FS7: Got a hands on C700 & Fs7 II

There is no such 'real' thing as ISO in terms of digital cameras. It is just electronic gain and we have assigned ISO numbers to it to keep it familiar to peope used to working with ASA/ISO numbers.

Realistically you probably could down the signal chain but why on Earth would you want to alter the amount of gain and noise during a shot?

It's one of those things that needs to remain a constant for continuity.
 
Last edited:
Donny 123 said:
yes 12 bit RAW from an Fs7 will not be the same as 16 bit RAW from an F55..but quite honestly I do think the fabled Arri 709 can be very closely matched with 16 bit RAW..
Click to expand...

You will never make an FS7 look like an Alexa. You might be able to inhibit some characteristics and make an Alexa look closer to an FS7 but that's not the same. You might be able to mimic the low-con Alexa look that has been popular in dramas for the last few years, but that's not the same. There's just too much going on and too many variables.

Interesting debate on this very subject going on over on reduser.


http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?151530-Converting-Red-to-how-Alexa-handles-saturation
 
Ben Scott said:
You will never make an FS7 look like an Alexa. You might be able to inhibit some characteristics and make an Alexa look closer to an FS7 but that's not the same. You might be able to mimic the low-con Alexa look that has been popular in dramas for the last few years, but that's not the same. There's just too much going on and too many variables.

Interesting debate on this very subject going on over on reducer.




http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?151530-Converting-Red-to-how-Alexa-handles-saturation
Click to expand...

Ok thanks I,ll have a look.. but an F55 16 bit RAW.. as in high end drama etc.. I think you can.. if for some reason you do actually want all your footage to look like an Alexa Rec 709.. :) dont get me wrong..Im all for the Arri look.. and would love it if my F5 was like that in REC709.. my argument is only in the field of footage that is RAW/LOG (at a pinch).. and there will be grading six ways from Sunday..
 
Last edited:
Ben Scott said:
I don't think raw or log fundamentally changes the characteristics of the sensor and asics.
Click to expand...

But with all that latitude .. of say 16 bit RAW from an F55 sensor..or even F65.. you don't think you can pretty much make it look like anything you want.. presuming decent exposure etc.. time and money to be spent on the post,best available hardware/software and operators .. ?
 
No. Raw is an ambiguous term and it means something different to every manufacturer employing it. However, whatever iteration of raw you might be employing you're still using vastly different image capture technologies to acquire the image. I might describe an ocean view or draw you a picture of it but it is still my eye interpreting what is in front of me.

And to be honest nor should one want to. What on Earth would be the benefit in employing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of expertise to turn base metals into gold if it is cheaper to just use gold in the first place?
 
Ben Scott said:
No. Raw is an ambiguous term and it means something different to every manufacturer employing it. However, whatever iteration of raw you might be employing you're still using vastly different image capture technologies to acquire the image. I might describe an ocean view or draw you a picture of it but it is still my eye interpreting what is in front of me.

And to be honest nor should one want to. What on Earth would be the benefit in employing tens if not hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of expertise to turn base metals into gold if it is cheaper to just use gold in the first place?
Click to expand...


Well its not quite like a human describing a view to another human.. I think even my small brain is more complex than a CMOS /CFA sensor.. and 16 bit is 16 bit.. its only numbers.. but yes take your point.. RAW is not all made equally.. re the base metals.. .. if you could turn base metals into gold.. even at high expense..
it would be worth it as there is a hell of alot of that than gold.. but then the price of gold would come down too.. if you could increase the supply..
 
16-bit might be the size of the glass but how you fill it and how you attribute the bits to the image varies between all cameras, and that is a core component of the look of an imaging system that you can't suddenly redefine with a LUT or grade.

For example the 12-bit linear distribution of Sony FS raw having very little information available for the shadows.


Add to that, that the response of a camera's sensor varies depending on the quality of light (or lack thereof) in front if and it becomes clear there is no one-stop transform solution for what is by its very nature a constantly moving target, which is why I find the Bert LUT instant Arri talk funny on here.

EDIT: Nirv beat me to it :)
 
OK, serious point about the Arri look.

For me what separates the Arri look from all other camera looks is the management of frequencies in the image. The organic yet detail look and the extra lens pop you often see in images, I'm convinced, is due to some very clever image processing of the high frequencies and the low frequencies in the image. The high frequencies are managed so there's no aliasing and nothing is overly sharp while blurring out the low frequencies to leave a pass band that just pops.

Frequency separation is a common technique in photo manipulation to help make the subject pop by blurring out the low frequency detail while leaving the detail in focus alone.

I'm really pleased with the FS7 image but find the sharpness quite jarring and prefer the image well diffused and shot in 4k even if the target is HD. I've been developing an fcpx plugin to blur out the low frequencies with a modicum of success but it aint Arri secret sauce for sure. I've got a few ideas how I can improve the plugin but work keeps getting in the way of experiments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top