Cine EI or Flexible ISO and no matter whether you are shooting Sony or Pentax.
.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is partly semantics. PARTLY. No one but you starts a thread about the death of a camera he seems to know little about.

Exposing (or I say "rating" and this would be done with a light meter) a Sony CineEI camera, that has a native ISO of 2000, at 1000 instead, is over exposing by 1 stop, thus allocating 1 stop more below middle gray. It's ETTR'ing. Exposing whites above a certain range, is clipping. Just because one is ETTR'ing, doesn't mean they are "clipping". Totally depends upon what's in the frame.
And for the last time, this can be done when shooting slog... on camera's with and without CineEI - so long as one knows the native ISO(s) of the camera they are using. By your logic, the Sony A1 is also dead.
 
markfpv said:
Perhaps this is partly semantics. PARTLY. No one but you starts a thread about the death of a camera he seems to know little about.

Exposing (or I say "rating" and this would be done with a light meter) a Sony CineEI camera, that has a native ISO of 2000, at 1000 instead, is over exposing by 1 stop, thus allocating 1 stop more below middle gray. It's ETTR'ing. Exposing whites above a certain range, is clipping. Just because one is ETTR'ing, doesn't mean they are "clipping". Totally depends upon what's in the frame.
And for the last time, this can be done when shooting slog... on camera's with and without CineEI - so long as one knows the native ISO(s) of the camera they are using. By your logic, the Sony A1 is also dead.
Click to expand...

it is not semantics. Overexposure means you've lost pixels in the highlights with little chance of recovering detail in post.

Screen Shot 2022-08-06 at 2.45.52 AM.png

https://www.leeminglutpro.com


Overexposure: "The highlights have been pushed too far to the right, to the point where they have been clipped to white. You will not be able to recover them, resulting in a lack of highlight definition and a very video-like image if the sky is the clipped portion of the shot. Check to see if you can use a lower ISO setting to help minimise noise and pull back the clipped values into the legal range." Paul Leeming
 
Last edited:
jonpais said:


it is not semantics. Overexposure means you've lost pixels in the highlights with little chance of recovering detail in post.
Click to expand...

Clipping of those highlights is losing detail. So, how exactly do you define exposure to the right? To then "bring down" or offset that latitude in post? Which I believe one of the unnamed DP's you listed earlier in this threads recommends doing when shooting the holy grail of CineEI
 
No thanks. I'm good. Especially now that I know where you're coming from. Looks like you've changed the pic attached at least twice since posting it. Maybe better check back in with Alister or another professional, no named DP.

I'm certainly done with this thread... Gotta go shoot on my extinct A7sIII. Might even buy that poor defunct A1 that doesn't have CineEI.
 
Mark, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. And this horse is getting too dead for even me to beat.
 
It is semantics. A strict interpretation of overexposure would be pixels lost to clipping, a videographer will regard overexposure as moving middle gray to the right by some amount shy of the clipping point. A strict interpretation of the latter would be “exposure compensation.” What’s unclear is whether jonpais understands this distinction and is being a pedant or that he doesn’t get it at all. Whichever, this is his platform to troll on the A7SIII and other hater subjects.
 
I think it's generally understood that ETTR means exposing until your highlights just begin to clip, then bringing it back just enough that they don't. Until I bought the FX3 a month ago I was shooting for years in SLOG2 with an FS700 and Odyssey 7Q+. I was amazed at the highlight recovery ability in the edit when bringing it back down, even though I'd typically overexpose by 2 stops. It's hard for me to get used to the FX3 where I don't really need to overexpose to keep the shadows clean.
 
jonpais said:
. And if you were retaining detail, that means you were not overexposing at all.
Click to expand...

Overexposing and clipping highlights are not the same thing. You can overexpose without clipping highlights.

I assume that kaidumo is referencing a LUT workflow where the image has clipped highlights with a LUT applied, but can be graded to recover the highlight detail (which, as you said, was never actually clipped in the first place).
 
ahalpert said:
Overexposing and clipping highlights are not the same thing. You can overexpose without clipping highlights.

I assume that kaidumo is referencing a LUT workflow where the image has clipped highlights with a LUT applied, but can be graded to recover the highlight detail (which, as you said, was never actually clipped in the first place).
Click to expand...
The DR user manual describes Highlight Recovery as follows:

“Highlight Recovery: A checkbox that lets you include additional highlight sensor data that’s usually clipped by the standard decoding matrix. In cases where you have extremely clipped peak highlights, you may obtain additional image detail this way, although it may contain unusual color artifacts.”

The RED Komodo also has highlight recovery built in, but if I really overexposed by two stops as the OP claims, that is, when the false color guide on my LCD shows bright red in badly clipped areas of the image, there’s no way in god’s kingdom I could ever recover those lost details. Same goes for the FS700.

Graeme Nattress explains that if all channels are not clipping at once, it’s possible to use un-clipped data to plausibly recreate the clipped region. But, as the the DR manual points out, this approach can lead to color artifacts.

Red.com has this to say regarding exposure strategy:

“The goal is to strike an optimal balance between the disadvantages of too little and too much light and therefore between noise and clipping. In general, minor underexposure is acceptable and recoverable, whereas minor overexposure sometimes is not.”

And this, from Leeming LUT Pro:

”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.”

A zebra setting of 95-100% is commonly used to indicate areas of the image that are close to overexposure or that are overexposed - in other words, clipped.

I have never encountered the term overexposure in connection with anything but highlight clipping. Nobody in their right mind has ever recommended overexposing, while it is not uncommon to recommend underexposure under certain circumstances.
 
Last edited:
Wow, the amount of disinformation, ignorance, and bullshit on this thread is nothing short of amazing. Why the desire to make a very, very, simple shooting mode so complicated? How does anyone get a decent picture with all the stupid **** that is being done? Pathetic.
 
jonpais said:
.

I have never encountered the term overexposure in connection with anything but highlight clipping. Nobody in their right mind has ever recommended overexposing, .
Click to expand...

ETTR is overexposure. Same thing as rating your camera below its base ISO whilst capturing footage at base ISO - this causes you to overexpose.

ISO is an absolute reference for how bright medium gray should be in the scene you film when it hits the sensor in order for it to appear as medium gray in your footage--in other words, correct exposure. Exposing any brighter than that is overexposure.

When you use a light meter and you tell it what your ISO and shutter speed are, it will tell you what aperture you should use for correct exposure. Any aperture wider than that is overexposure.

Ever look at the over/under tests on a camera review? They're talking about stops of underexposure and overexposure...

Personally, I'd rather not put anything too important in a scene too close to the top of the exposure range. To my eye, color and gradient tend to suffer even if the details are not actually clipping. That's one thing I like about false color--it gives you a clear idea of how the gradient is behaving in any area of interest and if you have adequate tone separation. RGB parade waveform is useful for seeing if any of your color channels are clipping. But having clipped highlights and crushed shadows is not totally avoidable or even undesirable. I like to evaluate the scene on a case by case basis and make a decision about how to distribute the dynamic range.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Wow, the amount of disinformation, ignorance, and bull**** on this thread is nothing short of amazing. Why the desire to make a very, very, simple shooting mode so complicated? How does anyone get a decent picture with all the stupid **** that is being done? Pathetic.
Click to expand...

I know, right? That must be why Alister Chapman alone has published 10,000-word guides explaining Cine EI.
 
ahalpert said:
ETTR is overexposure.
Click to expand...

”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

And John Brawley:

”It's not overexposing. You're simply "exposing to the right".”
 
Last edited:
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 must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top