The FX6 and log exposure for commandos

Doug Jensen said:
Where is the problem? You shoot at 800 unless there isn't enough light to get the exposure you need, then you switch to 12,800. Nothing more needs to be known. It seems you are really trying hard to overthink stuff and make things more complicated then they really are.
Click to expand...
Yes, in most situations, that is the case, but when shooting documentary, for example, I might initially think i want to brighten things up for a night or blue hour situation, but there might be lights in the background that’ll go nuclear at iso12,800, so occasionally i’ll stick to lower iso and work a more moody backlight exposure. If the project demands bright evenly lit subjects, then yeah, iso12,800 and frame out the lights if possible.

it’s not complicated, but it is a decision. So, things need to be known.
 
JimGao said:
Yes, in most situations, that is the case, but when shooting documentary, for example, I might initially think i want to brighten things up for a night or blue hour situation, but there might be lights in the background that’ll go nuclear at iso12,800, so occasionally i’ll stick to lower iso and work a more moody backlight exposure. If the project demands bright evenly lit subjects, then yeah, iso12,800 and frame out the lights if possible.

it’s not complicated, but it is a decision. So, things need to be known.
Click to expand...

Do you have some examples of your own that show this in actual practice? Video, not stills.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Who is the "some" people? Where do they say it? There is no HIGH/LOW setting on the A1.
Click to expand...

Pick your favorite reviewer and they’ll likely mention how the A1 cleans up at iso4000. It isn’t a setting, as the Hi/Lo are automatically implemented.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Do you have some examples of your own that show this in actual practice? Video, not stills.
Click to expand...
I shoot around the bad stuff when i can, and i don’t post or keep the bad stuff handy. So, i don’t sorry.

The concept is simple though, when shooting in a city or suburban setting at night, there are often lights around that present quite the contrast ratios. iso12,800 brings some opportunities, but it is also the first time i’ve had to watch my highlights at night, lol.
 
Iso 12800 tells us nothing about your exposure without also telling us your aperture, shutter speed, and filtration. Maybe we're supposed to assume you mean 1/48 shutter at f/2.8 or faster and without filtration. But iso 12800 is hardly superhuman if you're overcranking and stopping down
 
ahalpert said:
But iso 12800 is hardly superhuman if you're overcranking and stopping down
Click to expand...
Overcranking above 100fps is superhuman. Being able to stop down in the dark because you’ve got iso12,800 is superhuman.

iso12,800 is dope.

What is your general guideline for switching between Hi and Lo base iso’s?
 
JimGao said:
Pick your favorite reviewer and they’ll likely mention how the A1 cleans up at iso4000. It isn’t a setting, as the Hi/Lo are automatically implemented.
Click to expand...

Then why did you say the A1 had a High/Low base setting if that is false? You don't know what you're talking about do you? You continually post stuff as if is fact or something you have actually figured out for yourself from personal hands-on experience with a certain camera, but it turns out half the garbage you post is just hearsay from someone else who is also completely wrong. Please stop it. If you don't have personal knowledge just keep quiet, or at least have the courtesy to reference your sources.

I don't have a favorite reviewer so I've never heard this theory about the A1 and ISO4000 for S-LOG3. I did a Google search and came up with nothing. So why don't you stop farting around and actually post a couple of links to couple of legitimate, respected, people who's information you claim to be repeating. I want to hear their evidence and see some examples that prove whatever they are claiming. And they had better be talking about shooting video and not stills, which is a completely different thing on the A1.

If any of the reviews you are going to share with us are a videos, please do us a all a favor and link right to the important part because I have no interest in watching something all the way through.

BTW, what camera(s) do you actually own?
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
No surprise there.I would have been shocked if you had anything to show. What cameras do you own that have dual base?
Click to expand...

Agreed! Haha. Not sure what kind of shooter just let’s crazy clipping into their footage. I suppose it would be easy to shoot and upload an example, but we’re also just casually shooting the breeze, and that all feels like work. lol.

i typically rent. so i’ve messed around with or worked with all the usual suspects.

Oh, do you mind if i grab a couple frames from your reel? It isn’t really in line with the dual iso discussion, but if we are talking about exposure choices in general, i think there are a few examples in there.
 
If I feel like posting any of my own examples, I will do so when it is pertinent.
Feel free to post link to your work. I don't think we've seen a single thing from you. I'm starting to think you don't actually shoot.

In the mean time, we're all waiting for your sources on the A1 ISO4000 hack. Show us.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Then why did you say the A1 had a High/Low base setting if that is false? You don't know what you're talking about do you? You continually post stuff as if is fact or something you have actually figured out for yourself from personal hands-on experience with a certain camera, but it turns out half the garbage you post is just hearsay from someone else who is also completely wrong. Please stop it. If you don't have personal knowledge just keep quiet, or at least have the courtesy to reference your sources.

