The FX6 and log exposure for commandos

[Doug Jensen]

Fwiw I think one can probably develop a better in-camera look designed for no or little grading than s-cinetone. I prefer what I've developed to s-cinetone

On the FX6? It's easy to dial in a better look than S-Cinetone on the FX9 because there are 3x more paint menu choices. But on the FX6 I gave up and threw in the towel. If you have anything you would care to share for the FX6 I'd love to give it a run.

 

[Doug Jensen]

Do grey cards work? i put an 18% grey card at 18%IRE and it was overexposed by quite a lot.

18% gray is just the type of card, you aren't supposed to expose it at 18%. Sony says an 18% gray card should be exposed at 41% for S-LOG3 and 32% for S-LOG2. I suspect those numbers are low, but who cares? I'm not going to be carrying around an 18% gray card with me and then looking zebras covering almost the entire screen. So much easier to expose for whites.

 

[JimGao]

18% gray is just the type of card, you aren't supposed to expose it at 18%. Sony says an 18% gray card should be exposed at 41% for S-LOG3 and 32% for S-LOG2. I suspect those numbers are low, but who cares? I'm not going to be carrying around an 18% gray card with me and then looking zebras covering almost the entire screen. So much easier to expose for whites.

Thanks

 

[Doug Jensen]

Not to hijack the thread, but I'd be curious to hear from Doug where he's putting grey / whites when exposing S-Cinetone. It's been over a year since I watched the Master Class so I don't recall if those numbers are discussed there.

I put Zebra2 at 85% and then allow just a touch of zebras in bright whites. But keep in mind that I'm not using S-Cinetone as a WYSIWYG look -- as Sony claims it should be. I'm always grading it in Resolve to bring it out in post.

 

[JimGao]

I put Zebra2 at 85% and then allow just a touch of zebras in bright whites. But keep in mind that I'm not using S-Cinetone as a WYSIWYG look -- as Sony claims it should be. I'm always grading it in Resolve to bring it out in post.

What do you use for exposure when there is no white/s?

 

[Doug Jensen]

What do you use for exposure when there is no white/s?

For b-roll, run & gun, etc. there's almost always white or something very close to it in the frame or just to the side. For interviews, the talent briefly holds a card near their face. For product shots, etc. I'll put a card in, expose, and remove the card. It is fool proof.

 

[JimGao]

There's almost always white or something very close to it in the frame or just to the side. For interviews, the talent briefly holds a card near their face. For product shots, etc. I'll put a card in, expose, and remove the card. It is fool proof.

Excellent!

 

[JimGao]

18% gray is just the type of card, you aren't supposed to expose it at 18%. Sony says an 18% gray card should be exposed at 41% for S-LOG3 and 32% for S-LOG2. I suspect those numbers are low, but who cares? I'm not going to be carrying around an 18% gray card with me and then looking zebras covering almost the entire screen. So much easier to expose for whites.

that makes sense. i guess you have to double the percentage because it is LOGARITHMIC

Then rec709 would just be 18%? or no, it has a LUT, maybe triple it? for 54% which is right in the mid tones.

 

[ahalpert]

On the FX6? It's easy to dial in a better look than S-Cinetone on the FX9 because there are 3x more paint menu choices. But on the FX6 I gave up and threw in the towel. If you have anything you would care to share for the FX6 I'd love to give it a run.

Can't you just load in any LUT you want and use that as a base look? I haven't developed looks for the FX6, just a7siii/fx3 using in-camera options. But I had assumed that one could accomplish more on the fx6 even without loading a LUT

 

[JimGao]

Can't you just load in any LUT you want and use that as a base look? I haven't developed looks for the FX6, just a7siii/fx3 using in-camera options. But I had assumed that one could accomplish more on the fx6 even without loading a LUT

I think S-Cinetone helps, in that it is a standard and works across multiple Sony cameras, vs trying to make a custom profile and make sure every job and every camera gets your LUT through to post. But anyone else using your LUT has to hope you know where you mapped your values too, or idk, maybe they’ll get time to test it out. Variables are those things. Custom is great, but something to be said for s-cinetone, and Sony did a good job overall, compared to many of their previous video profiles, that is.

 

[JimGao]

I shot a news feature with the FX6 last week. The spec said that shooting log was “preferred but we don’t insist”. I’d never shot log for this kind of work before but it sounded like err… fun.

