FS7: FS7 with Odyssey 7Q+ -> Al ot of noise

B

Berk

Well-known member
Hi
We just discovered that there is a lot noise in the blacks or low contrast areas. The camera is on v3. This is an outdoor shoot in Vancouver, BC
The camera was set to S-Gamut3.Cine Slog3. The workflow is Raw to Odyssey as 4K ProRes HQ

any ideas?
Thanks
Berk
fs7.jpeg
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 11.20.17 AM.jpg
    Screen Shot 2016-03-15 at 11.20.17 AM.jpg
    16.6 KB · Views: 0
Last edited:
God forbid anyone actually reads any threads on here or does any research on this topic... AGH!

Okay, I've taken a couple of breaths now...

The really really short version is that the raw output from the FS7 is absolutely useless for anything if you are going to have any objects 2stops or more under middle grey.

It's just atrocious and I have been banging this drum for a year now.


You can't fix it.
Sony knows about it.
They won't fix it.
There is no workaround
Noise reduction (NOT in-camera!) helps a tiny bit

Just move on and use the HDMI out to the 7Q+ for HD up to UHD pro res.
 
I will add to Ben's comments that the shot appears under-exposed and S-LOG3 always looks noisy until it has been graded properly. If that shot was properly exposed and graded in Resolve I have no doubt it would have looked fine if recorded internally to XAVC-I.
 
Absolutely. And you know when Doug and I agree on something it is both definitely true AND a signifier of the end of days :)
 
agree with others... shot looks 1 to 2 stops under exposed, and I don't believe NR is available over RAW stream so you will have to apply some in post if you want better performance.
 
Thanks guys
I don't think it is underexposed. that grab was the lower part of the frame. full frame has huge lake in the back. Yes i think we need to switch to HDMI port

fs7a.jpg
 

Attachments

  • fs7a.jpg
    fs7a.jpg
    60.2 KB · Views: 0
Berk said:
Thanks guys
I don't think it is underexposed. that grab was the lower part of the frame. full frame has huge lake in the back. Yes i think we need to switch to HDMI port
Click to expand...

Nope, it's still underexposed.

Even with 14 stops of DR there are times when you can't have the sky and the foreground properly exposed at the same time. In this case, I would have sacrificed the sky a little more. A lot more actually because there is still a lot of detail there that you don't necessarily need. Actually, in this case, I would have used a .6 ND grad filter in my matte box to bring the sky down at the time of shooting and it would have made for a nicer shot all around.

Also, I don't think you gain anything with an external recorder. I guarantee anything you can do with ProRes and/or an external recorder would be just as good with XAVC-I internally. And that's a whole lot easier.
 
I'm confused - how is anyone supposed to judge anything from ungraded SLOG3 grabs?

They look to me like they'll probably have a nice dusky look once graded, and if that's the look he was going for it'll be fine. There is nothing noisey about these current Sony sensors. They're stupidly clean if exposed properly.
 
Grug - just to reiterate Ben's #2 post in this thread... there's nothing noisy about FS7 shooting internally w/o any raw... but throw on the ext unit and take the raw out to the Ody 7Q and it's a whole different ballgame. Different ball park maybe. Not that I didn't believe Ben & other's before - but I recently tested this out for myself... you can see the noise in the VF while shooting Slog - it's that grainy (even if rating EI at 1k or below).
 
Agree that XAVC often gets miligned because it's a "Sony" thing when in fact it is quite good.
That said, I often do EPK work directly for the studios and mostly they want almost anything but XAVC. Probably like the networks, nobody wants to spend a few seconds transcoding.
Case in point I have a 3 day Warners shoot next week and they either want ProRes or DNxHD.
Im no editor be it seems ProRes to DNxHD would be no more difficult that XAVC to DNxHD but the FS7 affords me the options.
 
I much prefer DNXHD/DNXHR over Pro Res and if clients didn;t demand it I would never use pro Res again, but it confuses the hell out of people not using Avid, despite it being fine to use in just about any NLE.

However, in a professional editing environment with professional systems there shouldn't be any NLE stumbling over editing native XVAC-I by now, surely? Appreciate sometimes it isn't for us to question an ingrained workflow preference but I ended up having an argument the other day with an editor because he was bitching to the Producer about how the camera crew didn't have a clue what they were doing by shooting log and how it was now going to take hours to match various cameras due to our ineptitude.

10mins in Resolve and 2 exported LUTs later and everything matched later, and it was discovered the fault lay in the fact he'd been asked to grade and had never ever used any CC tools outside those that come with Avid MCP. He's now off on a Resolve course :) Point being sometimes it is worth asking the 'why'.

Back to your point I believe the Pix-E5 or the 7Q via the HDMI on the FS7 will give you either Pro Res or DNXHD absolutely fine.
 
Last edited:
Exposure looks spot on to me:

2MOjLkp.jpg


With LC709A and a slight s-curve applied:

XjYWXz5.jpg


I think the only thing it really needs is the usual point or two of magenta removed.

Hard to make a definite call on the noise without seeing a proper 10-bit .tiff framegrab or some footage. But everything else is how I'd expect it to be.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Nope, it's still underexposed.
In this case, I would have sacrificed the sky a little more. .
Click to expand...

This is something we can't do with this client. The sky has to be perfectly exposed. This is one of those jobs whic you do wb and hue, drop the lut, tweak it little bit and hand it over. No time/budget to mask it in Davinci as this is a dolly shot.

Update: we changed to HDMI port and everybody is happy now.

Original: https://www.dropbox.com/s/bh03zhpuunyyncj/lake.tif?dl=0

fs7b.jpg
 
Last edited:
Then why are you complaining about the camera? If you didn't have the time or resources to do the shot right, that is not really the fault of the hardware.
 
Doug Jensen said:
Then why are you complaining about the camera? If you didn't have the time or resources to do the shot right, that is not really the fault of the hardware.
Click to expand...

The main discussion was the noise in the low contrast areas. I was educated that it is RAW output from FS7. I don't think it has anything to do with the exposure.
Thank you for all your help
 
Last edited:
Doug Jensen said:
Not to me, unless you happen to think that the sky is the most important element.
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do with protecting the sky. The light grey on the front of the tent is exactly where it should be on the waveform, and the actors' faces look spot on too. That's correct exposure. Why would you want to overexpose them?

If it were supposed to look like a high noon scene, then sure, you'd probably drop in a grad ND to control the sky and lift the rest of the exposure - but as shot, it looks totally fine for the sort of dusky look it's clearly been lit for.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top