I don't have a favorite reviewer so I've never heard this theory about the A1 and ISO4000 for S-LOG3. I did a Google search and came up with nothing. So why don't you stop farting around and actually post a couple of links to couple of legitimate, respected, people who's information you claim to be repeating. I want to hear their evidence and see some examples that prove whatever they are claiming. And they had better be talking about shooting video and not stills, which is a completely different thing on the A1.

If any of the reviews you are going to share with us are a videos, please do us a all a favor and link right to the important part because I have no interest in watching something all the way through.

BTW, what camera(s) do you actually own?
Click to expand...

I should have read this post first. Good morning!

I’m surprised you haven’t heard of that before. Sony has a couple cameras that are not advertised as dual base iso cameras, but they still have a version of it implemented.

Who is a legitimate reviewer? It is also generally very obvious if a camera suddenly cleans up after iso3200. Generally pushing 3 stops is worse than pushing 2. You could google Gerald Undone’s review, if he doesn’t mention it, then ok, i’ll look into it for you.

Are you concerned it isn’t a technically true dual base iso camera? Or that it doesn’t have a lo and a hi gain stage at all?
 
Doug Jensen said:
If I feel like posting any of my own examples, I will do so when it is pertinent.
Feel free to post link to your work. I don't think we've seen a single thing from you. I'm starting to think you don't actually shoot.

In the mean time, we're all waiting for your sources on the A1 ISO4000 hack. Show us.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

The A1 thing is not a hack, it is just the way Sony made it.
 
JimGao said:
Sony has a couple cameras that are not advertised as dual base iso cameras, but they still have a version of it implemented.
Click to expand...

Which ones? More bullshit.

JimGao said:
Who is a legitimate reviewer? It is also generally very obvious if a camera suddenly cleans up after iso3200. Generally pushing 3 stops is worse than pushing 2. You could google Gerald Undone’s review, if he doesn’t mention it, then ok, i’ll look into it for you.
Click to expand...

I already asked for your source and I told you that I couldn't find anything to back up your bullshit. Put up or shut up. Are you just a troll looking to get a rise out of people by posting crap and then offering no proof when you're challenged? I have no idea who Gerald Undone is, but if you can find where he backs up your claims, I will take a look and judge his credibility for myself. I assume he must show A vs. B examples, right?

JimGao said:
Are you concerned it isn’t a technically true dual base iso camera? Or that it doesn’t have a lo and a hi gain stage at all?
Click to expand...

Both. It doesn't have a HIHG/LOW setting as you claimed, and it does not behave as if it does. If I'm wrong, prove it.

BTW, this thread isn't about exposure. Nobody on here is unclear about how to measure or set exposure except you. This thread is about you saying convoluted dumb stuff as if it is fact, and then you evading answering questions or providing evidence when challenged.

You admit don't own a camera. You probably have never used any of the cameras that are bing discussed. You have shown no work of your own. You won't identify your sources when you make ridiculous claims as if they are fact. You post (and seem to admire) very questionable lighting and exposure examples that nobody else here (people who have proven to have credibility) likes except you. You are the very definition of a troll.
 
Last edited:
What did i say that was false? i’ll correct it.

The A1 comment was a sidebar comment. I probably should have said the FX9 or Venice, since those are advertised as dual iso cameras. The main idea i was getting at was, the difference between the A7S3 sensor and other dual iso cameras, and how that might affect a creative or practical choice.
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
I already asked for your source and I told you that I couldn't find anything to back up your bull****.
Click to expand...

No worries, I offered if you couldn’t find the information, i would provide something for you. Idk, perhaps Gerald Undone is not legitimate for you, but at least his videos are neatly organized so you don’t have to watch the whole thing at 2x’s to find something specific:

Starts at 7min mark
 
Many stills cameras seem to have a higher gain circuit (not dual native ISO per se) where the steady downward march of DR as you increase gain is halted, or even slightly reversed, before resuming its decline. You can see the results in DR/gain tests, as on photons to photos or dxomark. I think the A7IV has it as well, something like 2 stops above base.
 
ahalpert said:
Many stills cameras seem to have a higher gain circuit (not dual native ISO per se) where the steady downward march of DR as you increase gain is halted, or even slightly reversed, before resuming its decline. You can see the results in DR/gain tests, as on photons to photos or dxomark. I think the A7IV has it as well, something like 2 stops above base.
Click to expand...

Having used the A7S3/FX3 and other cameras, how do you like 4stop vs 2.5stop boost? I’d imagine for overcrank and stopping down the 12,800 is a game changer? But outside of that, say for 1/48th ~@F2.8 do you tend to have a preference?
 
I sort of answered this for myself in the first post of this thread. I think Sony got it right - FX9 has its high-gain circuit at 4000, FX6/a7SIII at 12800. The former is better when you have control of the lighting, the latter is better when you don't.
 
Andy9 said:
I sort of answered this for myself in the first post of this thread. I think Sony got it right - FX9 has its high-gain circuit at 4000, FX6/a7SIII at 12800. The former is better when you have control of the lighting, the latter is better when you don't.
Click to expand...

succinctly said, and well put! thank you
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top