The shoot day started in an outdoor dog shelter built on the side of a hill. Lots of direct sunlight so massive differences between sun and shade. Also extremely high heat and humidity. After an hour I had about an inch of dry cotton left at the bottom of my shorts, the rest was sweat patch. No problems with log. Or dogs, apart from licking - probably the sweat!

Later we filmed a long section (including an interview) in a taxi while the sun set - so constantly changing light. Final shots were urban night time and high base (or whatever Sony calls it) at f/2.8 was just about perfect. It was well handled in the edit, although I actually don’t think it needed that much work.

It occurred to me afterwards that no other camera would have handled that shoot day with quite the same ease as the FX6. Mainly because of the electronic variable ND but also the low light performance. The FX9 has the same VND but its high base ISO of 4000 (rather than 12800) might have been a problem for the final hour. The FX9’s lower high base would be preferable for 95% of even my seat-of-the pants shooting, but when you need those extra clean stops in the darkness, you really need them.

Anyway, log: I was surprised how trouble free shooting and delivering log was. I’m not sure what trouble I was expecting, I suppose I’d internalised the idea that log is better suited to controlled environments. Also it being news - I can only imagine the emails I’d get if I started delivering log footage to every news client.

The only part I had doubts about was the changeover from low to high base as the sun set. I don’t have a good sense of how other people are handling the switch between the two or what editors expect.

Which of these would best describe your approach as light fades?

1. As soon as I am underexposing low base, I would switch to high so that all of my footage is ‘correctly’ exposed and there is no way they can mess it up in post.

2. I stay on low base for a stop or two (underexposing) before I switch to high as this will produce a cleaner image if it’s properly handled in post. But it’s approximate and I don’t think about it that much.

3. I stay on low base for exactly __________ stops and I keep track of this by switching to a higher-than-base exposure index. When I’ve exceeded my EI limit of __________ I switch to high base.

4. I ask the client if I think this will be an issue and do what they say.

5. I don’t shoot log in scenarios where this could be an issue in the first place. This has been a hate read for me and I’m not sure why I got this far.

Just now realizing this post is almost a month old now. by this time, you’ve probably tested it all out and have it figured pretty well.

what are your thoughts now?

were you able to test it with a white card for high gain setting?

 

[ahalpert]

I think S-Cinetone helps, in that it is a standard and works across multiple Sony cameras, vs trying to make a custom profile and make sure every job and every camera gets your LUT through to post. But anyone else using your LUT has to hope you know where you mapped your values too, or idk, maybe they’ll get time to test it out. Variables are those things. Custom is great, but something to be said for s-cinetone, and Sony did a good job overall, compared to many of their previous video profiles, that is.

The LUT would be baked in, just like s-cinetone is. I've never shot s-cinetone but I've tested it and it seems like it has more contrast than I want in a variety of situations. For example, the lead editor and the owner of a wedding studio I work for prefer my in-camera look to s-cinetone, which their other shooters use. The owner has tried to get me to divulge my profile settings 4 or 5 times both herself and through an intermediary, explicitly and indirectly. They ought to just do what I did and test a variety of settings for a week. There's probably an even better configuration out there

 

[JimGao]

The LUT would be baked in, just like s-cinetone is. I've never shot s-cinetone but I've tested it and it seems like it has more contrast than I want in a variety of situations. For example, the lead editor and the owner of a wedding studio I work for prefer my in-camera look to s-cinetone, which their other shooters use. The owner has tried to get me to divulge my profile settings 4 or 5 times both herself and through an intermediary, explicitly and indirectly. They ought to just do what I did and test a variety of settings for a week. There's probably an even better configuration out there

i was just trying to answer your question as to why someone would stick with S-cinetone. I wouldn’t think everyone has to use it. But i’m guessing from your follow up you weren’t really asking.

 

[ahalpert]

i was just trying to answer your question as to why someone would stick with S-cinetone. I wouldn’t think everyone has to use it. But i’m guessing from your follow up you weren’t really asking.

I didn't ask that. I was asking in regards to Doug's point that the FX6 lacks the paint options of the FX9 why one can't just load in a custom LUT

 

[Andy9]

Just now realizing this post is almost a month old now. by this time, you’ve probably tested it all out and have it figured pretty well.

what are your thoughts now?

were you able to test it with a white card for high gain setting?

In future, as soon as I'm not quite hitting my exposure target in LOW, I'll switch to HIGH. My testing suggested that exposing LOW up to a stop or so under and bringing it back up in post is cleaner than jumping to HIGH and nailing the target. It wasn't very rigorous testing though and I trust that Doug has done his homework, so for the time being I'm working on the assumption that I got that one wrong.

More generally, I've been reassured that I was overthinking it. Due to covid (mainly), I've spent the last couple of years shooting for people that I never meet and who are too busy to give feedback anyway. If I meet other video people in person, it's generally a soundie so this thread has been useful to me, thanks everyone!

Ironically, I'm not particularly bothered about noise in footage I shoot for myself. I like it to be non-distracting and consistent so I'm certainly not aiming for absolute minimum noise in every shot as then I'll lose that consistency.

 

[JimGao]

In future, as soon as I'm not quite hitting my exposure target in LOW, I'll switch to HIGH. My testing suggested that exposing LOW up to a stop or so under and bringing it back up in post is cleaner than jumping to HIGH and nailing the target. It wasn't very rigorous testing though and I trust that Doug has done his homework, so for the time being I'm working on the assumption that I got that one wrong.

More generally, I've been reassured that I was overthinking it. Due to covid (mainly), I've spent the last couple of years shooting for people that I never meet and who are too busy to give feedback anyway. If I meet other video people in person, it's generally a soundie so this thread has been useful to me, thanks everyone!

Ironically, I'm not particularly bothered about noise in footage I shoot for myself. I like it to be non-distracting and consistent so I'm certainly not aiming for absolute minimum noise in every shot as then I'll lose that consistency.

Thanks! I’m new to iso12,800, so it has been interesting reading your thread.

Yeah, noise and exposure can be objective. Right? like you may have been working with a more moody style. Looking at Doug’s videos, i feel he exposes a bit brighter than i do, on average, so i assume we would pick different targets. i ride the noise floor a lot, so i end up needing to be aware of where my shadows are. but then i might flip around and shoot something really bright and vibrant. i’m not amazing, but yeah, i think when you get above 12stops latitude, you have a bit more room for style, before technically breaking the exposure. Didn’t Dune win the oscar for best cinematography? You could say that whole movie was a tad underexposed, but it still looked and felt amazing. i know that’s what you and Doug meant by having a target, rather than just going by one arbitrary number.

 

[JimGao]

I didn't ask that. I was asking in regards to Doug's point that the FX6 lacks the paint options of the FX9 why one can't just load in a custom LUT

Yes, but not because you need to know what the FX6 can do, but why Doug might not be using custom profiles or LUT’s.

Unless you really were dropping the whole thing to learn about one feature on the FX6, and end of discussion. in that case, i am sorry i deduced.

 

[ahalpert]

I'm really not sure what you're on about. I have an interest in the best settings for quick and easy color grading on the FX6 both on an academic level and also because I'll likely need to employ them in the near future. If everyone here is stuck on s-cinetone then I won't be privy to any better recommendations than that, and I already know I'm not tremendously impressed by s-cinetone.

Doug has very meticulous technique, so there may well be a reason why he didn't bring in a custom LUT for this purpose. Or maybe he just hasn't developed one yet or hasn't found one that he prefers to s-cinetone. I've never developed a LUT (which I understand is very complicated in terms of being able to handle every potential scene) and I don't have one in mind for what I want here (accurate, saturated color with just a bit more dynamic range than necessary for a typical cloudy day or a sunny day where the subjects aren't backlit), but someone here may. Plus a 2nd lut for backlit/shaded subjects on a sunny day

 

[JimGao]

I'm really not sure what you're on about. I have an interest in the best settings for quick and easy color grading on the FX6 both on an academic level and also because I'll likely need to employ them in the near future. If everyone here is stuck on s-cinetone then I won't be privy to any better recommendations than that, and I already know I'm not tremendously impressed by s-cinetone.

Doug has very meticulous technique, so there may well be a reason why he didn't bring in a custom LUT for this purpose. Or maybe he just hasn't developed one yet or hasn't found one that he prefers to s-cinetone. I've never developed a LUT (which I understand is very complicated in terms of being able to handle every potential scene) and I don't have one in mind for what I want here (accurate, saturated color with just a bit more dynamic range than necessary for a typical cloudy day or a sunny day where the subjects aren't backlit), but someone here may. Plus a 2nd lut for backlit/shaded subjects on a sunny day

exactly

 

[ahalpert]

What's the problem?